In recent years, capital punishment has drawn a lot of debate in relation to its moral and ethical justification. Although the death penalty, as a form of punishment, has been abolished in many countries around the world, there are nations that still consider the option to be a valid means of punishing specific types of crime. In the United States, there are still 31 states with laws that recognize the death penalty as a form of punishment, with the sentenced criminals expected to undergo an execution. According to these laws, crimes categorized as capital crimes/felonies are too grave, thereby considered punishable by the death penalty. The categorization of these crimes varies depending on the jurisdiction. However, common crimes categorized into capital crimes include grave crimes against a person, including murder, mass murder, aggravated cases of rape, child rape, child sexual abuse, terrorism, war crimes, crime against humanity, and genocide (Girard et al., 2019). Other criminal activities, such as organizing a coup, treason, espionage, act of recidivism, aggravated robbery, and drug trafficking, among others, can also attract the death penalty. While the proponents of capital punishment argue that the crimes committed warrants the death penalty, the opponents question the moral and ethical correctness of the practice.
The ethical question that arises in relation to capital punishment regards the inconsideration regarding the sanctity of life. Despite the graveness of a crime, ethical principles consider killing another human being to be fundamentally wrong, unethical, and barbaric because it goes against the moral values that suggest that individuals should treat others with the highest level of respect. Based on other arguments, capital punishment has been equated to torture. According to the United Nations Convention against Torture, torture is any act where extreme pain and suffering, either physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on an individual to achieve a given outcome (The World Medical Association, 2012). There are also substantial arguments in support of the use of capital punishment. Some believe that justice for some crimes can only be served through the death penalty and nothing less severe. Be that as it may, since the decision to pass such judgments lies with human beings, there is room for errors and unfair use.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There is a 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 probability of error which may be devastating. The use of capital punishment has a severe impact on the family members of both the victim and the perpetrators and the entire society at large. There have been studies showing the extreme emotional and financial suffering by children of the executed. Besides, the families of the victim do not get the closer they were looking for, but instead, they regret accepting executions of the perpetrator. Furthermore, there have been cases where innocent people were wrongfully executed. A good example is the case of George Junius Stinney Jr., whose conviction for murder led to the death penalty and execution, only for the court to find the trial to be unfair, overturning the conviction (Carrico, 2018). Therefore, the paper will therefore explore capital punishment, its past management, ethical perspective, and potential solutions to help the general public and the justice system to find better ways to serve justice.
Past Management
Capital punishment has a rich history transcending ancient times when ideologies from societies such as the Greeks dominated the world. As early as the 7 th century, ancient Greece applied capital punishment for crimes, including murder, rape, and treasons, as dictated by the laws of Draco (Dusenbury, 2017). The Romans equally utilized the death penalty to punish specific kinds of offenses. Various world religions, such as the Judaists and ancient Christians, have used capital punishment in the past as per the guidelines provided in their holy book. The first five books of the Bible or the Torah ascribed the death penalty for crimes, including non-respect for the sabbath, blasphemy, various sexual crimes, magic, and witchcraft, among many more (Mbah et al., 2019). Islam also condones capital punishment for crimes, such as robbery, adultery, and apostasy of Islam. The Hammurabi Code, which outlined various forms of punishment for different crimes, had the death penalty as one of the possible punitive measures. While it is difficult to ascertain how capital punishment was managed in ancient times, there are high probabilities that most societies used it as a last resort- alternative punitive measures, including banishments or payment for crimes by compensation, were considered first.
In the recent past, society generally condoned capital punishment, with many regions administering cruel forms of punitive measures for public amusement. Before the introduction of the present-day prison system, the death penalty was a common punitive measure in medieval and early modern Europe (Mbah et al., 2019). For instance, during the reign of Henry VIII of England, about 72,000 individuals were executed in response to the spread of witchcraft that was perceived to threaten Christendom in Europe (Mbah et al., 2019). Cesare Beccaria treaties on Crimes and Punishment 1764 were the first in-depth evaluation of the death penalty to call for the ending of the practice (Mbah et al., 2019). The practice of public execution continued in the United States well into the early 20 th century. However, in recent times, there has been a change of heart, judging by actions such as concerns over the public display of execution and further debate regarding the moral and ethical foundation of capital punishment.
A strong rift has grown between the supporters and opponents of the practice; societies that support the use of capital punishment argue that it eliminates foul members of society who pose a threat to the society. Arguments linked to the old adage “an eye for an eye” have also been used to justify the execution of criminals who commit heinous crimes, such as murder. Theories of punishment, including the restitution and deterrence theories, have been used to justify the use of the death penalty (Mann, 2015). According to the restitution theory, a violation that results in an unjust distribution of entitlement gives the victim a right to correct the imbalance up to the maximum reparation, which will be comparable to the destruction caused by the criminal act (Mann, 2015). The deterrence theory of punishment, on the other hand, is similar to people’s intuition about self-defense- if a person attacks you, it is necessary to stop the attack. Similarly, if an individual attacks the community, the community’s authority has the right to stop such attacks (Mann, 2015). The opponents of the use of capital punishment, on the other hand, argue from moral and ethical standpoints. Besides, they point out the potential of erroneous judgments that cannot be reversed upon the execution of the accused criminals.
Ethical Perspective
Deontological ethics is an ethical perspective that is applicable to the issue of the 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 et al. (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.
Article 3 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every individual has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. When it comes to capital punishment, there is a strong disagreement between the proponent and opponents as to whether the right of life as protected by the US and International Law should be maintained when a person commits murder (The World Medical Association, 2012). Kant’s moral theory, also known as Kantian retributivism, can be used by proponents of capital punishment to justify its practice. According to Kant’s retributive theory, when an offender commits a crime, he or she deserves a punishment; Kant is one of the popular retributive proponents of capital punishment (Mann, 2015). A rough summary of his argument is that if a person intentionally causes the death of an innocent individual, he or she has rendered himself deserving of death. While a person’s innate moral personality protects them from being used as a means to an end, say for the benefit of the society, he is punished because they did a punishable act (Mann, 2015). Therefore, according to Kant, justice is not served if it is done for the benefit of society. Instead, the justice of capital punishment should be based entirely on the tenets of retribution, where a person is punished because they are guilty, and thus the punishment ought to be reflective of the crime committed.
Kantian retributivism can also be used to argue against the death penalty due to the possibility of miscarriage of justice. While Kant argues that the guilty must be punished, there have been cases of wrongful accusations in the past. Kant’s theory of retribution will be against the death penalty if an innocent person is accused of murder and then wrongfully executed (Lantin, 2017). The mere possibility of miscarriage of justice and the inability to reverse such execution is a sufficient ethical reason not to support capital punishment. Since it is impossible to eliminate the risk of errors and mistakes that can lead to innocent convictions, capital punishment should not be considered.
Additional ethical arguments can be made from the utilitarian point of view. According to utilitarianism, an act is ethical depending on whether it maximizes the utility or greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. While the proponents of capital punishment might argue that capital punishment prevents future killing and brings closure to victims’ families, the relative utility of capital punishment against its cost in society is difficult to assess (The World Medical Association, 2012). Besides, the prevention of future killing can also be prevented by effective incapacitation, such as life imprisonment. Furthermore, rather than giving family closure, delays in conviction puts victims’ families in greater pain (The World Medical Association, 2012). Thus, since the utility of capital punishment is difficult to measure, its ethical unsoundness can also be argued from the virtue point of view. Virtue-based theorists question whether the death penalty respects and promotes humanity’s values, moral goodness and whether if it is the right thing to do (The World Medical Association, 2012). Besides, it is the moral and ethical obligation of every individual to preserve as many lives as possible.
New Solution Discussion
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. In 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 et al., 2019). The declaration suggested the physicians must avoid the mentioned involvement at all costs, which include when threatened to execute the death penalty. The declaration recognizes the oath taken by medical professionals that dictate 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 the 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 argue against practicing capital punishment.
Furthermore, the cruelty of the death penalty and its effect on the families of victims necessitates the need to have sentencing reforms that prioritize life sentences to the death penalty; the death penalty should be abolished. Rather than the retribution and deterrence theory of punishment, the justice system should consider the rehabilitation theory of punishment (Flanders, 2013). According to the rehabilitation theory of punishment, if a person is condemned to death and is executed, he or she loses the chance to be rehabilitated. Another argument in support of the abolition of the death penalty is that a dead person cannot be made morally better through actually dying (Flanders, 2013). Therefore, although the person might have committed a heinous crime, he or she should be given an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and get better.
Therefore, the legal system should abolish capital punishment and replace it with alternative punishment, especially life imprisonment. In arguing against the death penalty, Dan Markel states that the aim of retribution is to converse with the convicted criminals to convince them that what they did was wrong and is deservedly punishable (Flanders, 2013). The offender should then be provided with the opportunity to process and internalize the values his or her actions have violated. The death penalty does not, however, offer a chance for internalization, which is a key component of retributivism; after the execution, a person cannot conduct himself in a manner that affirms the idea of moral responsibility or equal liberty under the law (Flanders, 2013). In other words, an executed offender is barred from partaking in the goods, animating retributive justice. Furthermore, unless a person can be found to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, he or she should not be sentenced to life imprisonment. Therefore, since the justice system cannot warrant that, capital punishment should be abolished and be replaced with other punitive measures that provide room for correction in case errors were made.
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.
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.
Flanders, C. (2013). The Case Against the Case Against the Death Penalty. New Criminal Law Review , 16 (4), 595-620.
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.
Lantin, R., G. (2017). The death penalty debate: A look at the main arguments. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 7 (3), 43-47
Mann, W. (2015). The Death Penalty Debate: A Critical Examination of the Moral Justifications for Capital Punishment.
Mbah, R. E., Pruitt, T., & Wasum, D. F. (2019). Cruel choice: the ethics and morality of the death penalty. Research on humanities and social sciences , 9 (24), 14-22.
The World Medical Association. (2012). White paper on ethical issues concerning capital punishment. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.683.7661&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Wang, S., & Gupta, M. (2020, June). Deontological ethics by monotonicity shape constraints. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 2043-2054). PMLR.
