Capital Punishment - a Question of Morality - Coursework Example

Capital Punishment: A Question of Morality Abstract We are taught as children that killing is wrong. All of our secular laws prohibit it, though religious tenets often seem to make exceptions for certain circumstances. The fact that capital punishment exists at all tells us there is public support for state-sponsored killing. Citing an ABC/Washington Post poll, Langer (2001) shows 46 percent of respondents favoring the death penalty for murder. (Langer, 2001, para. 4) However, Langer (2001) “finds broad agreement with two other arguments against the death penalty: That it's applied unfairly across jurisdictions, and that innocent people are sometimes executed” (Langer, 2001, para. 5). Factoring in these statements which we know to be true, Langer (2001) offers additional information a moral theorist finds disturbing. “While support for the death penalty is widely known, polls less frequently delve into the public's ambivalence about it...” a fact attributed to the “...growing sense that the death penalty does not ( as purported) act as a deterrent to murder...” (Langer, 2001, para. 4). If it isn’t a pragmatic tool for social control, an analysis of the social acceptance of the practice must conclude that it is part of a status quo mentality that accepts the death penalty as a vehicle for societal revenge despite the immorality and injustice of its uneven and often mistaken application. Moral Inequities and Hypocrisy in State Sponsored Killing Because we are a nation fixated on our religious underpinnings, our laws and practices are thought to be, or presented as moral. "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian” (United States Supreme Court, 1892). The legal Constitutionality of capital punishment was upheld by the Supreme Court in a ruling as late as 1976. The state is consistently in its dealings with and positions taken with the behavior of other countries assuming a moral high ground, which many say we have lost in our involvement with the war with Iraq. “The mission of the U.S. military in Iraq can never be moral, just, and consistent with the principles of Christianity” (Vance, 2007, para. 3). As stated before, for a nation consistently reinforcing the notion that it was founded on the basic and most binding Christian principles (Thou Shalt Not Kill), the “eye for an eye” argument that those principles are somehow not applicable to capital punishment seems a matter of convenience at best. Two arguments Vance (2007) makes against the war apply particularly to capital punishment: “It is immoral because it is not defensive... and because the state can’t sanctify murder” (Vance, 2007, para. 5;8). Capital punishment, then, is not moral because we are not defending ourselves (the act has already been committed) and because as evidenced throughout history, states often murder at will for political, social and religious reason (in the case of capital punishment, biblical revenge). It can not therefore be trusted as the determinant for sanctioned killing of any kind. As long as the U.S. insists its laws and traditions are based on Christian principles it is hypocritical to assume it has the right and obligation to decide whether or not to apply capital punishment or any other version of state-sponsored killing. Since the 1976 Supreme Court decision affirming the state’s (legal) right to inflict capital punishment, Aiken writes in her ...Aristotelian Justification of Capital Punishment, “The task of moral justification has been left to philosophers who continue to debate the permissibility, based on ethical principles, of punishment by death” (Aiken, para 1). Thus the Aristotelian Theory of Rectificatory Justice which summarized states that what is taken from another must be restored in kind is used as a defense of capital punishment as a justified quid pro quo—a life for a life. Other justifications, according to Aiken are suggested in “Immanuel Kant’s theory of retributivism and John Stuart Mill’s consequentialist approach” (Aiken, para. 2). That the theories of either man (atheists) would be used to justify capital punishment in a nation whose morality in this situation is clearly based on Christian precepts is ironic. In arguing for the application of the theories to justify capital punishment we are arguing for application of moral theories without, in essence, morality in the Christian sense. As Mills ethical theories suggest, “’The principle itself of dogmatic religion, dogmatic morality, dogmatic philosophy, is what requires to be booted out; not any particular manifestation of that principle’" (Mills, quote 3). If the U.S. accepted this notion we would, indeed, be able to better justify capital punishment through some ethical intellectual pathway. There would be, as well, true separation of church and state, which, in the minds of most, does not actually exist. Unequal Application of Capital Punishment Further argument can be made based on the earlier suggestion by the Supreme Court that the U.S. Constitution is not based on complex philosophical secular theory but on a “Christian” notion of morality that “all men are created equal.” The unequal application of capital punishment infringes upon that precept. Bedau (1992) in his essay The Case Against the Death Penalty states, “there has been substantial evidence to show that courts have been arbitrary, racially biased, and unfair in the way in which they have sentenced some persons to prison but others to death” (Bedau, Unfairness, para. 1). Racial bias, it would seem, is the major culprit in this injustice. Bedau writes that an early 90s report of the U.S. General Accounting Office to the Congress concluded “’Our synthesis of the 28 studies shows a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty...’ and that "race of victim influence was found at all stages of the criminal justice system process....’" (Bedau, Unfairness, para. 6). Serious moral and ethical issues also arise regarding jury selection, prompting questions related to the morality and ethics of lawyers in trials and the similar makeup of those charged with determining guilt or innocence. Political goals of prosecutors have also come into question, particularly in capital punishment cases which normal garner great public attention. Given such realities, it is impossible to suggest that the notion of equality enters into the process that ultimately means life or death for a defendant. To ignore such realities in favor of pursuing what appears a highly prejudiced quid pro quo is not only unjust, but highly immoral from the standpoint of insuring the philosophical concept of equality for all. Sinclair (2009) writes, “It... creates a bizarre situation where one defendant can be convicted of multiple murders and given a life sentence in one jurisdiction while another defendant commits a single murder in a far less heinous manner in another jurisdiction and is given a death sentence” (Sinclair, para. 1). Sinclair (2009) further suggests that justice would still be eluded even if the penalty was somewhat regularized. “...even if the death penalty system could establish standardized, fixed guidelines that would require imposition of the death sentence based upon specific criteria, the inequities and injustices would continue” (Sinclair, para. 7). Capital Punishment as a Deterrent Judge Antonin Scalia (2002)equates his pro capital punish view with a strict interpretation of the constitution and challenges the view of former Justice Harold Blackmun that voting for execution he would become “part of the machinery of death” (Scalia, para. 4). Scalia states, “I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral” (Scalia, para. 4). Yet Scalia goes on to express his opinion regarding judges who refuse to be a part of capital punishment cases. “I pause here to emphasize the point that in my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own” (Scalia, para. 8). While all this sounds rather Millsian, it departs severely from the humanistic view that includes considerations of relevance. In other words, Scalia is admitting that there are questions of morality involved here but avoids them by insisting that the state, with all of its prejudices mentioned, is still the ultimate power and that decisions should be made on that basis alone. For Scalia, questions of justice, equality and hence morality do not or should not in his view enter into the decision. We are to ignore statistics that insist capital punish has failed as a deterrent. Projecting into his intention, we should accept several dictates: the principles (Christian) as stated in the original document should not be reinterpreted and that the document is not “living” and subject to current interpretation. He avoids discussing whether or not the death sentence has been imposed fairly as fairness and justice are defined. He is a legal automaton without moral conviction except when convenient, as in the issue of abortion. This hardly seems to coincide with the earlier Supreme Court pronouncement that, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind”—the Redeemer, as identified, would be Jesus, who it is unlikely would be in agreement with putting someone to death under any circumstances, but particularly those enumerated which include injustice, lack of fairness and equality not to mention morality. The Morality of Revenge MS (2008) suggests the moral implications of revenge in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. “The thirst for revenge affects Hamlet's moral outlook because he wants Claudius to suffer Hell. The only problem is that Hamlet, as well, will go to Hell. He has no chance of survival because it is pre-meditated... Indeed, the want for the avenger to negatively apply more pain to the murderer than he did his victim, obstructs clear moral thought” (MS, p. 3). Similar criticism can be applied in the instance of capital punishment and the state’s rationale that the victim must be avenged and his or her loved ones placated. MS disputes the erroneous “peace of mind” achieved through such actions. “...the avengers believe that their loss will be less when their deceased loved one is avenged” and that the revenge itself “is all about the reward” (MS, p. 3). Jones, citing statistics in a Gallup poll (2003), indicated that of people questioned a significant number, 37 percent, included revenge in their reason for supporting the death penalty, while justice and fair punishment came in at an insignificant 4 percent and 3 percent respectively, telling statistics that appear to indicate a feeling of personal vindictiveness against wrongdoers that has little to do with justice, morality or any consideration other than a prurient hostility. The same Gallop poll (2003) found that 11 percent in support of the death penalty did so to save taxpayer money for incarceration, a view completely devoid of moral consideration and, for that matter, any consideration of what is or what is not just given the reasons stated throughout this paper. That a nation which prizes the individual as highly as it does, this is counter intuitive. That the society at large would blindly disregard the unfairness of this punishment; its failure as a deterrent;, its potential to single out certain groups for application, not to mention the horrific physical aspects of execution which have lately come to light is an astounding affront not only to the basic constitutional precepts we hold but the moral values we project. In conclusion, the evidence presented taken in total presents an air tight case for life sentencing over the death penalty. Instead of the barbaric practice of execution, which diminishes our culture, life sentencing not only preserves our humanity and moral sense but as a practical measure allows for correction of unjust sentencing in case of innocence, and provide guilty parties an opportunity for personal redemption. In the words of Chief Justice William J. Brennan (1976) “...pointless infliction of excessive punishment when less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates the punishment” (Brennan 1976). References Aiken, Sarah. Just violence: An Aristotelian justification of capital punishment. California State University at Chico. Retrieved November, 10, 2009 from http://www.csuchico.edu/pst/JustViolence.htm Bedau, Hugo Adam. (July 1992). The case against the death penalty written for: Capital punishment project American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, D.C. 2002. ISBN 0-86566-063-8. Retrieved November 9, 2009 from http://users.rcn.com/mwood/deathpen.html#Preface Brennan, William J. (July 2, 1976). Qtd. on Website: Notable Quotes. Retrieved November 9, 2009 from http://www.notablequotes.com/d/death_penalty_quotes.html Jones, Jeffrey M. (June 3, 2003). Understanding Americans’ support for the death penalty. Retrieved November 10, 2009 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/8557/Understanding-Americans-Support-Death- Penalty.aspx Langer, Gary. (May 10, 2001). Analysis Death penalty ambivalence: Poll points to support for execution moratorium in U.S. Retrieved November 9, 2009 from http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010504_deathpenalty.html Mills, John Stuart. qte. Website: The Infidels.org. Retrieved November 11, 2009 from http://www.theinfidels.org/zunb-johnstuartmill.htm MS. (October 27, 2008). The morality of revenge in Hamlet. Retrieved November 9, 2009 from www.associatedcontent.com/article/1122626/the morality of revenge in hamlet pg3 pg3.html?cat=38 Scalia, Antonin. (May, 2002). God’s justice and our’s. Antonin Scalia on Capital Punishment). Posted Friday, June 07, 2002 5:08:47 PM by Caleb1411. Retrieved November 9, 2009 from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/696464/posts Sinclair, Billy. (May 25, 2009) Jury discretion: A problem with death penalty. Site title: Crime. Courage. Redemption: The Journey of Billy and Jody Sinclair. Retrieved November 10, 2009 from http://www.capitalpunishmentbook.com/?p=194 The Bible and the Constitution. Retrieved November 10, 2009 from http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage17.html Vance, Lawrence M. (June 11, 2007). The morality of the Iraq war. Website: LewRockwell.com. Opening remarks in a debate concerning the morality of the Iraq War...(June 9, 2007). Retrieved November 9, 2009 from http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance112.html . Read More