The Morality of Death Penalty - Research Paper Example

The Morality of Death Penalty Number The Morality of Death Penalty The debate on death penalty for capital offenses has remained controversial around the world for a long period of time due to its cruel, retributive aspects. Supporters of death penalty argue that it serves justice, especially in murder cases where the accused party’s culpability has been determined by a court of law. Other benefits of death penalty include; deterring murder, limiting costs of maintaining correctional and detention facilities, and providing absolute “settlement” for capital offenses. On the other hand, opponents of death penalty cite the possibility of putting innocent people to death, the lack of punishment in the process and the ineffectiveness of death penalty to deter murder. While opponents of death penalty cite the possibility of rehabilitating murderers, proponents support retributive justice as the right, just and fair answer to murderers’ actions. The paper will examine whether death penalty is moral. Why death penalty is moral Proponents of death penalty argue that aspiring criminals are likely to refrain from murder if the system makes it undoubtedly clear, through constant executions, that the same fate will befall them if they continued their criminal behavior of murder (Moore, 2014). The fact that murder is planned justifies death penalty. However, owing to the fact that there are other equally pertinent triggers of murder, capital punishment may arguably reduce cases of murder but only among those who are reasonable in the run-up to the commission of the crime. Regardless, while capital punishment prevents cases of murder among a majority of criminals, especially those who fear for their lives, the remaining cases of murders are arguably attributed to other stimuli such as substance influence, extreme anger, betrayal and or vengeance. Hinman (2012) noted that with capital punishment being made real for murderers, many criminals will likely participate in lesser crimes as a way of self-preservation. As such, capital punishment serves as the ultimate cautionary against all felonies including theft. The argument is especially credible because a criminal who is fully aware that the criminal justice system will hand him or her death penalty will seek more favorable penalties by refraining from murder. It is rational, therefore, to argue that the average criminal may refrain from robbery even if they did not have the intention of murdering the property owner or possessor, because they are aware that ordinary cases of crime might lead to the death of those who are in the scene of crime (Moore, 2014). The argument is particularly logical in the sense that if the average criminal was aware of the fact that they might be forced to use excessive force in their commission of a property crime, most cases are likely to be dissuaded from executing the crime in the first place in a jurisdiction where death penalty is real and generously applied. Apart from crime deterrent functions, death penalty brings about closure for victims of murder. There are numerous victims of every murder case, including relatives, friends, workmates and the immediate community in which a deceased party belonged. The quest for settlement of every murder case starts with the apprehending of the criminal, his or her trial, and conviction (Rachels, 1997). During the long and tedious process, the victims normally anticipate that courts will hand in the severest of punishment to bring about some settlement in the case even if the penalty will not bring the dead person back to life. Despite the fact that the overwhelming grief of the loss of a loved one begins with the knowledge of the murder and may not end with the execution of the culprit, capital punishment creates a sense of relief that the criminal has been handed a punishment that is commensurate to his or her murderous actions or inactions. Why death penalty is amoral The primary argument against death penalty is that it does not punish the criminals. Neither does it work towards rehabilitating the individuals who are condemned of murder (Moore, 2014). The punishment test requires all criminals to be handed some kind of experience that is commensurate to the crime they committed. Death penalty is not one of the punishments that should be prescribed to proven murderers, because it takes their life at once, without enabling them to feel the pain of their actions. Although, life sentence and hard labor for murderers can be expensive considering that more guards will have to be assigned to protect every such criminal for decades, it enables the criminal to feel the pain of their actions. Extensive prison sentences, especially in solitary confinements are ideal ways of punishment that deprive perpetrators of murder of their liberty to meet with friends and their families or go about their business in free society (The Lancet, 2015). This kind of punishment is rehabilitative in the sense that the criminals will draw lessons from it. By contrast, by putting to death individuals who are culpable of capital offenses will not serve any lesson to them, neither will it punish them in death. Death penalty is exacerbated by growing number cases of wrongful convictions that were entered in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Tens of cases of death-row inmates have been overturned since 2000 by new DNA evidence suggesting that the criminals did not actively take part in the crimes they were charged with. As such, capital punishment is amoral in the sense that it is prone to wrongful executions. In addition, Hinman (2012) noted that death penalty does deter murder. If having the knowledge that any murder case would qualify for capital punishment, criminals would not be committing the offense. It is possible that almost all of murderers are aware that their crime is likely to be met with death penalty, but they proceed with the crime anyway. The United States is one of the countries that are top in the world in terms of literacy levels and being an implementer of death penalty, it follows that virtually all citizens are aware of the retributive justice that awaits if their engage in murder. However, in 2012 4.8 homicides were reported per 100,000 people, which translated to 15,000 people in the whole country that year alone. If capital punishment was an effective deterrent for murder, the huge number of killings would not have happened in the country. I do not support death penalty All deaths are painful at least to some extent. Maybe the only peaceful death is one that strikes while someone is asleep. However, there is little information that such deaths were actually peaceful because no one has ever resurrected to clarify the matter. If an individual’s vital organs fail while he or she is asleep, it is plausible that their brain will identify a problem and trigger a belated response (Moore, 2014). So what is natural should not be forced upon others, regardless of the justification. As such, putting to death a murderer turns law-abiding individuals and institutions into active perpetrators of similar cruelty of criminals who are found guilty of committing murder, more so judging by the ‘legal’ methods used. In the United States, death penalty is normally done through a number of methods namely: intravenous administration of lethal chemicals, electrocution, hanging, gassing and firing squad. The Lancet (2015) noted that these methods are all meant to be as easy as possible, but none has been effective in putting identified criminals to death. Some lethal injections take too long in the body to kill and in the process subject the criminals to undue discomfort and pain. The only way, therefore, to serve justice on perpetrators and victims of murder is life imprisonment. Conclusion Generally, death penalty is arguably both moral and amoral. It is moral in the sense that it delivers the same punishment for murderers and brings to a close the long and tedious justice process and by extension serious grief among the victims. Conversely, putting an individual to death is amoral because it does not offer the criminal in question the chance to change their conduct. In addition, increasing cases wrongful convictions being overturned on grounds of new exonerating evidence suggests that a significant number criminals who were put to death during the 20th century could have been executed for crimes they did not commit. In light of the cruelty that accompanies death penalty, along with the possible innocence of the criminals and the fact that it fails the punishment test, the practice is largely amoral. References Hinman, L. (2012). Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. New York: Cengage Learning. Moore, J.D. (2014). Death penalty. Mercer Law Review, 66(1), 51. Rachels, J. (1997). Can Ethics Provide Answers?: And Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. The Lancet. (2015). Ending the death penalty. Lancet, 385(9975), 1262. Read More