Is Capital Punishment Morally Justifiable - Essay Example

Is Capital Punishment Morally Justifiable In the contemporary society moral norms are what give us guidance and allow orientating in a changing world. Those are moral norms we use for to teach the growing child what is good, and what is bad. As moral norms are developed through the moral reasoning, it is vital to be acquainted with this technique. This essay will apply moral reasoning to one of the most disturbing question the society faces nowadays, which is "Is capital punishment morally justifiable" In this essay we are going to use the eight stages of moral reasoning developed by Robert Gascoigne. 1. Definition The textbook says that "Moral questions usually involve a range of different issues, which do need to be distinguished from each other in order to be effectively treated." (Gascoigne, p. 200). Thus in this section we will define the exact questions concerning capital punishment we are going to discuss, and we will define the reasons for the death penalty we consider to be worth of discussing. The dilemma whether capital punishment is legitimate is in fact the question whether the society has the right to commit the deed it punishes its members for. In this essay we are going to deal with the death penalty that is given to the criminals who took the lives of other people intentionally. We are not going to consider the political causes for the capital punishment, as we presume that murdering a person who hasn't committed similar crime himself or herself is unjustified a priori. We are going to discuss a question of whether the death penalty is an adequate punishment for murder and sexual assault, and whether the society has the right to take the life of its members intentionally. Our main question here is whether the society has the right to legalize murder in order to deter potential criminals by the consequences of their deeds, and to take a revenge for the victim's sufferings. We should decide whether the existence of the capital punishment in our society conforms to the principles and ideals the members of this society declare they share. 2. Knowledge "We cannot develop a relevant moral norm unless we have detailed and specific knowledge of the situations in which this norm is intended to guide us." (Gascoigne, p.201). Thus in this section we have to get acquainted with the recent findings in the criminology of murder and talk about the types of murder that sometimes result in death penalty for people who commit them. There is some kind of psychological barrier in most of us engrafted by the society that doesn't allow us to take the life of other human being. The theory exists among some psychologists that when a person kills a man, this barrier is broken. In their opinion this is the main reason for which the criminals are isolated from society. Whether we agree with this theory or not, we should accept that a murderer is a person who has some alterations in his/her psychic, and he/she should be treated accordingly. An opinion exists that it is society that is guilty for the deeds of the criminals, as they are the products of its upbringing. It's true that the considerable part of people who committed violent crimes had suffered some form of abuse during their childhood years. The psychologists say that being violent becomes a normal path of action for those kids, and when they grow up, they continue to use this demeanor, as it proves its effectiveness to them. The statistics shows that most murders aren't planned and cruel ones; they rather happen in the state of affect within the family, among friends or lovers. There are also carefully planned murders committed for to allow the criminals to reach some of their goals. Some of the murders and assaults that happen are unprovoked, when the victim and the criminal don't know each other. An opinion exists that capital punishment is an effective method for crime prevention as it deters the potential criminals, but it's not supported by the statistical data. The thing is that in the countries, which abolished death penalty, the level of murders hasn't changed since the times they used capital punishment. It shows that the criminals will murder despite of the risk of being murdered themselves. The thing is that criminals are people whose patterns of thought, values and principles differ a lot from that of a normal human being. Lots of criminals aren't stopped by the threat of death penalty, as they are confident in their impunity. Taking a life of a man makes the murderer feel powerful, and punishment is the last thing the murderers remember about when robbing the victim of her life. 3. Empathy "Empathy is a crucial element in the process of moral reasoning since without empathy we do not consider the situation with moral seriousness.", says the textbook (Gascoigne, p.201). Luckily most of us haven't encountered with murder and weren't involved in this situation, thus we don't know the feelings of the murder, of the victim's relatives and friends and of the judges who have to decide whether to kill the murderer or let him live. To make a proper decision regarding this issue we should try to imagine the feelings of all the participants of this situation. It's obvious that most of people whose relative or friend was murdered, long for revenge. They are in grief because of the loss of the one they loved, and the realization of the fact that the life of that person was taken cruelly, and that he/she suffered before the death, makes them loath the murderer and long for him to be deprived of the right to breathe and see the light. It sometimes even happens that in case the suspected murderer is still free, or he/she has been let out, people who loved the victim take revenge themselves, by murdering the person they suspect. Fortunately, most of our citizens prefer to leave the punishment of the criminal to the state, but they still feel that it should be adequate to the crime he/she committed. In the same time we should take into account the factors that led to committing a murder. As we've already mentioned, most criminals are the spawn of the society that allows the abuse of children and teenagers to take place. Their behavior is the result of what they were taught. The murder never occurs unexpectedly, there are always signs of the fact that a person doesn't value human life much. Partly, it is the fault of the society, which lost control over one of its members, and of people who surrounded the murderer, who didn't notice the signs of abnormality in his behavior. And, without doubt, we shouldn't forget about the feelings a victim has as a result of traumatic violence, in case she manages to survive. In case the victim is dead we should remember that she had his/her own plans for this life, she loved and cared for someone, and that she, probably wanted to live her life happily. When working on this stage of moral reasoning another aspect of empathy should be considered. It is empathy towards the society. The societal moral encounters an ethical dillema here, which is whether the society has the right to take the life of one of its members to take a revenge for the other member. In the same time, it has to decide about the appropriate methods of protecting its members from the actions of the unhealthy individual. It's known that from 5 to 10% of the murderers who are let out repeat their crimes and some even manage to murder being in prison. Their victims are either their fellow inmates or the correctional officers, or some other personnel. The dilemma also exists which's whether a criminal should be murdered, or the society has to grant him a chance to become its normal member. 4. Tradition "Moral traditions can be of enormous benefit in developing our moral awareness and guiding our moral life, yet they can also narrow our moral horizons and lessen our readiness to appreciate the true meaning of new moral situations. When we approach moral questions, we need to ask ourselves how the traditions that influence us see these questions, both in order to learn from tradition and to criticize its limitations" (Gascoigne, p.203 ). Some philosophers say it is possible to find the solution to almost every of the societal problems existing; the question is whether the society will be ready to accept this solution. Before deciding on whether capital punishment is moral or not we should briefly analyze the attitudes that existed towards it throughout the history of humankind. For thousands of years capital punishment has been considered an adequate measure to be taken when the person committed some serious crimes. There are several reasons for this. The first is applicable mostly to the Christian world. It is that the Bible approves capital punishment. Thus lots of Christian countries have been using it to the present day. The other reason is purely economical. The thing is that before the technical revolution began there had been fewer prisons and the conditions of living there had been terrible. As the 20th century became the period of prosperity for many of the European and American countries, the penitentiary system developed accordingly. Thus now we have space and resources to keep people in prisons. For many centuries before this period it had been cheaper and, in, fact more humane for the government to murder a murderer instead of letting him live in prison. 5. Reasoning. Defining what human rights are involved in this situation is the crucial element of reasoning. In the situation we discuss we can determine the rights of the community (the rights to feel secure and to know that the criminal is punished for his deeds), the rights of the criminal (as every human being on this planet, a criminal has a right to live. The question is whether he/she lost this right because of his/her deed), and the rights of the authorities (whether the judges and the executors should be given the right to deprive person of his/her life). There are also four aspects of punishment that should be considered when talking about death penalty. The first is retribution, a penalty put on the person, as the crime was an act of his/her free will, and the criminal has to take responsibility for his/her deeds. The second is prevention, which's just protecting society from the further deeds of this person, and the third is reform, which means changing the criminals' attitude towards life, proposing them new principles and goals. The fourth is deterrence, for make other people see what happens to the ones who break the law. (Gascoigne, p. 218-219) 6. Judgement As for me, capital punishment is morally unjustifiable. Despite of the goals chased, murder is still murder, and by using capital punishment we just legalize this murder, make it authorized. Thus we raise the murderers in our society. We teach them how to kill, we pay them money for murdering, and we comfort them by saying it is the societal need in case they are nervous about their deeds. Another reason is that the statistic shows that death penalty doesn't give the expected effect for crime prevention. People still kill each other, despite of all the measures the state takes for to prevent it, and murdering for to discourage other people from murder sounds like making war for peace. As you see, moral reasoning is the effective instrument for making decisions concerning the debatable questions that arouse in our society. It allows to analyze the different aspects of the problem and to define the attitudes we have towards this problem. In my opinion moral reasoning should be used for to solve some of the societal problems worldwide. Reference 1. Gascoigne, R. Freedom and Purpose: An Introduction to Christian Ethics. Paulist Press, 2004 (p. 200-220) Read More