The Death Penalty Is Morally Wrong - Essay Example

Death Penalty Introduction There are four acknowledged and the basic reasons for having ized punishment (Stearman 34). This includes prevention, rehabilitation, retribution, and deterrence. Of all those, retribution forms the backbone for the dominant ideology behind the death penalty. This paper seeks to analyze the form and nature of retributive death theories,and various ideologies coonnnected to the debate. The paper will contrast and compare the elements and concepts of retributive punishment and revenge, and offer the underlying merits of the same (Baron 146). Budeau and Marshal Bedau and Cassell Budeau and marshal hold that the death penalty is morally wrong regardless of the crime committed by the offender. Both opponents of the death penalty have suggested that when analyzing whether a certain crime fit a given punishment, one must look at the impact of the punishment. This includes both the criminal and the society at large (Bedau and Cassell 118). The two argue out that capital punishment creates biased sense of security within the society. Community members feel better in the knowledge that the capital punishment is an option for a severe crime regardless of whether it is applied or not. According to Kant’s framework of ethics (to persons), capital punishment reduces the worth of the criminal who is also is a human being. He further states that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined, not by the consequences, but by their ability to fulfill our duty. Kant argued that the only intrinsic good thing is a good will (Bedan 100). An action can only be judged to be good if it fulfills its duty to the moral law. Kant, unlike Pojman, held that particular types of actions (including murder and the death sentence) were extremely prohibited. Before acting, he proposes that there are two issues one need to ponder first. The first is whether everyone will act the same way you act, and whether one’s actions are in contravention to the goals of human beings. With respect to the theory of utilitarianism, individuals ought to undertake an action because it will produce the most happiness than any other action. The act that the morally right action, the action in which everybody has a moral duty to do, is the one that maximizes utility. Utility comprises happiness, well-being, and welfare. Everybody’s happiness counts equally, thus death sentence should be the last option, provided it is the action that provides the most happiness in the end (Bedau and Cassell 159). Pojman Pojman is one of the major proponents of capital punishment. His views strongly suggest that the death sentence acknowledges the offender’s right and worth as a person. This is because it entails treating him as fully responsible for his actions (Bedan 188). Pojman sets out to offer an argument in favor of Capital Punishment as morally right. He builds upon Kantian’s proposition on the importance of an equal penalty for a wrong committed. He accepts the fundamental position that the availability of the death sentence is critical with respect to the argument of justice. He reinforces his argument a critical premise. This proposition holds that a person cannot enjoy their right to life when they have denied the deceased theirs. Provided that our society treats people as free agents and autonomous, capital offenders are required to bear responsibility for their action. The option of an equivalent punishment for an equivalent crime supports the responsibility of nature and government as a citizenry. MyView Death penalty presents a form of barbaric form of punishment as it is the ultimate denial of human rights. Capital punishment presents a cold-blooded and premeditated killing of human beings by the state. It is not morally correct that the degrading and human punishment be carried out in the name of justice. This is because, as a form of the application of justice, it breaches the right to life as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Amnesty international is against capital punishment is all situations without exceptions and the nature of the crime (Stearman 149). The characteristics of the offender and the method applied by the state to murder the prisoner also does not matter. Kant’s Conception Kant’s conception of human beings begins the argument by providing that only a good will is a good will without qualification. In addition, only a good will reflects an incomparably high dignity or value. In this light, only humanity is an end to itself, and only the human race has a dignity. Animals and objects do not dignity. In this note, human beings have a special moral status compared to animals and objects. Kant’s idea of human dignity entails something that exalts us above objects, animals, and the rest of the creation. Human beings have an intrinsic worth, which make us valuable above every other worth on earth. In effect, animals do not have a moral standing. Human beings have a moral standing, and are free to use it as a means to an end. In virtue of this knowledge (the worth of human beings), no human being shouls use another human being as a means to an end. Stearman argues that Kant’s conception of the dignity of human beings informs the foundation of the categorical imperative (188). The framework acts on every individual regardless of their desires and interests. The formulation directs individuals to act as per the maxim by which one can at the same time. This will should form the foundation of universal law. In addition, the formulation directs that one should act is ways that offer dignified treatment to humanity. This is regardless of whether the actions affect you directly or affect other people. People should always be viewed both as a means and an end, and not as means only. Notion of Ethics Bedau and marshall could be right in their argument about capital punishment. According to the Kantian theory of person's ethics, argue that capital punishment is a degradation of the dignity of human beings. The death penalty is unusual and cruel and is a relic of the initial periods of penology, when branding, slavery, and other corporal punishment were common practice. In a civilized world, executions have no place (Stearman 200). This opposition does not result from misplaced sympathy for the criminals. On the contrary, murder illustrates a lack of respect for humanity. Consequently, it is repugnant, and any policy that authorizes the killing of human beings is immoral (Bedan 240). Budeau and marshal have identified a conflict in Kant’s views pertaining to capital punishment. Kant’s theory of retributism contradicts his provisions of the ethics assigned to people. Kant argues (in retribution debate) that capital offenders should receive an equal punishment to ensure that both sides are satisfied with the outcome of the judicial process. Legal processes are always based on fairness. As such, appropriating the same level and nature of punishment to a capital offender constitutes fairness and justice. However, this provision contradicts Kant’s provisions on the dignity that human beings should be accorded. Punishing capital offenders with death sentences constitutes a contavension of the ethics of human beings, and is morally wrong. Kant’s theory of punishment (retributism) holds that the death penalty offers the best response to some murders. Pojman supports this view and holds that only when individuals are held accountable for their actions will there be lasting happiness in the society (baron 330).the fact that an individual has committed a capital offense is enough reason for the legal imposition of legal punishment. Immanuel Kant’s is one of the proponents of retribution and his views have greatly contributed to the debate on capital punishment. Pojman greatly reflects Kant’s views on retribution. They oppose the view that the death sentence is unethically wrong, stating that criminal guilt deserves capital punishment , regardless of social utility or other considerations. This paper has explored various views pertaining to capital punishment and the dignity of human beings (capital offenders). The paper has identified that although the death sentence constitutes an unethical behavior, it has continued to be applied in the name of natural justice. The practice has continued to gain precedence because of the objective of fulfilling the expectations of the deceased’s family (Baron 450). Works CitedTop of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Baron, Marcia. Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 2005. Print. Bedau, Hugo A, and Paul G. Cassell. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? : the Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2004. Print. Bedau, Hugo A. The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. New York, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. Print. Stearman, Kaye. The Death Penalty. New York: Rosen Pub. Group's Rosen Central, 2007. Print. Read More