In Support of the Death Penalty - Research Paper Example

In Support of the Death Penalty Introduction From the ethical perspective of philosopher John Rawls who said that justice should be described as“ a fair system of arrangements; one that the parties can agree to without knowing how it will benefit them personally” , the death penalty must be considered just and right as it creates a fair balance between the act that has been committed and the punishment that has been dealt (Williams 78). Rawls supports the idea of an original position from which society chooses principles based on a veil of ignorance, its ideal judicial system developed not from personal tastes and interests, but from a socially moral position. From this perspective, the death penalty creates a balance between the offender and the victim, his life forfeited to insinuate the balance between his crime and his punishment. The Political Position of the World The global community does not have political support for the death penalty with very few states using this form of punishment. However, the United States has a strong support of the punishment within its citizens, thus many of the states have legalized its use. While the debate about the use of the death penalty often does not include the concept of death, death itself is an end to suffering. Victims are often neglected for the sake of the rights of the offenders, with forgiveness being forced by the state and a sense of vengeance left unfulfilled, providing no closure for the families of victims. The death penalty is appropriate when crimes have create victims that have been heinously harmed, the lives of offenders taken in order to provide justice and closure to the families. According to Amnesty International, in 1977 there were only 16 countries in the world that did not support the death penalty. By 2009, this number had ballooned up to 139. Only 18 countries executed prisoners in 2009. China executed thousands of their prisoners, but because they will not release statistics to the world community, the exact number is unknown. Iran executed 388, Iraq executed 120, Saudi Arabia executed 69, and the United States executed 52 prisoners from death row. The United States was the only Western democracy to have put prisoners to death in 2009. The type of community that the United States tries to become, the enlightened society that is always the goal of our people, does not seem to be congruous with the use of the death penalty as a form of punishment. The other countries on the list seem to have no ideological parallels to the founding principles that formed the philosophy of the United States. According to a 2008 Gallop poll (Appendix 1), the people of the United States have been in steady support of the death penalty, except for a short window between 1963 and 1967 where the support of the death penalty wavered slightly and the supporting citizens and those against the death penalty crossed with both having figures in the forty percent range. In 2008, 64% of the poll responders supported the death penalty with 30% being against the state sanctioned executions, with 8% having no opinion. Despite the global opinion that the death penalty is beyond the rights of the state to take actions, the people of the United States support the death penalty. Execution and the World The divergence of the opinions of the world in comparison to the United States would appear to state something about the culture that makes it different than other Western nations. There are some who might say that this support is indicative of the level of maturity within the U.S. and that the larger community has not attained the level of enlightenment needed to live through compassion and mercy (Barak 170). According to Bae, however, the European opinion polls actually reflect similar statistics in support of the death penalty, despite the fact that those states have all abolished capital punishment as a form of justice (100). Therefore, it is not a sign of more or less maturity that brings the people in support of the death penalty, but the will of the state to either support or deny the opinions of the people. According to Wolff, political philosophy is the philosophy of the state. As he discusses the concept of authority, he brings to the forefront that the group of people who hold authority have it because they claim it, they have taken the right to be obeyed, whether by birth, election, or force. Whomever is the authority of a land is so because when the opportunity came to have it, they claimed it (8). In contrast, the right and obligation of a person to autonomy comes into conflict with the concept of authority. Wolff suggests that “the primary obligation of a man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled” (18), but he also states that a person is responsible for their actions, thus the tension between authority and autonomy must be refined. Where the line is drawn between personal rights to autonomy and the rights of the state to have authority is the ideological basis of the United States, its founders suggesting that the rights of the state does not supersede the individual rights of the person. Therefore, the right to have life comes into conflict with the death penalty as it is put to the question whether or not the state has the right to take life from an individual. This is the debate that rages within the world, and most of the world has acquiesced to the idea that the state has no right to take the inalienable right of life from an individual. Social contract theory, defines the relationship between people and groups through contractual obligations and reciprocal social relationships. However, Hobbes argues that a “peaceful and unified society was made possible only through the renunciation of certain individual rights: a contractual obligation linked the individual with a sovereign state that guaranteed order and harmony under the rubric of positive law”(Smith 16). Through social contract theory, the state has the right to take a life when an individual has broken his or her contract in such a way as to owe as much as a life. This has been determined by defining types of crimes that are so horrible that no less of a remuneration would be satisfactory. The Debate over the Death Penalty This, however, brings the discussion back to Rawls, who can then be clarified by Kant’s interpretation of deduction. In creating a deduction about the right of the state to take the life of an offender, one can say that because it has done so, it has the right. However, moral argument would interject the contemplation of whether having done so suggested that it can as the same as having said that it should take life. Whether the state can take life and whether the state should take life are two different debates, the first answered very swiftly through deduction, while the second answered through an examination of Rawls. The debate over whether to abolish the death penalty most often centers on the process of the justice system on proceeding towards the death penalty rather than the actual commission of taking someone’s life. According to Morgan, there are three concerns that this debate is centered upon. The first issue that is often debated is that of the method of execution. The debate often centers on whether or not the method of death is accomplished in a humane way. The second issues is about the humanity of leaving a death row inmate to languish in anxiety on death row, waiting for all of his or her appeals to run out and for the state to finally act on the judicial intent of the sentence. The third issue is concerned with the reality of the guilt of innocence of the offender. If an offender has been falsely convicted of a crime then an execution is the ultimate conclusive injustice of the state (278). There is something to be said for all three reasons that there is fear of using execution as a form of punishment. As a humane society, it is important to execute people in a manner that is quick and efficient, the punishment not being the pain of death, but the loss of one’s life. As well, the support of the truth must be made. A conviction of someone who is to be put to death must be made based on a provable set of truths. The convicted must be the actual defender, not only because convicted, but because the proof that the crime was committed is irrefutable. Through the knowledge of this truth, executions should not be postponed for years, the cruelty of keeping someone on the edge of death, inching up to the moment of execution only to feel the false hope of a last minute reprieve, must never be inflicted on someone by the state. This imposed madness does not reflect well on the culture of the United States. Through the social contract theory, however, the right to perform the execution is a reciprocal right in regard to the actions of the offender. The offender had taken a life and violated the rights of the victim, thus his own rights are forfeit to the state. This would include the right to life. Whether or not a society deems that is appropriate to formulate the execution in a more humane nature or to create a swift form of justice is within the prevue of the philosophical argument made by Rawls, that a society has the obligation to create structures that are defined by what is generally considered appropriate within that society. Therefore, the ways in which execution is carried out must be decided through the ideological foundation of the state, fueled by its moral and ethical boundaries. However, the obligation that the state holds to give authority over to the reciprocal social relationships within its province demands that a life be forfeit when a life has been taken. Death Sylvia Plath said “Dying is an art…I do it extremely well”(Morgan 279: Fischer 341). Both Morgan and Fischer use Plath as a way of introducing their discourse on death. Plath is the feminine symbol of death, the woman who opened her arms and embraced it as a better alternative to life, writing about it as if it was ever present in her awareness of life. Death is a natural part of life, something that every living creature is slowly moving towards as time passes. The debate on whether or not the death penalty should exist is rarely centered on death. The debate rarely is discussed concerning whether or not it is morally wrong for the state to take life. Fischer states “It is a perennial philosophical puzzle how death can be bad for the individual who dies” (341). The debate about the effect of death as a punitive measure must be a considered thought about the effect of death upon the individual who is put to death. The punishment exists within the placement on death row, or in the pain that is caused in bringing about the execution. However, death itself may or may not be a punishment, depending on the reality of the afterlife. If putting a criminal to death is sending him to a place where he is eternally punished for his deeds, then death is a severe punishment indeed. However, if after death there is nothing but decay and the process to dust, a lack of life within the shell and the light of the individual cast into oblivion, then death itself may not have much of a punitive value. In either case, the circumstances of death bears no reflection on death itself. Justice Served According to Williams, there are two principles of justice that form the Original Position. The first principle is that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with the liberty of others” (78). The second principle is that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) to the greatest benefit to the least advantaged and b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity” (79). While the second has relevance to the debate on how the social and economic effects on the classes can contribute to illegal activity, the first is relevant to the ways in which offenders and victims are treated within the United States. There is an imbalance within the justice system that creates a circumstance in which the victim becomes almost irrelevant to the justice that is met out by the state. This means that the liberty that one person deprives another of during the commission of a crime is without balance to the liberties that the state affords the offender. The death penalty, if it was defined by a set of laws that addressed the three major debates about execution, provides a balanced sense of justice that equilibrates liberty within the social contract when victims are left behind after a heinous crime. The relationship between the justice system in the United States and the victims of crimes is estranged. According to the way in which the culture thinks about justice, it is not the victim who the punishment of the offender is intended to affect, but the state. Crimes are charged on behalf of the state, not as a way of compensating or repairing the damage that has been done to the victim, but as a means of protecting society. This philosophy is flawed in that the victims of crimes are not victimized once, but are left with the effects of their crimes without much consideration of their suffering. The entire judicial process is centered on its effect on the offender, the closure and justice for the victim a secondary consideration to all other parts of the process. There are some programs that focus on the victim. Restorative justice programs have been begun throughout the United States which allow for offenders to make amends towards victims through mediated interventions between the offender and the victim. The purpose of the program is to repair the relationship between the victim, the offender, and the state, binding the triad so that the future of the community is built upon a true sense of forgiveness. Reamer suggests that this type of justice can be made between the victims of heinous crimes and offenders. The intent is to “actively engage citizens in the administration of justice (216). Forgiveness and Vengeance One of the attributes that is most valued in the religious philosophically based society of the United States is the concept of forgiveness. According to Griswold, “forgiveness is the foreswearing of revenge”. In other words, to forgive someone is to suggest that there will be no retribution taken against the debt of an offense. The United States has a forced concept of forgiveness built into its system. It is illegal to take vengeance against an offender. This job is left to the state. Conceptually, the idea that forgiveness is not offered after an offense puts a black mark on the ethics and morality of the one who is unwilling to forgive. While this is the official philosophical point of view of the culture within the United States, this is not reflected in artistic reflections of the cultural view. Films and television often revolve around plots that allow for vengeance to be taken, not by law enforcement, but by those who were most affected by a heinous act, or their representative. In Saudi Arabia, harsh penalties are met out for the crimes that are committed. Mackey states that “the goal in the treatment of any person who violates the rules is never rehabilitation but the defense of the Islamic society; the idea of justice is inseparable from punishment” (270). The ideology of justice cannot be divorced from punishment or it is believed that the fall of order will happen shortly after. While the idea of vengeance runs contrary to the basic ideology of the United States, the human need to be satisfied for wrongs committed against them runs strong. Justice should be just, dealt in regard to the victim and not in regard to a translucent concept that crime is committed against a state. This means that the incarceration of those who commit victimless crimes is unreasonable, that white collar crime should require financial restitution rather than incarceration, and heinous crimes should be swiftly avenged through the use of the death penalty in order to provide appropriate closure to the families of victims Conclusion When a terrible deed is committed against someone, that person deserves to be acknowledged, the value of their life matched in the importance of the sentence that is given for having taken that life. To be clear, the death penalty should be used when someone has committed a senseless, violent crime that has resulted in lifelong harm to the victim and their families. In this way, the social contract can be fulfilled, the agreement that each person has the right to life, when violated, forfeits the life of the offender. The convincing argument is made through the thoughts of a child as a victim. In a society that promotes peace and harmony, the idea of that child having been tortured, raped, and killed is more than should be tolerated. The perpetrator of such a crime should forfeit his life to the state so that the family can have vengeance for the life that was taken and for the pain that was suffered. The perpetrator should give up his life because the individual who could commit such a crime cannot be allowed to be in society, his life having forfeited value by the deeds he has committed. The death penalty on the continent of the North America was first given by Western hands to Captain George Kendal in 1608 when he was found guilty of treason. Since that time, over 19,000 people have died through the death penalty, only 3% of which were women (Barak171). The death penalty has evolved from painful and violent methods of inflicting death to lethal injection, which has its own protestors. However, the purpose of the death penalty still stands as a way in which to create a just resolution to a crime that is beyond most people’s imaginings. Despite a false sense of a need for forgiveness and a denial of the need for vengeance, the truth is that victims need to be acknowledged through retribution. Without proper justice, resentment and anger will forever hang upon the grief of those who have lost loved ones through horrific acts of violent and mortal crimes. Works Cited Bae, Sangmin. When the State No Longer Kills: International Human Rights Norms and Abolition of Capital Punishment. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Print. Barak, Gregg. Battleground: Criminal Justice. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2007. Print. Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). National Polls and Studies. DPIC. 2008. Web. 30 November 2010. Fischer, John Martin. Death, Badness, and the Impossibility of Experience. The Journal of Ethics. 1.4 (1997): 341-353, Print. Griswold, Charles L. Forgiveness: A Philosophical Exploration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. Human Rights Now. New Global Death Penalty Stats Out today. Human Rights Now. 30 March 2010. Web. 30 November 2010, Print. Mackey, Sandra. The Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom. New York: W.W. Norton, 2002. Print. Meyer, Michel, and Robert F. Barsky. Philosophy and the Passions: Toward a History of Human Nature. Literature and philosophy. Univ. Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 2000. Print. Morgan, Ed. On art and the death penalty: “Invitation to a beheading”. Law and Literature. 15.2 (Summer 2003): 279-291, Print. Reamer, Frederic G. Heinous Crime: Cases, Causes, and Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Internet resource. Smith, Murray E. G. Early Modern Social Theory: Selected Interpretative Readings. Toronto, Ont: Canadian Scholars' Press, 1998. Internet resource. Williams, Bernard Arthur Owen. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. New York: Taylor and Francis, Inc, 2006. Print. Wolff, Robert P. In Defense of Anarchism. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 1998. Print. Appendix 1 Death Penalty Information Center Gallop Poll Preliminary Outline and Research Thesis: From the ethical perspective of philosopher John Rawls who said that justice should be described as“ a fair system of arrangements; one that the parties can agree to without knowing how it will benefit them personally”, the death penalty must be considered just and right as it creates a fair balance between the act that has been committed and the punishment that has been dealt. Audience: This is intended for a liberal group who may oppose the death penalty in order to give them a different perspective on the issue. Outline: I. Introduction From the ethical perspective of philosopher John Rawls who said that justice should be described as“ a fair system of arrangements; one that the parties can agree to without knowing how it will benefit them personally”, the death penalty must be considered just and right as it creates a fair balance between the act that has been committed and the punishment that has been dealt. II. Body A. Global Considerations 1. The Political Position of the World. A. World Opinion B. Statistics 2. Execution and the World A. Wolff: Authority and Autonomy B. Social contract theory and the right to take life B. The Debate 1. The Difference between Can and Should 2. Three Causes for Debate 1. Method of Execution 2. Length of Incarceration before Execution 3. Absolute Proven Guilt 3. The Social Contract and Rawls C. Death D. Justice Served 1. Original Position 2. In Consideration of Victims 3. Restorative Justice E. Forgiveness and Vengeance III Conclusion Preliminary Bibliography Bae, Sangmin. When the State No Longer Kills: International Human Rights Norms and Abolition of Capital Punishment. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Print. Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). National Polls and Studies. DPIC. 2008. Web. 30 November 2010. Fischer, John Martin. Death, Badness, and the Impossibility of Experience. The Journal of Ethics. 1.4 (1997): 341-353. Griswold, Charles L. Forgiveness: A Philosophical Exploration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. Human Rights Now. New Global Death Penalty Stats Out today. Human Rights Now. 30 March 2010. Web. 30 November 2010. Meyer, Michel, and Robert F. Barsky. Philosophy and the Passions: Toward a History of Human Nature. Literature and philosophy. Univ. Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 2000. Print. Morgan, Ed. On art and the death penalty: “Invitation to a beheading”. Law and Literature. 15.2 (Summer 2003): 279-291. Smith, Murray E. G. Early Modern Social Theory: Selected Interpretative Readings. Toronto, Ont: Canadian Scholars' Press, 1998. Internet resource. Read More