The Ethical Issue of Death Penalty - Essay Example

Module Death Penalty Many individuals admit that the act of killing another human being is wrong. Nevertheless, they acknowledgethat there are some cases where this action can be done to serve the right purpose. This is when an unusual situation arises and the greater good or moral justice can only prevail when an individual is put to death. One instance where the right-to-life can be deprived justly is when an individual is given the death penalty. This issue raises many questions and emotions on morality with some individuals insisting that it is morally justified while others deny. Others people base the need for the death penalty on welfare considerations, which many seem to agree on (McMahan 7). This paper will examine the benefits and the fall backs of the death penalty, and argue if it should be allowed or banned based on the evidence in the paper. According to Chan and Oxley, capital punishment is a legal process sanctioned by the state that allows for the termination of a felon offender’s life, who has committed one or multiple heinous offences (Janet and Oxley 2). This process is usually prohibited in many countries for the same questions that this paper raises and seeks to answer. Is capital punishment morally wrong? Does capital punishment deter crime? Can capital punishment be justified when done in consideration to the welfare of the public? Many people have found the death penalty or capital punishment to be morally wrong but when atrocities are committed against their loved ones, they quickly have a change of heart. Over the years, there has been a growing base of activists advocating for the abolishment of the death penalty all across the world, therefore, influencing many countries to abolish the act. Even the United Nations does not support the death penalty, citing a law borrowed from the American Bill of Rights, which stresses on the right to life. However, the United States of America has not given in to International pressure to abolish the death penalty but insists that the death penalty is neither cruel nor an unusual punishment when it is employed non-discriminatively and in an unarbitrary manner (Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd 512). Many individuals consider the death penalty to be morally impermissible. They argue that the act is constitutionally cruel and uncivilized. They claim that imposing capital punishment, no matter how humane the method of administration is, is still a transgression of the rule of law. They also say that capital punishment would lead to the wrongful death by execution to some innocent people whose cases were marred by false evidence. They argue that if the justice system was to make a mistake and realize it later after the death penalty has already been executed, the damage would be irreversible and unfair to the family and the individual. They also argue that capital punishment shows arbitrariness, in that the criminals may prefer that form of punishment. Capital punishment has also been said to be discriminative. Critics argue that racial discrimination is evident in the justice system, where criminals declared guilty of killing white people were four times more likely to be served with the death penalty than those who killed non-white individuals. This shows that the death penalty is discriminative even though it is said to be non-discriminatory (Sunstein and Vermeule 2). Capital punishment seems to have a few shortcomings but despite all that it can be regarded as an efficient tool to deter the occurrence of certain crimes. Research studies carried out two decades ago showed that the death penalty did not prevent or influence the occurrence of certain crimes. These research studies have refuted by new research that show that capital punishment has a powerful deterrent effect. The study proposes that for every execution carried out, an average of eighteen murders are prevented. With such an effect on crime, capital punishment should not be abolished as it seems to serve as a lesson to all those plotting some heinous crimes. Failing to implement the death penalty would only mean that the state does not care about the greater good for its citizens. Therefore, abolishing capital punishment or failing to implement it, would serve as a death sentence to many innocent individuals whose lives would have been saved if the state implemented the penalty (Sunstein and Vermeule 7). Looking at the moral perspective of this action, capital punishment would only be preventing more crimes thus serving the greater good in the community. What does it mean if the state does not approve of the death penalty? It means that the state and the supporters of the abolishment of capital punishment are morally wrong to allow the death of eighteen individuals for the life of one person. The fact that the person has already committed other atrocities in the past should be put into perspective. In this case, saving the life of one person who has already taken other people’s lives would be ironical considering that his or her death would prevent eighteen innocent murders. Therefore, it is a morally wrong to abolish or fail to implement the death penalty as one would be condemning a large number of innocent people to their deaths (Shepherd 207). Consequentially, it is capital punishment is morally obligatory because it acts as an effective tool to stop a substantial numbers of murders. Capital punishment has resurfaced again in recent years as terrorism increased. A number of high profile terrorism cases involving great atrocities to the International community have been tried with the intent of giving the accused the death penalty (Janet and Oxley 4). Following acts of heinous forms of crimes, most people especially those that have lost family members, friends or fellow statesmen, have shown an inclination towards the death penalty. This would serve as the ultimate punishment for such criminals. This would also provide closure and help the bereaved feel that a sense of justice has been done, when the criminals have been given the death penalty. Even Kant, the philosopher, agreed that some of the most flagitious offences committed deserve capital punishment, which is morally justified in this situation (Oppenheim 2013). Kant said that a society that is not inclined towards demanding the lives of individuals who have taken other people’s lives is plainly immoral. CONCLUSION As seen in the paper, many people reject capital punishment on moral grounds. They claim that capital punishment is unlawful, barbaric and violates human rights. However, capital punishment seems to save the lives of many innocent people when an execution is carried out. It also acts as a form of retribution for those who have lost their loved ones. For the welfare of the public, capital punishment should be implemented. On moral grounds, it seems that capital punishment reduces a significant number of innocent deaths; therefore, making more sense morally than abolishing it. With the evidence reviewed in the paper, implementation of capital punishment is more appropriate than its abolishment. Works Cited Chan, Janet, and Deborah Oxley. "The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A review of the research evidence." Crime and Justice 1.84 (2011): 1-24. Print. Dezhbakhsh , Hashem, and Joanna Shepherd. "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a “Judicial Experiment”." Economic Inquiry 44.3 (2006): 512-535. Print. McMahan, Jeff. The Ethics of Killing. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print. Oppenheim, Sarah. "Capital Punishment in The United States." Capital Punishment in The United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013. . Shepherd, Joanna. "Deterrence versus Brutalization: Capital Punishment’s Differing Impacts among States." Michigan Law Review 104.203 (2005): 204-248. Print. Sunstein, Cass, and Adrian Vermeule. "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs." Philosophical Studies 47.17 (2010): 2010. Print. Read More