Debating the Death Penalty - Essay Example

Capital Punishment Although, death penalty has a disincentive effect, a lot of people nowadays reckon that death penalty needs to be eradicated. The important point is that if any such effect can actually be ascertained, the death sentence entails life-life tradeoff, and this may provoke, rather than prevent, avenge. The relevant evils with death penalty, like prospective error, irrevocability, unpredictability and racial biasness, do no need to be eradicated since realm of murder is a result of the same problems, though in an intensive form (Kronenwetter, 1993). Moral antagonism to the capital punishment more often depends upon a remarkable distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is devious in this context since government is a special kind of moral agents. The pervasive failure to encourage the life-life tradeoffs possibly involved in capital punishment may partially depend upon cognitive processes that fall short of treating “statistical live” with the significance that they deserve (Kronenwetter, 1993). Supporters of death penalty can be alienated into two different camps. Some are retributivists, who follow Immanuel Kant, believe that for the most atrocious forms of crime, the capital punishment is morally acceptable or perhaps even essential. Other supporters of death penalty are consequentialists and often welfarists too. They argue that the disincentive effect of death penalty is noteworthy and that it rationalizes the infliction of the vital penalty. Consequentialist defenses of the death penalty, however, are inclined to believe that death penalty is only acceptable not mandatory (Kronenwetter, 1993). The suggestion also bears on legal questions along with the moral and political dispute. For example, in quashing the capital punishment for adolescents, the Supreme Court did not acutely slot in the possibility that it may help to avoid the death of naives, including the adolescent naives. And if our proposition is acceptable, it relates to many questions that are out of the capital punishment context. If omissions by the state are often indistinguishable, primary from measures by the state and then an ample series of evident malfunctions to take these measures, including the contexts of criminal, civil and regulatory law, it should be taken to elevate acute moral and legal dilemmas (Bedau & Cassell, 2004). The supporters, who opine for capital sentence, generally may or may not accept the propositions of measures taken by the government. In many circumstances, our opinions propose that with regards to possible pragmatic conclusions, government is indebted to provide much more security than it actually does, and it should not be allowed to veil behind contrary peculiarities between acts and omissions (Bedau & Cassell, 2004). The basis of the dispute is a considerable body of recent facts that death penalty may have a disincentive effect. An important national study proposes that each death penalty averts almost eighteen executions. If these facts are even approximately correct, the negation of inflicting death penalty will condemn several naïves to death for sure (Bedau & Cassell, 2004). States that can choose death sentence, but still opt for life imprisonment, ensure a high scale of innocent murders. Morally, an option that condemns a high scale of innocents to death definitely seems objectionable. For the ones who are cynical of capital punishment for morality’s sake, the duty is to deem the chance that the failure to enforce death sentence, in the first place is a severe moral evil (Jenkins, 1993). These sorts of conclusions are often implied to entail a contentious commitment to a consequentialist view about the basics of moral appraisal. One of our major concerns is that the option between consequentialist and deontological approaches to integrity is not essential here. Our opinion is that, on certain pragmatic hypothesis, theorists of both schools of thoughts might congregate on the idea that death penalty is morally essential. On consequentialist grounds, the capital punishment seems to be essential if there is no other way out to decrease the considerable rate of killings (Jenkins, 1993). Therefore, there should be a little intricacy on the part of consequentialists with our opinion. Deontologists believe that stabbing is an evil in most of the situations, and its evilness does not depend on its penalty. Several of them consider that death penalty is a moral evil. But in the abstract any deontological sanction against the unjust imposition of death usually proves to be uncertain on the moral status of death penalty, but only if the death is essential to avert considerable number of homicides (Jenkins, 1993). Many believe that the structure of capital punishment may be seen primarily as an action by the state. If the state does not impose capital punishment as a regulation then it may be considered as an omission on the part of the state. This parity between action and omission may be reflected upon differently when the two are debated in the light of morals. A further elaboration on this point of view can be applied in the form if capital punishment may be viewed as killing, and not imposing this punishment may be defined as not killing anyone may be seen as much less aggravated when seen on the moral grounds (Kronenwetter, 1993). However, the above point may be a possible criticism for capital punishment, the evidence that state actions and state omissions, and the distinction between the two, may not influence the debate over moral grounds and the value it has under its shadow. This value can never be perceived correctly and given a desired direction in the functioning of normal government policies and structures. For example, if the policies of the government were to be inadequate to protect and educate people against pollution, risks, terrorist activities, and discrimination between races- it may not be justifiable to bear the moral values on the note that the incapacity to enact against such tragedies may be overlooked as mere omissions (Kronenwetter, 1993). Furthermore, many studies on societies and laws have related the concept of “risk-risk tradeoffs” stating that the directive of one risk may be responsible for the birth of another. For example, the risk infused with the application of DDT may adversely give rise to many other complications and diseases such as Malaria- if not authored in the society. Similarly, in many cases air pollutants have many harmful affects but still yield many results that are eventually beneficial to human beings- as it has been known for the specific example of ground level ozone (Jenkins, 1993). It is very unlikely that in the case of such trade offs, an absolute decision may be made to actually see the value of morality in the objective approach of such risk-risk trade offs. It is more logical to state that the application of any law or structure that may provide an overall positive affect which exceeds the value addition to the society in terms of security and betterment and control in application of moralities, may be more plausible than just rejecting it under the definition of just a simple translation of killing. The overall affect of such a law as capital punishment may be associated to the human well being and the final outcome in terms of the economics of well being and social safety may be achieved to study it in detail (Jenkins, 1993). These risk tradeoffs do not just limit themselves to the debate of moral values and their intrinsic structure associated to human well being. This may further be elaborated in the light of criminal law and police control. In crime control, it is imperative for the structure to evolve in such a way where it should be noted that any government policy that may not be bale to control a certain crime will make room for a dormant existence of that crime in the society. This failure in providing deterrent signals for the society will eventually lead to a decline on the moral values of the general society (Kronenwetter, 1993). There should be little room for any government and its lawmakers to seek refuge in such a circumstance where a failure in action may tend to give rise to an inequality the protection rights of every individual. Criminal and civil law has its own value, which should be upheld in every situation, through which potential victims may be given a safe haven from possible crimes in terms of violence or discrimination. Capital punishment may be such an enactment of law where many innocent private and public lives may be saved than it may be held responsible for seizing. Therefore, the death penalty has its own strong value in terms of a risk-risk tradeoff and may be seen as more of a lif-life tradeoff than anything else (Bedau & Cassell, 2004). Of such a life-life trade off, that capital punishment projects, it may also be necessary to associate a more elaborate approach to link the tradeoffs with morality. Even though, the act of execution may be considered a wrong approach in terms of associated environmental degradation that it may foster- the life-life tradeoff of capital punishment may overcome the degradation effects and state it as mandatory. Believing it to be mandatory may be highly subjected to opposition but the evaluation in terms of morality may just compel the instruction and adoption of capital punishment (Jenkins, 1993). Many studies have concluded in the recent past, through the form pf panel-data, that the murder rate in societies, neighborhoods, and regions is greatly reduced where capital punishment plays an active ingredient in crime control. These studies have found that every execution in the form of capital punishment results in eighteen fewer murders. These studies have furtherer developed to state that capital punishment has been more effective as a tool in controlling murders and other violent crimes in the regions where the rate of the death penalty that is decreed by court is much higher (Bedau & Cassell, 2004). It has been stated that the criminals are not deterred by a death penalty that is not enacted through law or remains disliked by the system. The criminals may develop to not to fear the implications of their actions in killing other people if the death penalty remains dormant in the region. The regions where death penalty was dormant still experienced a higher death rate than those which made capital punishment an integral part of the judicial system (Bedau & Cassell, 2004). Any objection to the application and adoption of capital punishment must be far form being abstract and must include the implications for the well being of the society. The recent studies that show the deterrence effects in committing the heinous crimes that degenerate the environment and quality of life and are further supported through the moral implications of saving innocent lives. If an execution is a reason for saving a relatively higher number of lives in a region, then in contrast to nullify the adoption of capital punishment- the harmful effects of its adoption in the system should be higher than the number of lives saved. Works Cited: Kronenwetter, M. 1993. Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook, ABC-CLIO Bedau, H. & Cassell, P. 2004. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case. Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 1993. Introducing Moral Issues. Heinemann Educational Publishers Read More