Deontologist on Capital Punishment - Essay Example

Deontologist on Capital Punishment Capital punishment has increasingly been offered as a solution to combat crime, especially because imprisonment in prison does not appear to function as an effective agent of rehabilitation. Adopting a deontological perspective on the issue of capital punishment would be based strictly upon morality; arguments could be offered both in favour of and against capital punishment on the basis of principle and what is believed to be the morally right position. In order to make the right moral choices on any issue, deontology requires that the correct moral rules are understood, as well as the means by which to execute those moral duties. There is also a greater stress on the reasons why certain actions are performed; actions must be backed by the correct motivations if they are to stand.(Cline, no date). Where the issue of capital punishment is concerned, there have been two different perspectives which have been applied. One of these is the consequentialist perspective, where punishment may be viewed to be fully justified in order to achieve the end objective of the general welfare of the public or the common good. The deontological approach on the other hand, does not adopt such a purely black and white perspective about the issue; rather it rejects the consequentialist view on the basis that certain constraints need to be imposed upon the infliction of punishment, irrespective of whether or not they can be justified by the resulting consequences. Hence the deontological approach may support the imposition of the death penalty, but the justification is different, i.e, it is important to carefully articulate what these constraints on the punishment should be and whether they can be justified in imposing capital punishment. Deontology may be characterized as a non consequentialist approach to ethics; as a result of which actions could be right or wrong irrespective of the consequences of those actions.(Constock, 2002:63) In general, the deontological approach would view killing as morally wrong and therefore capital punishment would not be justified. In raising the objection to the death penalty, the deontological approach would be to regard the imposition of the death penalty as a morally wrong option because it is a violation of the universal right to life. Bedau (1978) has argued against the imposition of capital punishment on the basis that punishment is justified only to the extent that it is required to prevent crime, rather than putting criminals to death. It may thus be argued from the deontological perspective that capital punishment is to be rejected because it is inhumane and cruel. Since deontology is rights based (Comstock, 2002), therefore interfering with a person’s right to life would be not be ethical; rather it would be morally correct to preserve the life and to ensure that the offender is corrected and rehabilitated into society by other means rather than capital punishment. Applying a moral perspective to this problem thereby implies that every individual has some basic human rights and restricting these human rights cannot be justified through the application of a consequentialist perspective on capital punishment for example, where it is held to be applicable in the interest of the many or for common benefit. In arriving at a judgment about whether or not a deed is ethical, consequences do not matter; so long as the intent of the agent is good, then the deed can be deemed to be ethical.(Vardy, 1999). The rights based approach in deontology can also be applied to argue in favour of the death penalty, i.e, murder is morally wrong and should therefore automatically be punishable by death. The justification provided under a deontological approach for the imposition of the death penalty is that it is a retributive measure against an individual who violates another person’s rights and can therefore be justified on this basis. This argument is based upon the premise that the guilty deserve to be punished, because moral considerations cannot outweigh the necessity to make the offender pay for his crime (Primoratz, 1989). The deontological perspective however, goes beyond this purely retributivist view and poses certain questions, such as (a) do the guilty really deserve to be punished as they deserve, and whether the person or authority that is punishing them actually knows what punishment it is that they deserve.(Bedau, 1978). But while such an examination would be taken up into the underlying issues related to capital punishment, the application of the deontological approach in arguing in favour of imposition of capital punishment would still be rights based. On the basis of the above, the following conclusions may be drawn in respect of capital punishment from a deontological perspective. Firstly, it is possible to argue both in favour of and against it. But both arguments would essentially apply two principles (a) they would have a strong moral foundation and the reasoning that led to the decision in favour of or against capital punishment would be guided through the application of strict standards of morality. Secondly, the justification offered would not be based upon the consequences that could be attained through the imposition of capital punishment; rather the justification would be rights based. A deontologist perspective would on an overall basis, reject capital punishment as a morally wrong action because (a) it is abhorrent to the general moral principle against the taking of a life and (b) it would violate the right that each individual has to life and the freedom to pursue it. Since the taking of life would be morally wrong and would also cause an infringement of individual rights, it would therefore be untenable and it cannot be justified on the basis that it produces a good consequence, i.e, the promotion of the common good. While the deontologist would on an overall basis argue that capital punishment is wrong, it is however also possible to argue in favour of application of this perspective to support the death penalty. In this instance, it could be argued that since an individual has taken the life of another person, he or she has violated moral norms and general moral principles that support and favour the propagation of life. Secondly, the murderer would have also violated the basic human right to life of the person s/he has killed and the freedom of that person to pursue his or her life. In this instance, the basic human rights of the murderer would have to be balanced against the basic human rights of the individual whose life s/he has taken. Applying the rights approach, since the murderer is guilty of violating the basic human rights of another, his or her rights become subordinated and therefore there is adequate justification that exists for capital punishment and taking the murderer’s life, as a means of retribution for the crime. The motivation of the individual will also play a role in this decision; for instance if a murder was carried out and the human right to life was violated purely for selfish reasons of the murderer, then there is inadequate justification for the murder to have taken place and capital punishment would be justified. Despite this argument however, on an overall basis the deontologist is likely to oppose capital punishment because (a) it is morally repugnant and (b) it is violative of the basic human right to life. References: Bedau, H.A. "Retribution and the Theory of Punishment," H. A., Journal of Philosophy, 75, pp. 601-20, (1978). Cline, Austin. “Deontology and ethics: what is Deontology, deontological ethics?”, http://atheism.about.com/od/ethicalsystems/a/Deontological.htm; (No Date) Comstock, Gary. “Life Science ethics”, Wiley, (2002). Primoratz, Igor. “Justifying Legal Punishment”, Humanities Press, (1989) Vardy, Peter. “The puzzle of ethics”, (2nd edn), Fount, (1999). Read More