The death penalty is considerably one of the most contentious issues in the contemporary society and one that in most cases pit various opinion shapers and even ordinary members of the society against one another. Globally, more countries are moving towards the abolition of the death penalty. The countries that are still retaining the death penalty do so citing a number of reasons such as its consistency with the opinion of the citizenry. In addition, the proponents cite that there are adequate measures in ensuring justice is served to those who are convicted. The confusion arising from this subject matter in most cases has necessitated the conflicting parties to offer their views regarding the subject matter with one section calling for its abolition based on various reasons of which moral considerations stand out as the key reason. The other segment of the conflicting parties, however, see no need for such measures thereby arguing that death penalty needs toleration if the larger society is to exist in peace through a deterrence towards certain crimes and misdemeanor. This paper aims to support no specific view, but takes a center stand in this regard by providing reasons why the penalty needs tolerance and why it does not. For purposes of clarity, the paper will discuss why the matter is of interest to the society based on historical thoughts so far propagated in its regard.
Why Death Penalty is of Interest
It is a matter in the public domain that certain types of behavior deter the progress of the society in many ways. The society in this sense should however not be construed to suggest the physical material that is commonly seen in everyday life. What is meant by the term in this sense is the human elements that act as the cogs that are instrumental in ensuring the progress of the entire whole. The underlying line of thought here is that the society from its physical material cannot exist on its own in the absence of human beings. Otherwise, there will be no value addition and by extension any progress or development. Human beings, therefore, cannot at any time be excluded from the entire equation. Not only is the human important in this equation in its abstract form, but a human being in a form that is productive and meaningfully contributive through life. This kind of dilemma in some instances has attracted historical attention as in the case of Glossip v. Gross. In this instance, three death row convicts contested against a court ruling that called for their elimination through lethal injection by arguing that their human life ought to have been prioritized more than the constitutional provision created by the United States government to handle the nature of the crime they were convicted. The case, during its progress, introduced a new paradigm shift in the whole dilemma by adding ethics regarding human life as the new variable. The prevailing thought in the case of Glossip v. Gross is that human life should not be excluded from the whole equation already discussed. However, should a need arise such that its elimination can result in the overall good of the society, then ethical consideration should be factored in, and the elimination is done in the absence of contempt for the value it added to the process during its productive and meaningful years.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Why Death Penalty Should Be Abolished
The meaninglessness of death penalty and why the penalty should not be applicable in the society cannot be considered a contemporary debate. Notable individuals who have existed in the society during the previous generations have in some cases agreed with this line of thought and provided reasons as to why. George Orwell, for example, argues that the way the current society views death penalty and the measures put in place to act as forms of deterrence towards its occurrence can only exist in a state of utopia. Orwell proceeds to argue that the death penalty is the epitome of state control, whereby an individual in the society is restricted from exercising his right to act and behave freely as the individual is always under constant surveillance from the provisions of the Constitution, and that such surveillance is always manifested in the way the state apparatus handle the citizenry even when they exercise free will and thought. Russell adds more weight propagated by Orwell by opining that there is always a constant completion between the individual and the state in terms of power and authority. In this sense, the state believes that power and authority should always be its own prerogative and not that of the individual or the citizenry. Hence, any individual who portrays the ability to exercise extreme power or authority on a fellow citizen should be eliminated from the society. Mills, however, introduces a new picture into the whole debate by claiming that certain laws such the death penalty serves as nothing but a tyranny of the majority by promoting the desires of the many as opposed to the few even if such desires are considerably wrong and faulty. Karl Max, on the other hand, views all this in terms of class struggles in the society, arguing that laws generally serve and favor the interest of the economic, the political class, and not the workers. Grinde and Johansen agree with the majority of these philosophers by arguing that an individual has the right to make own decision and ensure that the decision is carried out without any form of interference.
Why Death Penalty Should Not Be Abolished
Despite the varied support for the abolishment of the death penalty, there are conflicting arguments that totally oppose it. Viewpoints of major philosophers will be applied to support the reasons as to why the penalty deserves abolishment. Foremost, death penalty in most cases applies to individuals who have passed the limits of their freedom. Mills support the death penalty by arguing that the large majority in any society have a right to suggest their laws in the interest of the entire society. The constitution represents the views of the larger majority, and this gives the reason why it should not be abolished since doing the contrary will be a contravention to the interest of the majority. Russell supports Mill in this through his argument that the government has a role to play in the affairs of the citizenry. The scholar opines that the citizenry has no authority or the resources needed to govern themselves at an individual level, and hence ought to be guided in the course of their life through the formation of laws and implementing such laws as a form of deterrence. The implementation of established laws is instrumental in ensuring that a divide exists between the governors and the governed to avoid rebellion towards laws agreed upon by the members of the society.
In conclusion, the debate as to whether the death penalty should be allowed to exist in the society, or abolished from it remains debatable just as the word suggests. Efforts aimed at reaching a point of convergence in this matter has in most cases ended up in conflicts of thoughts and perceptions, with the scale failing to tilt towards neither side. In some sense, this debate remains in need of extensive deliberation by both ordinary members of the society that get affected by such debates, and the top cream of the society that usually make them.
