Capital Punishment and Tortures - Essay Example

Critically discuss the criminological debates justifying the use of capital punishment and the torturing of suspects. Give examples to support your views. While the issues of capital punishment and the torture of suspects present contrasting pragmatic and ethical concerns, they each revolve around the concept of how far a society can and should go in protecting itself against those who have broken its laws. Where should the balance of the rights of the suspect and the rights of society to protect itself be placed (Blom-Cooper, 1969) Further, what effect do draconian punishments such as the death penalty have upon the society in which they occur, and what effect does the torturing of suspects, particularly in terrorist cases, have upon the same This analysis will argue that both the death penalty and the torturing of prisoners are both unethical and pragmatically counter-productive, and neither should be used within Britain. There are pragmatic and ethical reasons that supporters put forward for the death penalty. First is that it deters against violent crime, and second that it is a just punishment for taking another human life. Taking the deterrence argument first, as the course module suggests, "those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty actually is a deterrent." Yet numerous studies have shown that the death penalty is no more a deterrent than life imprisonment, and indeed, those countries such as the United States who widely use the death penalty actually have the highest murder rates in the industrialized world (Bowers and Pierce, 1980). The brutalizing effect of the death penalty, particularly through well-publicized, infamous executions may actually bring about more murders as there is a general atmosphere of acceptable violence within a society (Zimring, 2003). There is thus no concrete proof that the death penalty actually deters violence, and indeed, the opposite may be true. As the module suggests, "those states in the US that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than the states that do". This argument against the deterrence effect is further bolstered by the fact that many murders are spur of the moment, emotional outbursts, often within a domestic situation, in which the consequences are not truly considered. These murders are committed by normally rational people while in a temporary state of irrationality in which judgment as to consequences is impossible (deathpenalty, 2007). It is these domestic murders that are most often solved. The 'professional' type of murder such as that which exists within organized crime or within the more haphazard gang killings are similarly undeterred because far fewer of these cases are actually solved (Zimring, 2003). The other, much smaller category of murderers, serial and spree killers, are also unlikely to be undeterred. The first because capital punishment holds little fear for them because of their often objectified view of human worth, including their own (Lahey, 2002). The spree killer will not be deterred because he normally takes his own life at the end of the spree anyway. Capital punishment holds no fears for a dead person. The second major argument for the death penalty si based upon the idea of "justice" and "morality". This claims that it is ethical to have a death penalty because it is a just punishment for the taking of another life. This theory is based upon the "eye for an eye" type of mentality. But as the module suggests, "the concept of retribution is simply another way of describing revenge." In fact, "a mature and civilized society , , , should respect all life, even that of a murderer". So the moral argument against the death penalty is based upon the same set of ethics which makes murder the most serious crime within a society in the first place. The most valuable thing is a human life, according to this type of morality, and so all human life should be preserved, whatever the person has done. This argument against the death penalty can also be supported by the spectacles which surround the execution of infamous criminals. For example, when the serial killer Ted Bundy was being executed the crowd waiting outside chanted "Burn, Bundy, Burn!" and engaged in a number of other virtually medieval practices of blood lust (death penalty, 2007). Far from showing how much society values life, the death penalty actually cheapens it and makes those places that it occurs in far more immoral and primitive. One of the most powerful arguments against the death penalty is the tragic possibility of executing an innocent man. Once carried out, an execution cannot be reversed. The process of justice may have been flawed, leading to an uncertain or unjust conviction. As the module suggests, "a recent study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors . . .when the cases were retried, over 80% of defendants were not sentenced to death and 7 percent were completely acquitted". Indeed, with the development of new DNA tests, dozens of death row prisoners have been exonerated in the United States through the work of organizations such as "The Innocence Project" (innocence, 2007). Turning to the use of torture, as with capital punishment there are both pragmatic and ethical reasons which argue that it should not be used. First of all, it is quite clear from numerous studies that the torture of suspects simply does not work (Lahey, 2002). The suspect is likely to say anything that he thinks that his tormentor wants to hear in order to make the pain stop. This is an unlikely system to produce reliable information or confessions (Lahey, 2002). The current debate on the treatment of extreme terrorist subjects shows that it is far better to try to "befriend" a subject and to "turn him" than to torture him (Greenberg, 2005). Torture simply does not work. A second argument against torture is also based upon pragmatism. If one side uses torture, then the other side may use it freely as well. Laws against torture such as the Geneva Conventions are designed to protect all parties involved in a conflict rather than just some. For example, if the British government condones the use of torture on terrorist suspects, or aids and abets the Americans in torturing people, can it complain when its own soldiers are captured and tortured The use of torture makes it much easier for all sides to use it, thus leading to a generally more barbaric world. The strongest arguments against the use of torture are essentially ethical ones, related to absolute standards of morality, together with the fact that if the State grants itself the right to torture suspects then it has essentially turned itself into a totalitarian monster rather than a democratic servant of the people. Some may relate this to the government's new concentration upon "victim's rights" rather than upon "defendant's rights", but in fact this is just a slippery method of giving the government more power. Giving victims more rights is not necessarily related to taking away defendants' or convicted prisoners' rights: the two are not mutually interdependent. The main argument against torture is that it dehumanizes the victims, the torturers and the society in which it occurs. Most modern democratic societies have long ago left behind the idea that torture can be justified under any circumstances. It is not accident that torture was officially banned by the United Nations in 1945, just after the end of the Second World War. The nations of the Earth decided that it was no longer appropriate to condone or practice behavior that had, at least in part led to the deaths of tens of millions of people in WWII. The dehumanization of one person leads to the dehumanization of all, and the whole of society suffers as a result. Some can give highly unique circumstances in which torture might be justified. The first is the "nuclear bomb" scenario in which a terrorist group has planted a nuclear bomb in a major city that will kill hundreds of thousands if it explodes. The authorities have a terrorist in custody who knows where the bomb is located. Would torture be justified in this situation Any sensible person would probably answer "yes" in this situation, even through it moves their ethical stand against torture from an absolute to a relative status. But the likelihood of this situation actually occurring is rather remote, as is the possibility of finding a terrorist who would actually know where the bomb is located. This lack of likelihood is vital to the consideration of whether torture should be legalized. A codification of torture within the law would mean that it could be used in many different scenarios that are not as dangerous as the one outlined. In the case above, torture would probably need to be used, but a unique circumstance does not need to be put into the law. Some situations are essentially beyond the law. This is of course dangerous precedent, but a mature and civilized society can realize that certain exceptional situations call for certain exceptional measures. There is no need to codify these measures, as the government will probably use them whether they are legal or not. As a noted American Professor said of the United States Constitution - "it is not a suicide note" (Greenberg, 2005). In the most extreme cases torture may be used, but it should never be a legitimated tool of law enforcement. To conclude, the debates surrounding the death penalty and torture are vitally important. In many ways a country shows what type of society it is through its attitude towards these subjects. In general the public is far more reactionary that its representatives on this matter: a majority have sided with the death penalty ever since it was abolished in Britain. With the advent of various terrorist plots and actual acts such as the 7/7 bombings it seems as if the public would also support the use of torture. But laws should not be made according to the feelings of the emotion, or through expediency based upon public pressure. The full consequences of laws should be considered in a rational and balanced manner, carefully analyzed and then put into effect if the advantages outweigh the problems. Laws based upon revenge, fear or pure emotion have no place within a modern democratic society where moderation rather than extremism should be the norm. ___________________________________ Works Cited Blom-Cooper, LJ. (Ed.) (1969) The Hanging Question: Essays on the Death Penalty. London: Duckworth. Bowers. W. and Pierce, G. (1980). Deterrence of brutalization: what is the effect of executions Crime and Delinquency, 26, 453-484. Greenberg, Karen. The Torture Debate in America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2005. Lahey, Benjamin. Elements of Psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York: 2002. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org. Accessed 7/21/2007 www.innocenceproject.org. Accessed 7/21/2007 Zimring, FE. (2003). The Contradiction of American Capital Punishment. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More