Capital punishment is a controversial issue based on the intrinsic elements the practice commands leading to arguments for and against such procedures. There is need to address the issue given it has ethical repercussions as an immoral practice or unethical procedure that leads to loss of life which goes against policies. Another reason for addressing the topic is the probability to lead to unfortunate turn of events for those who are initially found guilty only to be later judged to be innocent. In the past moving to recent times, capital punishment was hard to assert its management until recent events showing people changing from condoning the act to shunning it. Deontological ethics is an ethical perspective that is applicable to capital punishment, providing a framework that argues against the practice as a wrong practice and a facilitator of failing to observe obligations. A policy measurable within the ethical perspective and shows positive gains towards resolving the controversy behind capital punishment is the declaration by World Medical Association that prohibits physicians from enacting the practice. Capital punishment is a punitive measure for committed crimes which generally the law considers very grave whereby the guilty party endures an execution. Capital punishment, also known as death penalty, is a state-sanctioned murder of an individual judged guilty for committing a grave crime based on the law. In a death penalty, the court orders a “death sentence” as the verdict whereby “execution” is the act of following through with the sentence. “On death row” is the legal term for the prisoner whose condemnation involves undergoing an execution and is awaiting to go through the taxing process. The law refers to crimes that are grave thereby considered punishable by death penalty as capital crimes/offences/felonies. They vary depending on the jurisdiction; however, common crimes that fall under the mentioned category include “serious crimes against the person such as murder, mass murder, aggravated cases of rape, child rape, child sexual abuse, terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide” (Girard et al., 2019). Others include crimes against the state which include “attempting to overthrow government, treason, espionage, sedition, piracy, and aircraft hijacking” (Girard et al., 2019). In other cases, crimes such as “acts of recidivism, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping, in addition to drug trafficking, drug dealing, and drug possession are considerable as capital crimes” (Girard et al., 2019). Therefore, the gravity of the mentioned offenses determines the death penalty whereby states sanction an offender’s execution. The ethical question that arises from capital punishment regards the inconsideration regarding the sanctity of life. Victims found guilty for grave crimes leading to the order of their killing undergo the process through vast methods which include hanging on a raised platform, shooting, taking a dosage of lethal injection, stoning, electrocution using high voltage, and gassing using endangering gases. The fundamental result involves death of the guilty which draws controversy pinpointing the act as unethical. According to Pagoto and Nebeker (2019), ethical practices regards “a branch of philosophy dealing with values pertaining to human conduct, considering the rightness and wrongness of actions and the goodness or badness of the motives and ends of such actions.” They are a framework that act as a principled guide for right conduct by society. Killing is fundamentally wrong, it is unethical and barbaric given it goes against moral values that suggest individuals should treat others with the highest levels of respect. The law recognizes murder as unethical thereby recommends punitive measures for any individual who takes another’s life. Murder is an atrocity that goes against human rights, it is an insult to the sanctity and dignity of life by treating life as dispensable which is wrong. Capital punishment which leads to murder, whether a party committed a heinous crime or not, is unethical given the final result is the loss of life. There is need to address the issue of capital punishment given the controversy it bequeaths as an affront to human rights and dignity accompanied by how it is fundamentally an affront to the law and the probability of error which may be devastating. Many cultures across the globe recognize the sanctity of life propagated by the religious norms and values by different societies. Death penalty goes against the cultural standards as it communicates a total disregard for societal norms and values. Religious cultures accompanied by other philosophical ideologies consider life as sacred. Therefore, there is need to protect life at all cost which starts from conception until death. The recommendable ways for one to lose life in the mentioned schools of thought that are vast across the globe include natural death, illness, or accidents. International law considers the perceptions of the majority thereby equally cast life as sanctity and advices against actions that do not uphold life in equal measure. Death penalty is thereby considered an affront to human rights and dignity according to international law and thus should be shunned at all costs. Subjecting one to execution also suggests the individual offering the order is indirectly murdering an individual. The health professionals subjected to submit the lethal injection or the hangman are direct perpetrators of murder. The act goes against oaths taken by health professionals to protect life which equally magnifies how it is an affront to the law. Lastly, not all guilty individuals are usually confirmed as guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Many cases get appeals leading to the correction of the guilty verdict thereby releasing the wrongly judged individuals. However, in the case of a death penalty, once one undergoes the execution process, there is no way of resuscitating him or her when discovered the party was not guilty. Take for instance the case of George Junius Stinney Jr. whose conviction for murder led to the death penalty and got executed by electric chair only for a later verdict to pinpoint the court failure judging the trial as unfair and the overturning off his conviction (Carrico, 2018). The mentioned factors make it necessary to address the issue regarding capital punishment. Capital punishment has a rich history transcending from ancient times that ideologies from societies such as the Greek dominated the world moving to the contemporary space detailing different perceptions that illustrate its management in the past. As early as the 7th century, ancient Greece applied capital punishment for atrocities such as murder, rape, and treason dictated by the laws of Draco which Plato did not support arguing death penalty is ideal for the incorrigible (Dusenbury, 2017). The Romans equally applied such punitive measures depending on the type of offense and its graveness. Different religions equally adopted capital punishment in the past. For example, Judaists and ancient Christians would execute offenders for specific crimes as guided by biblical verses. Islamic law condoned capital punishment for specific atrocities including robbery, adultery, and apostasy of Islam. It is difficult to precisely assert the management of capital punishment during ancient times; however, it is highly probable that in most circumstances society attempted to avoid the process by suggesting alternative punitive measures such as banishment or payment for crimes by compensation. In the recent past, society generally condoned capital punishment as many regions administered cruel forms of the punitive measure and had large populations as spectators during the execution. Some examples of undertaken methods include hurling of the condemned from a high ground, crucifixion, and gladiatorial combat in Rome. China used methods such as flaying an individual alive or boiling the guilty party while Europe used barbaric means such as burning at the stake, burning in oil, hanging, or drowning. In the 20th century, many communities such as multiple states in the U.S. practiced capital punishment using means such as lethal injection, electrocution, gassing, or sprayed with bullets by a firing squad. On the other hand, some Islamic states continued with capital punishment as dictated by the Quran using methods such as beheading and stoning an individual to death. In the past executions were public events that attracted large clouds for the bravado display of executing the process with the mutilated bodies left in display until they rotted. In the U.S., public executions continued well into the early 20th century and ended following the debate over such processes required airing on television. The past illustrates a society divided over the issue of death penalty. However, there was a change of heart in the recent past judging by the actions such as concern over public display of executions and further debate regarding whether capital punishment was fundamentally right or wrong. The most recent times have individuals divided over the issue although many regard capital punishments as wrong. Societies that apply death penalty generally support their action through the argument that it rids them of foul members of society who if not ridded may get the chance to commit the crime again. They equally suggest the adage “an eye for an eye” as right suggesting the need for subjecting one to execution for very heinous crimes. Societies that oppose capital punishment generally use the moral question suggesting the act is immoral thereby must not apply. They equally pinpoint the cases of wrongly judged individuals which can be very unfortunate when one earns reprieve by the rectification of an initial judgement yet the condemned endured capital punishment. Deontological ethics is an ethical perspective that is applicable to the issue of death penalty and the controversy it commands. Immanuel Kant is the father of deontology expressed through his philosophical ideology that ethical actions are answerable to universal moral principles that are basic such as do not steal, lie, or cheat (Donaldson, 2017). Deontological ethics as an ethical theory therefore applies rules in distinguishing right from wrong. Wang and Gupta (2020) posit that deontological ethics is “the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.” The ethical perspective suggests the significance of showing respect to rule-based ethics, the duty to such measures. The application of deontology is by extension simple as the school of thought mandates individuals follow rules that distinguish right from wrong and perform their obligations. The ethical perspective’s framework avoids subjectivity and uncertainty given the unwavering requirement to follow set rules which suggests action is more important than the consequences. Deontological ethics is applicable to the topic of capital punishment. Deontological ethics commands doing what is right with observing duty communicating the execution of death penalty as not ideal. As mentioned earlier, the ethical perspective suggests using rules to distinguish right from wrong leading to simple application by dictating people follow rules and perform their duty. Capital punishment is fundamentally wrong as it leads to killing an individual, therefore going against deontological ethics. The application of the ethical perspective suggests the need to shun death penalty as a punitive measure. Deontological ethics equally argues against measuring the weight of a crime which some individuals get condemnation for when judged to have committed a heinous offense. Deontological ethics also brings to the forefront the question on the role of health professionals who facilitate capital punishment using lethal injection or other measures. Professionals in the medical field take an oath to preserve life. According to deontological ethics, health professionals must observe their duty therein should not be part of the process of murdering. Judges equally have the duty to provide fair judgement that preserves human dignity. Deontological ethics suggests judges should not condemn individuals to death given it is fundamentally wrong and goes against preservation of human dignity despite the crime in question. The theory argues against consequentialism suggesting a situation or case should be observed alone and not pegged to cost and benefits which involves assessing consequences. The recent policy by the World Medical Association (WMA) that submits physicians to avoid participating in capital punishment is a right step towards seeking solutions regarding handling the controversial practice and fits within deontological ethics. On October 2018, WMA declared physicians prohibited from participation in capital punishment echoing that physicians must respect human life therein must avoid applying their medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties (Greco and Welsh, 2019). The declaration suggested the physicians must avoid the mentioned involvement at all costs which include when threatened to execute death penalty. The declaration recognizes the oath taken by medical professionals that dictates physicians to preserve life at all cost. Professionals in the field of health must use their medical knowledge to administer evidence-based practices that ensure the well-being of their patients or the public. The recent declaration by WMA thereby is an authoritative command demanding physicians to respect life therein avoid enacting death penalty on condemned individuals. The declaration is within deontological ethics that demands the observance of duty and upholding right at the expense of any action that is fundamentally wrong. Deontological ethics commands doing what is right which argues against murdering an individual as a punitive measure. The recent declaration by WMA is thereby a step in the right direction in advocating for ethical practices which argues against practicing capital punishment. Capital punishment is controversial due to some countries practicing it when it leads to death of individuals which is unethical as it shows disrespect to human life and dignity. The transformation regarding perception of capital punishment with recent times involving policies that guard against the practice shows a step towards the right direction. As illustrated by deontological ethics, capital punishment is wrong and there is need for further policies to eradicate the practice.
References
Carrico, A. H. (2018). Sounding social justice in American opera: race and gender in Stinney: an American execution. Folk Life , 56 (2), 77-92.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Donaldson, C. M. (2017). Using Kantian ethics in medical ethics education. Medical Science Educator , 27 (4), 841-845.
Dusenbury, D. L. (2017). Platonic legislations: an essay on legal critique in ancient Greece . Springer.
Girard, P. et al. (2019). 28. Criminal Justice I: Criminal Law, Punishment, and Policing. In A History of Law in Canada, Volume One (pp. 543-564). University of Toronto Press.
Greco, D., & Welsh, J. (2019). Medicine, torture, the death penalty and the democratic state: from collaboration to emancipation. Revista Bioética , 27 (1), 18-28.
Pagoto, S., & Nebeker, C. (2019). How scientists can take the lead in establishing ethical practices for social media research. Journal of the American medical informatics association , 26 (4), 311-313.
Wang, S., & Gupta, M. (2020, June). Deontological ethics by monotonicity shape constraints. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 2043-2054). PMLR.
