Possibility of Ethical Justification of Capital Punishment - Essay Example

Is it possible to justify capital punishment ethically? Name: University: Date: Is it possible to justify capital punishment ethically? Introduction Morality according to Souryal (2010) can be described as the principles of right and wrong. People are s moral creatures; therefore, they should be praised for good deeds and punished for bad ones. Importantly, the punishment should fit the crime, which is commonly recognised as ‘an eye for an eye’ or ‘lex talionis’. When arguing for lex talion justice, abolitionists maintain that we should get ready to beat sadists, rape rapists, and torch the arsonists’ houses. Obviously, raping a rapist will degrade the doers, but will not stop the rapist from doing it again. However, executing murderers prevents them from killing again; hence, the innocent victims are protected. In this case, the good overshadows the bad, and there is a moral justification to the execution of the murderer. Using various ethical perspectives, this essay seeks to determine the possibility of justifying capital punishment ethically. From an ethical point of view, capital punishment can be defined as a deliberate execution of an actual or supposed wrongdoer for a certain offence. According to Robinson (2011), it is hard to persuasively argue that death penalty is moral, valuable or right when it is unequally applied or does not respect liberty. Although abolitionists see capital punishment as non-productive and immoral, adherents of utilitarianism believe capital punishment is ethically justifiable because it deters future murders. The purpose of this essay is to explore the extent to which capital punishment can be justified with view to utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics. The essay has been divided into four sections: capital punishment with view to (i) utilitarianism ethics, (ii) deontological ethics, (iii) virtue ethics, (iv) governing legislation and professional code of conduct in Western Australian. Body The utilitarian tradition according to Townsend (1997) views the act’s consequences (either good or bad) as the only features that are morally significant. The classical utilitarians examine consequences in terms of people’s happiness or mental state. Normally, punishment is considered by utilitarians as hostile for the wrongdoer and therefore, it is an evil in itself and can only be justified if dwarfed by its positive outcomes. For utilitarians, a given crime can be reduced if some hardship is imposed on the person punished (Tännsjö, 2008). The retributivist theories attempt to find the connection between wrongdoing and punishment. In the past, punishment was considered to be morally justified to any offence (Pope, 1975). According to this view, punishment must be imposed, heedless of any positive effect that would ensue. Immanuel Kant believed that punishment was associated with the categorical imperative; therefore, people should be respected as persons and should be treated as ends, and not means (Wood, 2007). Kant argues that when an innocent person is deliberately murdered, the killer deserves death. Kant emphatically supported capital punishment for a murder crime arguing that if the members of the civil society decide to dissolve the society, the last incarcerated murderer should first be executed so that people are not depicted as violators of justice (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2015). Kant’s position on capital punishment as cited by Potter (2002) is often understood as a retributivism paradigm. However, Kant support for capital punishment is only for the crime of murder. Kant believes that capital punishment can only be ethically justified in the crime of murder and crimes that result in substantial damage to the society. As mentioned by Mandery (2011), the death penalty can morally be justified by one principle: the punishment should be the same as the nature of the crime. Still, opponents of the death penalty believe it is wrong because its application is not compatible with the being human dignity which exists even when the wrongdoer deserve the punishment. According to Lambert and Clarke (2001), the capital punishment justification normally focusses on the argument that offenders deserve punishment. Both utilitarian as well as retributive considerations have been invoked in an attempt to justify the death penalty. As pointed out by Riley (2001) the society has a legitimate power of determining the kind of behaviours that cannot be accepted and the type of punishments that should be imposed to violators thereof. People do not have legitimate power to decide what constitutes a criminal offence or to punish offenders. Furthermore, this view is supported to some extent by the utilitarian. According to the utilitarian theory, capital punishment does not connote offering justice through an ‘eye for an eye’ approach (Townsend, 1997). However, it can be justified if it deters scores of offenders from committing murder. Capital punishment is an immoral act that can only be justified legally, but not ethically (Litton, 2013). Functionalist theory as mentioned by Pope (1975) illuminates a belief as a self-conscious and powerful entity that controls its individual members’ behaviour. Utilitarians believe that the morality of a deed depends on the observance to Utility (the Greatest Happiness Principle), which directs people to bring about happiness for many people. Therefore, when making a moral decision, the consequence of particular actions should first be taken into account. Utilitarianism according to Tännsjö (2008) is a form of Consequentialism since it places emphasis on the consequences of people’s actions. Adherents of utilitarianism disapprove punishment if it is administered with the objective of making the criminals ‘pay’ for their wrongdoing. However, they support the role of punishment if it seeks to prevent future crime. Utilitarians believe that all decisions and laws made must generate the best results for many people. Therefore, capital punishment is a better choice than imprisonment for murder since it prevents the wrongdoers from being repeating the crime. Therefore, the death penalty is justified because it amounts to the protection of the innocent lives. As indicated by Chan and Oxley (2004), if the judge determines that consequence of allowing the murderer to live can lead to more deaths, then the capital punishment is a suitable punishment in such a case. Furthermore, capital punishment helps the government saves money since the execution of the murderers is cost-effective rather than incarcerating them at the cost of the community. Contrary to the Utilitarianism, advocates of deontological ethics morally focus on the intentions of the person’s actions, rather than the actual consequences. Heffernan (2014) defines deontology as the study of nature of obligation as well as duty. Therefore, the morals of a person’s action are rooted in the good intention attributed to the ability to observe the set of rules. Regardless of the situation facing a person, adhering to the set of rules makes their actions morally justified. Kant’s deontological philosophy main concept introduces the categorical imperative, which has three formulations utilised in judging the moral consequence of any duty or intention. The first formulation is acting in a way that the rule of conduct is made the universal law (Heffernan, 2014). On the other hand, the second formulation is about treating other people as ends, and not means. The last formulation is concerned with living in the realm of ends, whereby people can envisage themselves as the legislator as well as the basis of moral law. In view of these formulations, the punishment should be a reaction to guilt, and the offender should be punished in order that equality and justice can exist. From a deontological point of view, capital punishment is morally justified but does not support the notion that the offender body should be dismembered similarly to the victims’ bodies. As cited by Robinson (2011), Kant maintained that administering the capital punishment with additional punishments like torture is immoral and inhumane. While utilitarians view ethics in terms of consequences, deontologists perceive them in terms of rules. Therefore, while adherents of utilitarianism believe that the ends justify the means; supporters of deontological ethics argue that the means are only what matters. Although deontologists believe that capital punishment is ethically justified, they hold that every person even a murderer has a dignity, which should be respected. Therefore, treating a human like an object is akin to treating another person as a means, instead of a human (Wood, 2007). Therefore, is death penalty a means to justice (an end)? When a person kills another human, he/she is disrespecting their dignity; therefore, cannot be considered as human being. A murderer according to Kant strips of his/her humanity and dignity after killing another human being. Evidently, both the Deontology and Utilitarianism theories agree that capital punishment is morally justified, but they hold different reasoning. With the view to Townsend (1997) and Potter (2002) studies, the Deontology philosophy of evidently provide best morality evidence of death penalty because it still respects the criminal’s humanity. The murderers should be treated as the end in themselves, which is a way of respecting although that respect is not associated with their choices or lifestyles. However, utilitarians disregard any form of respect for the just one human with the anticipation of realising greater happiness for the society. Therefore, utilitarians do not treat people as an end; instead, they are treated as a means for realising a sustainable end. Virtue-based theorists believe that capital punishment can be justified as long as it promotes and respects the moral goodness and values of the society (Caravelis & Robinson, 2015). Virtue Ethics was founded by Aristotle and applies Teleology in order to determine the end of a process. Therefore, in capital punishment, the end of a process is to execute the murderer. Virtue ethics utilises the impetus, the action itself, as well as the consequences in deciding the morality of a crime (Timmons, 2002). Moral decision and Virtue ethics with regard to capital punishment prove to be a complicated given that virtue ethics focuses on the person’s overall character and not their action. Death, as a capital punishment consequence, affects both the executioner (the person performing the execution) and the murderer. Therefore, the consequences are considered immoral since it harms a number of persons. Since the impetuses, the action itself, and the consequences of the capital punishment are all wrong, then the virtue-based theorists deem death penalty as immoral. Still, according to the virtue theory, capital punishment could be immoral but in some situations can be moral (Caravelis & Robinson, 2015). Although capital punishment is legalised in some countries like the U.S., it is not practised in other countries such as Australia (Foucault, 2012). For this reason, Australians are expected to abide by the existing code of ethics. The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) Code of Ethics and Australian Public Service Code of Conduct offer both social workers and public workers a basis for ethical decision making and reflection. When people adhere to the conduct of conduct values, then the likelihood of engaging in activities that would promote capital punishment is limited. In countries like US where capital punishment is legalised, physicians are prohibited by the existing Code of Medical Ethics such as American Medical Association's to take part in executions or other forms of capital punishment (Black & Sade, 2007). In view of this, opposition to capital punishment as evidenced in Marcus (2007) study is increasing because of the increasing doubts about its morality and lack of deterrence evidence. In Australia, capital punishment was abolished in all States in the mid-1980s (Hood & Hoyle, 2009; Boss, 1999). The last executions in Australia happened in the mid-1960s and Western Australia was the last state to abolish the death penalty. As mentioned by O'Neill et al. (2004), the death penalty under federal law was abolished completely in Australia by the Commonwealth Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973. To preclude the utilisation of capital punishment under territory or state law, the federal government introduced the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2010. This Act according to Lennan and Williams (2012) prevents all Australian states and territories from reintroducing capital punishment. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has used the principles of utilitarian, Kant, deontological and functionalist ethics to determine the extent to which capital punishment can morally be justified. As mentioned in the essay, utilitarians believe that capital punishment can morally be justifiable if the consequences generate the greatest balance of happiness for the community and if it deters the offenders from repeating the crime. On the other hand, Deontologists believe that every person has a right to respect, but when a person kills another human; they lose both their humanity and respect and cannot be considered as human beings. Therefore, executing murderers is justified because they have already lost their sense of humanity and are less human being. As indicated in the essay, Kantians hold that capital punishment is only justified on the crime of murder, or if the offence has a substantial consequence on the society. References Black, L., & Sade, R. M. (2007). Lethal Injection and Physicians: State Law vs Medical Ethics. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(23). Boss, J. A. (1999). Analyzing Moral Issues. Houston, TX: Mayfield Publishing Company. Caravelis, C., & Robinson, M. B. (2015). Social Justice, Criminal Justice: The Role of American Law in Effecting and Preventing Social Change. New York: Routledge. Chan, J., & Oxley, D. (2004). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A review of the research evidence. Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, 84, 16-39. Dagger, R. (2011). Social Contracts, Fair Play, and the Justification of Punishment. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 8, 341-368. Foucault, M. (2012). Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Heffernan, W. C. (2014). Dimensions of Justice. Burlington, Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2009). Abolishing the Death Penalty Worldwide: The Impact of a “New Dynamic”. Crime and Justice, 38(1), 1-63. Lambert, E., & Clarke, A. (2001). The Impact of Information on an Individual's Support of the Death Penalty: A Partial Test of the Marshall Hypothesis among College Students. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12(3), 215-234 . Lambert, E., Clarke, A., & Lambert, J. (2004). Reasons for Supporting and Opposing Capital Punishment in the USA: A Preliminary Study. Internet Journal of Criminology, 1-34. Lennan, J., & Williams, G. (2012). The Death Penalty in Australian Law. Sydney Law Review, 34, 659-694. Litton, P. J. (2013). Physician Participation in Executions, the Morality of Capital Punishment, and the Practical Implications of Their Relationship. Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics, 333, 1-49. MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2015). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Cengage Learning: New York. Mandery, E. J. (2011). Capital Punishment In America: A Balanced Examination. Burlington, Massachusetts, United States: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Marcus, P. (2007). Capital Punishment in the United States, and Beyond. Melbourne University Law Review, 31, 837-872. O'Neill, N., Rice, S., & Douglas, R. (2004). Retreat from Injustice: Human Rights Law in Australia. Leichhardt, New South Wales: Federation Press. Pope, W. (1975). Durkheim as a Functionalist. The Sociological Quarterly, 16(3), 361–379. Potter, N. T. (2002). Kant and Capital Punishment Today. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 36, 267–282. Riley, J. L. (2001). The Death Penalty Justified. Retrieved from Regis University: http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/capunish.htm Robinson, M. (2011). Is Capital Punishment Just? Assessing the Death Penalty Using Justice Theory. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 3(2), 27-66. Souryal, S. S. (2010). Ethics in Criminal Justice: In Search of the Truth. New York: Routledge. Tännsjö, T. (2008). Understanding Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Theory. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Timmons, M. (2002). Moral Theory: An Introduction. Lanham, Maryland, United States: Rowman & Littlefield. Townsend, C. (1997, March). An eye for an eye? The morality of punishment. Retrieved from Jubilee Centre: http://www.jubilee-centre.org/an-eye-for-an-eye-the-morality-of-punishment/ Wood, A. W. (2007). Kantian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More

Kant argues that when an innocent person is deliberately murdered, the killer deserves death. Kant emphatically supported capital punishment for a murder crime arguing that if the members of the civil society decide to dissolve the society, the last incarcerated murderer should first be executed so that people are not depicted as violators of justice (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2015). Kant’s position on capital punishment as cited by Potter (2002) is often understood as a retributivism paradigm.

However, Kant support for capital punishment is only for the crime of murder. Kant believes that capital punishment can only be ethically justified in the crime of murder and crimes that result in substantial damage to the society. As mentioned by Mandery (2011), the death penalty can morally be justified by one principle: the punishment should be the same as the nature of the crime. Still, opponents of the death penalty believe it is wrong because its application is not compatible with the being human dignity which exists even when the wrongdoer deserve the punishment.

According to Lambert and Clarke (2001), the capital punishment justification normally focusses on the argument that offenders deserve punishment. Both utilitarian as well as retributive considerations have been invoked in an attempt to justify the death penalty. As pointed out by Riley (2001) the society has a legitimate power of determining the kind of behaviours that cannot be accepted and the type of punishments that should be imposed to violators thereof. People do not have legitimate power to decide what constitutes a criminal offence or to punish offenders.

Furthermore, this view is supported to some extent by the utilitarian. According to the utilitarian theory, capital punishment does not connote offering justice through an ‘eye for an eye’ approach (Townsend, 1997). However, it can be justified if it deters scores of offenders from committing murder. Capital punishment is an immoral act that can only be justified legally, but not ethically (Litton, 2013). Functionalist theory as mentioned by Pope (1975) illuminates a belief as a self-conscious and powerful entity that controls its individual members’ behaviour.

Utilitarians believe that the morality of a deed depends on the observance to Utility (the Greatest Happiness Principle), which directs people to bring about happiness for many people. Therefore, when making a moral decision, the consequence of particular actions should first be taken into account. Utilitarianism according to Tännsjö (2008) is a form of Consequentialism since it places emphasis on the consequences of people’s actions. Adherents of utilitarianism disapprove punishment if it is administered with the objective of making the criminals ‘pay’ for their wrongdoing.

However, they support the role of punishment if it seeks to prevent future crime. Utilitarians believe that all decisions and laws made must generate the best results for many people. Therefore, capital punishment is a better choice than imprisonment for murder since it prevents the wrongdoers from being repeating the crime. Therefore, the death penalty is justified because it amounts to the protection of the innocent lives. As indicated by Chan and Oxley (2004), if the judge determines that consequence of allowing the murderer to live can lead to more deaths, then the capital punishment is a suitable punishment in such a case.

Furthermore, capital punishment helps the government saves money since the execution of the murderers is cost-effective rather than incarcerating them at the cost of the community. Contrary to the Utilitarianism, advocates of deontological ethics morally focus on the intentions of the person’s actions, rather than the actual consequences. Heffernan (2014) defines deontology as the study of nature of obligation as well as duty. Therefore, the morals of a person’s action are rooted in the good intention attributed to the ability to observe the set of rules.

Read More