Capital Punishment - Essay Example

Lecturer Punishment Part A Capital Punishment Death penalty is one of the stringent measures taken to curb crimes in the society. The core reason for its implementation is to establish justice for those who are blameless and lessen the number of offenders in the society (Bedau 416). However, there is not a fair method since it does not guarantee reduction of crimes in the society. According to Bedau (416), the life of a human being is sacred as stated in the sacred books and should be given the respect it deserves. He argues that even those who are non religious hold respect for human life and so there is no need for death execution unless that is the only alternative available to deal with such a case. Whatever crime the person has committed, killing should be considered as the last result. He further argues that communal policy should respect the value of human life. When administering a severe sentence on someone, caution must be taken to avoid any error. This is because if flaws occurs which result to guiltless person falling victim, the situation cannot be reversed and this will be injustice to a guiltless person. He adds that different punishments should be administered for different offenses, and that slighter penalties should be considered where the situation warrants. However, there is always a dilemma in deciding the best penalty for specific offense. According to Bedau (424), the law offers protection to people responding to threat on their lives or protecting the lives of other people. In such situations, the person responding to a threat is considered guiltless even if he or she hurt the attacker. He says that there is no evidence whatsoever that the attacker would really cause any harm to anybody. He argues that the law should take into consideration the all the means which were at respondent’s disposal to avoid the attack. For example they should run away from the threats instead of counterattacking the person frightening them. By escaping, they would have avoided trouble with anybody and they could not hurt anyone. However, when they respond by attacking the person who was threatening their survival, they result to similar incidence of assault or murder before the law. After all there was no surety that they would really be attacked or injured, therefore, the fact that someone was threatening to assault them is not enough reason for committing a crime. Finally he argues that there is probability that even if they were assaulted, the magnitude of this assault would be less severe that the one they caused by counterattacking the other person. There should be no exercise of unnecessary power for personal protection. According to Bedau (428) capital punishment lack fairness from the manner in which it is executed. For example, if a person murdered another one and is taken to court, the execution of his death may be more lenient that which he or she committed. This may be the case if for example the penalty is executed through electrocution. This form of death may be more tolerable than killing by strangling or any other method which the criminal may have used. Also in some place like United States of America, substantial racism prevails because black Americans are likely to be killed compared to white counterparts even if they committed similar offense. This implies that the actual meaning of punishing the crime is not achieved due to failure to follow the right channel of charging for the crime (Newsweek, 0209). In addition, suspects of crimes are taken before the authority and legal processes followed to decide the case. This may take several months or year before it comes to completion. Even after the bench ruling that the criminal will be hanged; the process may take some time. This will end up causing additional pain to the guilty person which was not the case with the victim of murder. This implies unfairness in execution on death penalty because delayed justice is justice denied. According to Haag (365) the law mandates police, judges and other parties responsible for maintaining peace and order to administer penalty to victims of law breakers. There is no specific penalty designed for any form of offense. Also, he argues that although human beings can make error, such people responsible for executing the law and equality in the society ensure they have gathered enough confirmation regarding a certain crime or offence. Therefore, it is not against the law to execute death penalty to the criminals. It is the duty of the executors to ensure they have enough facts regarding the offender and are free to administer the penalty which the offender deserves. However, he argues that what matters according to the law is to ensure fairness in administration penalty. The form of punishment given for similar crimes should be consistent and should not show discrepancy. According to Haag (369) the main rationale for executing the offenders is to make other criminals shy to commit more offenses. The studies have indicated that for one offender sentenced to death, there is decline in attempt to commit offense by eight potential suspects. Therefore, death penalty to offenders will discourage other potential offenders from facing similar charges in the court of law. After all taking people to prison is not enough charge to prevent others from repeating the same blunder. Therefore, penalty to be administered to law breakers should be severe enough to cause fear to potential offenders. This will serve the community fairly because it will result to decline in the number of crimes committed. This will also save innocent people who would likely fall victims of assault by the law breakers. Therefore, it is better to destroy one life of an offender and save several others of innocent people rather than to spare the life of a criminal and lose several lives of blameless people. Administration of death penalty to law the breakers is not a supreme way dealing with the criminals (Bedau, 416). This is because; there is no guarantee that the offenders will continue breaking the law after they are set free. They should be given a chance to reform and become law abiding citizens. Furthermore, death execution undermines the meaning of human life. Killing of lawbreakers in the society lead to loss of human dignity, leads to inequality in and fails to meet the purpose of warning other intended law breakers from committing more crimes. However, critics believe that the law allows administration of different penalties including killing. They further argue that for every one person killed, there is a reduction of crimes by eight offenders. Part B Right and Justice of State to Punish a Crime In a free nation, individuals have free will to choose what to do and what not to. They behavior either imitate what others are doing or divert from the conduct of other members of the society. Where individual behavior contradicts acceptable norms in the society, the state will step in to restore fairness and order in the society (Murphy, 0344). A person may act contrary to the social ethics and still think they are acting ethically because the individuals behavior are guided by their own conscience of right and wrong. But in a free nation people should do what they think is good for them regardless of what other people view it as long as it does not infringe their rights. In a free society, people have a full control of their own will. People behave consciously or unconsciously in response to emerging needs. They engage in activities which may be considered irrelevant or relevant by other people (Murphy, 0345). However, there are set rules and regulations to govern the individual behavior and assist from interfering with the independence of other people. When they go beyond the boundaries of those regulations, this is considered as individual’s choice for penalty. After, all individuals in the society drive some advantage from those regulations. Therefore, going against them deserves penalty in the same way they create benefit by adhering to them. Deviating from social norms leads to infringing of sufferings to other members of the community. For example, taking other people’s property will result to suffering of the blameless people. Since all citizens comprehends the laws of the society and knows what they should do and what not to do, going against those regulations calls for penalty from the government (Katz, 0324). The purpose of the penalty by the state is to promote fairness to all members of the society. It is individual’s decision to go against the norms hence their choice to face penalty. The government functions to establish equality for all people in the society. Offenders make arrangement either as individuals or as a group to execute a specific plan. This mainly targets fulfill specific mission but generally not to cause harm to anyone (Murphy, 0347). However, in most cases innocent people fall victims of the offenders. When these people are caught during the execution of their strategies, they may turn violent hence hurting innocent people. Generally criminals follow well structured strategies and they keep recruiting new members in their gang (Kartz, 0324). The government has right to intervene and penalize the offenders. The purpose of doing this is to serve as warning to the nation so that they can discourage other people from committing crimes in future. Therefore, mainly penalties are imposed to form a future lesson for others to learn. Regardless of whether someone truly committed the offense or is innocent, execution will make others shun from engaging in criminal activities. In doing so, the state will be playing a significant role of promoting justice in the society. If the offenders are allowed to go scot free, the state will have promoted injustice in the society. Sometimes young people get lured into committing offence by their peers. However, it is therefore essential for the government to establish rules and regulations to guide individuals in realizing what is acceptable and what is morally wrong. People cannot claim that they are treated unfairly because they acted innocently. Regardless of whether individuals acted out of their own will or under the influence of their peers is immaterial. What matters is adherence to the social norms which are the guiding principles of the individuals’ conducts. Rules and regulations in the society play a significant function in the society. They create a gauge for people to examine their conduct and straighten their actions. They enable the individuals to decide the action to be taken depending on their acceptability in the community. They determine the extent to which individual can carry out the activities without infringing the independence of others (Murphy, 0348). Without guiding principles, individuals may engage in offences without their knowledge. The rules and regulations help to play a role of creating consciousness to the individuals about the society expectations of them. The state has responsibility to install corrective mechanism to ensure that all individuals’ conducts are in accordance to the set norms. When an individual or a group goes contrary to the laws of the land, they should be penalized to make them turn away from their deviant actions. Punishment will make them realize their mistakes and feel ashamed. They will consider themselves as failures and will try to rectify their characters. Criminal activities are driven by antisocial behavior and individualism. There is also a possibility that people will engage in offences to gain materially and cover the economic gap. However, the sense of integrity is created by rules and regulations in the society. This will make the individual to change the habit and desire to live a decent life. The state should punish those who deviate from norms to make them realize the need for living a decent life. Without rules there is no penalty (Murphy, 0346). The individual should observe the rules and regulations of the society as a sign of patriotism. State is the mediator between individuals and ethics social ethics. If individuals are left to act on their own without state intervention, there will be a lot of disparity in the society. People will infringe the rights of others either intentionally or unconsciously (Murphy, 0347). The state therefore plays a significant role in punishing the offenders as a way of reducing disparity. They also punish individuals to make them law abiding citizens (Katz, 0315). Without laws, individuals can do anything the wish since there no measure to distinguish between right and wrong. The state should therefore intervene to create fairness in the society. They do so helping the deviants to reform and also offering protection to those who are likely to fall victim of the alleged criminals. Penalty to the deviants by the state is not infringement of the individual behavior but justice to the society. State has right to penalize deviant characters in the society when their behavior goes contrary to the set laws. They help individuals to reform and act in accordance to the public expectations. They help individuals to act consciously rather than following the multitude by regulating their conducts. In doing this, the state helps to maintain law and order in the society (Katz, 0324). Since individuals sometimes act under the influence of others, the state regulates such individuals and help to protect innocent people who would otherwise fall prey of uncouth performance. They help to restore peace in the nation and create fairness. Works Cited Bedau, Hugo, A. A Matter. of Life and Death. 415-429 Haag, Ernest, V.D. In Defense of Capital Punishment. 363-374 Katz, Evil, J. Seductions of Crime Moral and Sensual Attractions in· Doing Basic. Books, Inc., Publishers New York 0312-0330 Murphy, Jeffries G. Philosophy of Law Marxism and Retribution Wadsworth Publishing Company Belmont, California 341-350 A Division of Wadswonh. lnc. Newsweek. The Death Penalty On Trial: Special Report: DNA And Other Evidence Freed87 People From Death Row; Now Ricky Mcginn Is Roiling Campaign 2000.Why America's Rethinking Capital Punishment.(National Affairs)(Brief article) June 12, 2000 209-O211 Read More