Capital Punishment Essay, Research Paper

Capital Punishment

Thesis : In principle a case can be made on moral grounds both supporting

and opposing capital punishment.

Two different cases can be made. One is based on justice and the nature of a

moral community. This leads to a defense of capital punishment. The second

is based on love and the nature of an ideal spiritual community. This leads to

a rejection of capital punishment.

JUSTICE AND THE NATURE OF MORAL COMMUNITY

A central principal of a just society is that every person has an equal right to

“life, liberity, and happiness.” Within that, an arguement for capital

punishment forms along the following lines: some acts are so evil and so

destructive of a community that they void the right of the perpetrator to life.

A community founded on moral principals has specific requirements. The

right to belong to a community is not unconditional. The privilege of living

and pursuing the good life in society is not certain. The essential reason on

which community is built requires each citizen to honor the rightful claims of

others. The precious live in a moral community must be so highly honored

that those who do not honor the life of others void their own right to

membership. Those who violate the personhood of others, especially if this is

done persistently as a habit must pay the ultimate price. This must be done

for the sake of the community which was violated. We can debate whether

some non-lethal alternative is a suitable substitute for the death penalty. But

the standard of judgment is whether the punishment fits the crime and if it

honors the nature of the moral community.

LOVE AND AN IDEAL SPIRITUAL COMMUNITY

Christian live, is unconditional. It does not depend on the worthiness or value

of those to whom it is directed. It is persistent in seeking the good of others

regardless of whether they return the favor or even deserve to be treated well

on the basis of their own wrongdoing. An ideal community would be made

up pf free and equal citizens devoted to a balance between individual needs

and the advancement of common good. Communal life would be based on

mutual love in which equality of giving and receiving was the social practise.

Everyone would contribute to the best of ability.

What would a community based on this kind of love do with thode who

committed brutal acts of terror, violence, and murder? Put negatively, it

would not live by the philosophy of “an eye for an eye,a tooth for a tooth, and

a life for a life.” It would act to safeguard the members of the community

from further destruction. Those whe had shown no respect for life ould be

restrained, permanently if necessary, so that they could not endanger othe

members of the community. An ideal community would show mercy even to

those who had shown no mercy. It would return good for evil. Some kind of

service to the community might be required as a way of partially making

amends.

In brief, is the argument for and against capital punishment, one founded on

justice and the nature of moral community, the other resting on love and the

nature of an ideal spiritual community. If we stand back from this description

and make an attempt at evaluation, one point is crucial. The love ethic

requires a high degree of moral achievement and maturity. It is more suitable

for small, closely-knit communities in which members know each other

personally and in some depth. Forgiveness is best in a setting in which

people can participate in each aother’s lives.

In short, for the moment the Christian witness to society is this: first

demonstrate that capital punishment can be administered in a just and

efficient manner. Then we will debate with you as to whether capital

punishment is in priciple necessary, fitting and right or whether a humane

society will find non-lethal alternatives to protect citizens from persistently

violent criminals. Until then the church should say “no” to this extreme

measure.