For and Against the Death Penalty - Coursework Example

Is Death Penalty a “Yes or No”

Since the beginning of human civilization, death penalty has been an aspect of humanity in various ways. There are different forms of the death penalty. However, the reasons for these forms of the death penalty are superficial because human beings operate under a fundamental logic that demands that an individual who kills a fellow human being should also be killed. An example of this theory is evident in Mathew 5:38 in the Christian Bible. This chapter states that an eye should be taken or given for an eye and the same applies to a tooth. However, following the recent research on criminology, systems of justice, and ethics, it is time for the society to re-consider this timeless pattern of revenge.

The practice of capital punishment entails punishing and executing the prisoners regarding the judicial practice by convicting them for engaging in a capital crime. Usually, the law perceives capital crimes as heinous hence those who commit them should be punished by death. This punishment may serve as a retribution that ensures that such criminals do not live to commit further crimes in future and to warn other people against criminal activities. However, this practice has raised extreme controversies with intense debates in the United States of America and across the globe. Those supporting the practice opine that heinous crimes need to face equally cruel punishments. Those opposing the practice, however, claim that death penalty is a form of revenge rather than a punishment. While the judicial verdict of this kind of punishment is through death sentence, the execution of this verdict is not lifetime imprisonment; instead, it entails killing the person physically. Crimes that attract this type of punishment are known as capital offenses or capital crimes. Previously, numerous countries were using death penalty. However, Amnesty International observed that more than two-thirds of the world or one hundred and thirty-nine countries had abolished the practice. Although the remaining fifty-eight countries that are still practicing death penalty, eight banned it against ordinary crimes but maintained it for special situations (Amnesty International USA). Additionally, these countries have imposed death penalties on extreme such as crimes treason, armed robbery, kidnapping, and rape.

There are several reasons for capital punishment. One, the society must strive to fulfill its moral obligation to protect the welfare and safety of its members. The welfare and safety of public are always at risk in the face of criminals. To eradicate murder and prevent the murderers from killing more people, they must be killed.

Secondly, the supporters of capital punishment argue that it is the responsibility of the society to promote practices that would create a high degree of goodness over evil. One such practice that is beneficial to the people is capital punishment because it discourages violent criminal activities. It is difficult to point out a direct proof to back this claim. However, the potential capital criminals who fear death penalty, would not engage themselves in violent crimes such as murder. Using the dictates of common sense, if the individuals know that their actions would result to death sentence, they will withdraw from such activities. If issuing death threats can prevent an impending murder, abolishing death penalty sacrifices several lives of innocent victims who may fall into the hands of undeterred merciless killers. However if the practice does not threaten or discourage violent criminals, continuing imposing it on the criminals, the society will on be endangering the lives of the prisoners who may fall victims of murder in the hands of their violent inmates. Undoubtedly, the society should take chances to protect the lives of its innocent citizens by believing that the practice deters violent criminal activities instead of gambling with the practice under claims that it is inconsequential.

Lastly, those supporting death penalty opine that justice emphasizes that anyone convicted of committing a heinous crime should die. Justice warrants equal treatment of every person. Therefore, it is unjustifiable for a criminal to wrongly and intentionally impose a bigger damage on an innocent citizen than he or she can bear. It the society inflicts a lesser harm on the criminals than their actions, it will be favoring these criminals and allowing them to commit more murder than the burden they leave on the victims. The dictates of justice demand that the society the society should take the responsibility of imposing losses incurred by the innocent citizens on the criminals who caused them. By killing those who intentionally kill others, death penalty grants equal justice to everyone. Certainly, when justice is honest, however unequal, it serves better, however equal.

Those advocating for capital punishment often find the basis of their case on the supposition that it is the society’s moral requirement to protect the lives of its citizens and not to take it away. The killing a person could only be acceptable when there is a vital demand to obtain the highest degree of balance of good over evil. Following the extreme significance place on people’s lives and our obligation to always reduce despair and discomfort, if there could be a less severe punishment that may achieve a similar goal and substitute death penalty, then we must embrace the alternative and abolish death punishment.

Both the previous and current studies have not provided a direct proof to show that death penalty is the most effective and efficient means of deterring violent crimes. Similarly, there is no evidence that the penalty is better than life imprisonment. The previous statistical investigations that compared the rate of jurisdictions on murder with and without this type of punishment found that occurrence of violent crimes does not relate to the enforcement of death penalty or lack of it. Both areas and nations that uphold death punishment and those that abolished it are experiencing several cases of murder in equal measure. Therefore, unless there are explicit proofs to demonstrate that only death penalty may eradicate murder related crimes, there is an obligation to refrain from the practice when there are numerous alternatives to embrace.

Additionally, death penalty is not a mandatory requirement for the society enjoy its protection against the heinous criminals who may endanger it further. Instead, putting the criminals behind bar for life would still serve the same purpose without terminating more lives. Similarly, death penalty may not be necessary for ensuring that the murderers receive a punishment equaling their crime. Regarding the dictates of justice, punishing a murderer by death penalty is wrong. Justice requires that heinous crimes should receive the most painful penance the societal moral principles permit. Death is not a moral principle.

Evidently, death punishment seems to be a compulsory means of achieving social good. However, it has a grave consequence on the society. Contrary to the conservative beliefs, implementing death penalty is more costly than imposing life imprisonment on the criminal. The finality of death punishment justly demands extreme measures of precaution throughout the process to minimize any potential occurrence of error. Because of this, the cost of executing a death penalty verdict of a single crime may be thrice that of keeping a single heinous criminal in prison for the rest his or her life, usually 40 years (“Death Penalty: Facts”).

Lastly, apart from wasting money and resources, the practice waste people’s lives. Deductively, there are possibilities of rehabilitating those facing death sentence to live lives socially acceptable and productive lives. By enforcing death punishment, the society destroys all the good attributes of a person and the useful contributions such an individual could have made in the society if they were pardoned and given a chance to mend their ways. Moreover, the juries are not exemption to mistakes. Hence, their rulings may be faulty resulting to death of innocent people. When such innocent individuals are not sentenced to death, there would be a reason for correcting the harm of false allegations and prevent further loss of lives.

Troy Anthony Davis’ case provides a typical scenario that directly relates to the subject of death penalty and capital punishment. Davis is a male American citizen who was convicted for killing Mark McPhail, a police officer (Marlowe et al). The case began on the 19th day of August 1989 in Savannah, Georgia Burger King. While hanging out with his friends at Georgia Burger King restaurant, Davis attacked Larry Young, a homeless man striking him on the head with a gun because he refused to give beer to one of Davis’ friends. McPhail, the police officer, working at a bus terminal across the restaurant as an off-duty security detail heard the screaming of Mr. Young and rushed to respond to the situation. As Davis was trying to flee the scene, McPhail ordered him to stop. However, Davis turns and shot the officer in the chest and his right thigh. Since the officer’s bulletproof vest did not cover his sides, the bullet entered his chest. While still writhing in pain, Davis smiled, walked to him, and shot his face. Although the investigators did not recover any gun, the prosecutors reported that there was a connection between the shell casings and a previous shooting for which he was being convicted. The witnesses at the scene identified Davis as the person who shot the officer. However, years later, most of them renounced their accounts (Troy Anthony Davis).

When Martina Davis-Correia, a Gulf War veteran, and a cancer survivor, started to advocate on behalf of Davis, her brother her community members did not support her. However, she realized that most of those who were willing to stand with her feared that taking such an action would cost them their social security profits and jobs. She demonstrated the kind of ostracism and isolation that her family experienced and the tensions that engulfed the trial. She narrates that she began to speak out and resolved to go beyond the community if it was reluctant to listen to her and be a voice to her brother (Troy Davis and the Quest for Justice). She dedicated herself to Davis even as she was undergoing chemotherapy. According to her, if people are willing to take away the lives of innocent fellows, then there is a problem in the whole society. She explained that her case was neither an anti nor a pro-death penalty case, but it was all about doing the right thing. For her, standing by and allowing the killings of innocent people equals to supporting the injustices. Therefore she was fighting for all who may face unjust incarceration (Troy Davis and the Quest for Justice).

Failing to recognize the historical accounts of the people who were unjustly executed is a sign of moral irresponsibility. The Stanford Law Review published a study in 1987. The study observed that from 1900 to 1987, at least 23 innocent people were excited. This means that more than one innocent person died in four years. The reason behind the injustices usually lies in the failure to discover the evidence or realizing the evidence after the execution of an innocent person. The contemporary improvements in the scientific methods like forensic DNA tests have enabled the prosecutors to identify the guilty criminals accurately. However, currently, there is no amount of technological or scientific advancements that can provide complete assurance that the process would be error free. When vital issues such as death penalty where human lives are at high stake, no matter how small it may appear to be, any margin of slip are unacceptable.

Maybe the most important point of consideration is the basic ethical question of hypocrisy. We should be asking ourselves about the type of message we are portraying to the local citizens and the world by sentencing the killers to death to tell them that killing a fellow human being is wrong. We are simply reducing ourselves to the standards of the murderers when we execute them to demonstrate our primeval desire to revenge. If we sacrifice our citizens to achieve a high degree of goodness without their consent, we cannot perceive our society as democratic or morally upright. Because capital punishment should avenge and protect the lives of innocent people, the death penalty punishment is a failure if it results in death of others including the innocent. The concern of closure or the amount of peace that the friends, family, and relatives of the victims experience after the execution of the murderer is deeply empathetic and understandable. However, putting the murderer to death cannot revive the dead victim. Is acceptable for the homicide psychopaths not to receive the mercy that they never had on their victims?

The previously stated Biblical statement of “an eye for an eye “sums up the primary reason for justifying death penalty. This means that the degree of criminal activity must equal the degree of punishment imposed. Emmanuel Kant takes a similar reasoning in his book “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.” Kant states that the idea of an eye for an eye is reflection of the right to retaliate. When perceived literally, in a person punches another in the stomach, the receiver has the right to retaliate by punching the stomach of the perpetrator hence providing an even ground for the game. However, when we take a retributive approach to viewing death penalty, the eye for eye justification lacks foundation. According to Kant’s book, the retributive approach highlights two key points by asking the questions: “what morally justifies the act of punishment?” and “how much and what types of punishments are morally justified for different legal crimes?” Inside the clear explanation of the question “Is death penalty right or wrong?” lies the answer to the two questions.

It is universally understood that when there are no consequences, the evil actions that affect the society and drive the humanity to develop a system of rules to govern the society will not have any deterrent. To answer Kant’s question about the moral justification of punishment, there is an argument that punishment is justifiable because it helps the society to prevent activities or behaviors that it terms as unacceptable. However, because of the ambiguity of the term punishment, the question is debatable. This leads us to the question of the amount and kinds of punishments that can be morally justified. Kant believes that perpetrators of crime should receive the same degree of pain and misery that they inflict on the innocent people. However, I tend to disagree with this theory. Saying that the type of a person’s action as an argent determines the amount of reward or punishment he receives (Kant and Mary 79), according to me, widens the opportunity to establish a chain of violent activities that may strongly tie the society such that breaking away from them would be difficult. Ultimately it is hypocritical to claim that using violence is the best means of curbing violence. An individual who is readily willing to participate in violence has no moral obligation to condemn violence. This is applicable in the practice of death penalty where the society justifies murder by killing the murderers.

If it is wrong to terminate a person’s life and the act is perceived as the worst crime to engage in, then, does sentencing a murderer to death for killing another person becomes justifiable? Most people will agree that it is not justifiable to do so. A text entitled “Inventing Human Rights” opines that it a natural fact that everyone is born with basic rights. The essential basic right is the right to have a life and live it. The individuals obtain these rights naturally and must not strive to earn them (Hunt 21). Therefore, it is wrong to deny an individual a right that is obtained inherently without earning. We can, therefore, argue that murder is wrong regardless of the circumstance. It is important to note that when implementing the debate about whether death penalty should continue as practice, it is also prudent to believe that taking away a person’s life is not justifiable. If we believe that our lives are sacred by claiming that terminating the life of a murderer is appropriate, the society dismisses the value of the very life it claims to be sacred. By terming it as sacred, human life is something that needs protection and should only be terminated under an individual’s consent. Therefore, by killing the violent criminals, the society justifies that our lives are valueless. It is not possible to claim that some lives are more valuable than the rest by arguing that the murderers can be killed for their crime. When we say so, we are claiming that there is a legal justification for ending a life of anyone by some individuals. The question here is, how are we going to end the chain of appropriating murder while striving to eradicate the members who are not ready to conform to the nature of humanity?

The answer to this question is straightforward. Abolish death penalty. However, there must be an alternative form of punishment for the individuals who refuse to understand that it is wrong to terminate lives and the alternative must be extreme to deter others. I think that the best and most effective alternative is absolute sensory and social isolation through life imprisonment. The punishment, however, is not to cause pain or avenge the innocent lives. Rather its main purpose is to forcefully deprive the criminals of simple comfort and permanently remove the criminals from the society. While is unacceptable to strip an individual of his or her basic rights, It is acceptable to alleviate him or her of the legal rights in situations where the societal safety and betterment is at stake.

Undoubtedly, most countries would prefer to surpass the madness of inhumane practices and global warfare in this era of rampage rather than staining their hands with more blood. While the actions of heinous criminals may be extreme and distressing, human beings have no obligation to pronounce death on some criminals. It is even awful when there are possibilities of false accusations leading to unjustifiable punishments. The finality of this statement is one. There is no solid reason for justifying death penalty apart from the primitive desire to avenge the lost lives and the fact that it is “cost-effective”. Referring back to the Biblical account in Mathew 5:44 that dictates us to love our enemies, bless those who castigate us, do them good instead of hating them, and pray for those who use us despitefully and persecute us, I believe that death penalty is not right.