Death penalty or otherwise capital punishment has over the years become a topic of concern across countries all over the world. The idea of death penalty descended from the roots of different historical backgrounds. Some countries slowly banned this type of punishment while some continuously use it up to date. Questions have risen on the necessity of this action, therefore, raising conflicts and controversies in society. A larger proportion of people clearly express their loath for capital punishment, therefore, supporting its abolition while some still support it with a lot of confidence. The main terms of concern in this dilemma are abolition, restriction, death penalty culture and people’s opinion. Certain methods such as the Kant Categorical Imperative have been used to deeply explain the concept of the ethical dilemma. This paper focuses on exploring all these ideas to help us fully understand this concept and develop a firm understanding of why death penalty, despite being regarded as the most inhumane, cruel and degrading form of punishment, is still legal in some countries and also situations when it is unfair to use the death penalty.
When analyzing execution by death penalty there are some main ideas that cannot be left out. This dilemma addresses the origin of the death penalty, its spread, and the current situation in different countries. The second point involves the legalized methods of execution, how they are performed and the extent to which each is considered humane or inhumane. Thirdly, this dilemma addresses theories that try to explain ethical dilemma such as Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Conflicts and controversies also need to be explored in order to understand the main current stand of the people about the topic. The final idea addressed by this dilemma is the abolition of the death penalty, its need, and what can be done instead.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The culture of punishment by death descended down from the roots of different historical backgrounds. The first enacted laws about the death penalty can be traced back in the eighteenth century B.C. where the king of Babylon, Hammurabi, was executed for twenty-five different crimes. In the tenth century, death had become a more common method of execution in Britain, However, death by hanging was temporarily banned in the next century by William The Conqueror but later reintroduced during the reign of Henry VIII where approximately seventy-two thousand people are said to have been executed (Hood & Hoyle, 2015). Due to the increased number of crimes in Britain, punishment by death was even done even when very small crimes such as stealing were committed. The severity of this penalty influenced the jury’s decision to convict a person whenever the offense was not very serious and this; lead to the death penalty reforms between 1823 and 1837 (Hood & Hoyle, 2015). America was the most influenced country by Britain’s method of execution. Colonization could be partially blamed for the introduction of capital punishment in the colonies.
Several execution methods are used in the death penalty. They include beheading where the culprit’s head is completely separated from the body. This is the fastest execution method as death immediately occurs after such separation. The second method is electrocution and it happens to be the most used execution method in the United States (Hood & Hoyle, 2015). The condemned person is subjected to a high voltage of electric current leading to a fast heart or brain death. Lethal injection is seen as the most human method among the five where lethal drugs are inserted into the veins of the culprit. In some instances, the person is first sedated before the actual drug is injected. The gas chamber is the fourth method which was developed by Nevada in an attempt to come up with a more humane execution procedure (Hood & Hoyle, 2015). The condemned is wrapped in a chair and then the chamber is filled with gas (cyanide) which kills the subjected person by asphyxiation. Hanging is the final method. It was the main method of execution before 1980. The criminal is expected to fall off from the trap and is expected to die by breaking their neck or by being strangled. In all these five methods, none can be considered humane or can be justified as the best way to punish a criminal despite the crime they have committed.
The death penalty has been for a long time a highly contested issue and is among the controversial topics in the United States. Capital punishment has been outlawed in some states but still, some of them legalize it. Texas is considered to be the most popular in regard to the death penalty; it recorded the highest number of executions since 1976 and even had legalized execution of the minors until 2005 (Binder, 2018). Obviously, despite the fact that this act is inhumane, indecent, degrading and immoral, certain people still support it. Supporters consider the deterrent effects o be among the reasons for the death penalty. While execution is the main mode of punishment for crimes such as homicide, it should in the first place prevent culprits from committing murder but this still happens. Majority supporters also agree that the death penalty is the best punishment for anyone committing heinous crimes.
A larger proportion of the public often opposes the death penalty for ethical reasons among others. History clearly indicates that the majority of people who have been executed are African Americans or the low social class persons (Binder, 2018). These kinds of disparities lead to people believing that execution is solely based on such factors as wealth or race. Several studies have affirmed these beliefs and even some court cases have been presented requesting the consideration these disparities but they have continuously been dismissed. Innocence possibility is one other reason against the death penalty (Binder, 2018). The justice system is obviously not anywhere close to being perfect and there have been numerous cases where the culprit is exonerated just before they are executed or even worse when done years later after the execution. The death penalty is in itself cruel and goes against the moral standards. In spite of the Supreme Court ruling in 1976, that considered the death penalty usual and not cruel, several arguments have been developed with some claiming that such ruling is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. These among others are the major reasons against the death penalty and the idea of it being completely abolished.
Progressives and liberals have for several years, opposed death by execution and they believe that the state has no mandate to execute people. Analyzing the original point of view of the death penalty without considering why people support or oppose is key. The Bible provides us with a theological basis of the death penalty. Genesis 9:6 explain that whoever sheds a man’s blood, his blood shall also be shed by man and that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Moral proportionality and justice are the key principles that can be deduced from the Lex Talionis theory of life for a life (Binder, 2018). However much we are not under the theocracy of the Old Testament, many cases that deserved can be pointed out. Reinforcement of capital punishment is however introduced in the New Testament. In Romans 13:1-7 the government is ordained by God and the civil magistrate, Paul, is a minister of God’s word. Paul uses the sword image which can be interpreted to be a representation of capital punishment. Additionally, several mistakes have been made in the manner in which capital punishment is administered. As much this is an indictment of the justice system of the country, it is not an idea against the death penalty. It is instead an argument that criticizes the careful implementation of such penalty. However, we have also witnessed a number of death penalties that have been implemented after thorough premeditation. This is the actual original view of the death penalty without any influence from the public.
Immanuel Kant is a great ethic philosopher who developed among the first scientific approach to the death penalty as an ethical dilemma. According to the categorical imperative, "society and individuals must act in such a way that you can will that your actions become a universal law for all to follow”. Some scientists, however, argue that Kant’s approach is in itself self-contradictory and superficial (Wright, 2000). Kant’s theory on capital punishment is first stated in part one of “Metaphysics of Morals” which was written in 1797. The theory is based and derived from Kant’s ethical opinions that were previously developed in 1788 in his work called, “Criticism of Practical Mind”. He begins Metaphysics of morals with definitions of crime and the right to punish. He suggests that the existence of both society and the state is dependent on laws. He defines crime as the violation of societal laws and says that the culprits are those that act against such laws and are subject to punishment. Without laws then the states and the countries cannot exist and therefore law implementation which protects the state and the society forms the foundation of any society. Any person who violates the laws loses their right to being part of society and must be punished. He further states the impossibility of punishing the ruler and instead says that the only option when rulers commit crimes is the only retirement.
Law violation can either be social or personal. Personal crimes are committed against a person and such crimes are ruled by a civil court. Social crimes, on the other hand, are crimes committed against the whole society and are punished under the criminal code. He goes ahead to lay distinguishable differences between public crimes and private crimes. "Any transgression of the public law which makes him who commits it incapable of being a citizen, constitutes a crime, either simply as a private crime, or also as a public crime" (Kant, 1996). Private crimes include trust abuse and deceiving in businesses while public crimes include fights, theft and robbery, and coinage offenses. Public crimes not only affect the person involved but also the society at large. However there is no such rule as private offenses being less serious than public crimes, the difference is the persons affected by the crime. Punishment administration is a legal function of the state whose basis is a crime. Punishment of innocent individuals is attributed to poor legislation. The main goal of punishment is to indict the deserved consequence of a crime. A person has been guilty in order to be punished and a culprit cannot be punished for a societal benefit such as “teaching people a lesson”.
Kant also insists on the death penalty for murderers and according to him "whoever has committed murder, must die" (Kant, 1996). He argues that in spite of life’s difficulties; life is more precious than death. "However many they may be who have committed a murder, or have even commanded it, or acted as art and part in it, they ought all to suffer death" (Kant, 1996). A court decision is compulsory in punishing a murderer and any society that fails to do so becomes part of this crime. In his opinion, death is only justified when the crime committed is solely associated with the murder of another person unless the crime causes substantial damages to the whole society. He believes that no punishment can replace the death penalty. He says that it is even more honorable to die than to spend your whole life in prison. In a case study of two prisoners where one chooses death and the other chooses life imprisonment, Kant says: "I say that the man of honor would choose death, and the knave would choose servitude" (Kant, 1996). Kant also outlines circumstances when the death penalty is not appropriate even when the crime committed involves murder. When a woman kills her own child in order to avoid shame, for example, she should not be sentenced to death or if a person kills while defending their honor. Crimes that are also closely related to death deserve capital punishment. At whatever conditions it is clear that Kant stresses on the death penalty and regards it to be the most appropriate form of punishment for murderers.
The second method is the abolition and retention philosophies suggested by Ichinose. Retention ideas argue out in favors of using death punishment while abolitionism views argue that punishment by death should stop. Moreover, Masaki continues to question the system of justice that uses punishment by death and on who deserves to be punished by death “moral or legal punishments for the person should be accompanied by consciousness’s “(Ichinose, 2017). The person receiving any kind of punishment should be aware of the punishment and accept it and should be in his or her sane mind. Imposing punishment as a way of justice to the person unaware of it could impose physical harm (Ichinose, 2017). Punishment by death, on the other hand, has been accompanied by setback whether ruled in favor or against the complainants. In this case, there are chances of victimization if one does not receive justice as required. For instance, in the case of retention of death punishment, justice may end up killing an innocent person while on the other hand, when the justice served by death, is retained ,there are chances that an innocent person doesn’t get justice and a defendant gets to walk away free hence justice not being served properly (Ichinose, 2017). However, punishment by death should be retained in the case of serious offenses such as homicides and not every other crime (Ichinose, 2017). According to Ichinose, the death penalty should be abolished in less offensive cases and retained in the case of serious offenses such as murder and homicides.
The theory suggested by Ichinose is more appropriate. He clearly states situations in which the death penalty should be abolished. Such an explanation is not very clear in Kant’s categorical imperative. While Ichinose is clear in his theories, Kant theory as scientists suggest is self- contradictory. However, both of the two philosophies support the death penalty in the case of serious offenses such as murder.
This paper gives a clear description of the dilemma in question; death penalty. It originated from Britain and later spread to America and later to other countries through colonization. There have been several conflicts and controversies that have come up regarding capital punishment with some claiming that it is totally unethical and some suggesting that it should be retained. Kant’s theory has been used to explain why the death penalty is appropriate in the case of murder. Kant suggests that any person who commits death should also be put to death. Ichinose on the other hand clearly states the situations when the death penalty should be abolished or retained. It is reasonable to agree with the theory presented by Ichinose. The death penalty, however much it is immoral and cruel it should not be abolished and should be used as a form of punishment for murder crimes and it should be abolished for lesser crimes such as theft. Every life is important and proper premeditation and investigations should be conducted prior to deciding to punish a culprit by the death penalty.
References
Binder, G., Fissell, B., & Weisberg, R. (2018). Unusual: The Death Penalty for Inadvertent Killing. Ind. LJ , 93 , 549.
Brunello, A. R. (2015). Politics, Ethics and Capital Punishment in America.
Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The death penalty: A worldwide perspective . OUP Oxford.
Ichinose, M. (2017). The Death Penalty Debate: Four Problems and New Philosophical Perspectives.
Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Moral s, trans. Mary Gregor, New York, Cambridge University press.
Wright, R. (2000). The Death Penalty and the Way We Think Now , Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 33:533. Retrieved from http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue2/wright.pdf
