Take a position on the death penalty - Assignment Example

In the case of murder, it posits that the threat of death penalty will stop people from killing other people. b. Definition and consequence Capital punishment is the imposition of death penalty to those who have committed capital crimes against the state. Death as a capital punishment has many rationale as a basis as enumerated by Garry Willis in his article The Dramaturgy of Death that ranges from killing as an exclusion, killing as cleansing, killing as execration, killing to maintain social order, killing to delegitimize a former social order but the most feasible of these reasons for imposing capital punishment is killing to maintain social order (1-3).

The imposition of capital punishment to maintain social order is as old as history itself beginning from Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. The death penalty was also part of the Fourteenth Century B.C.'s Hittite Code, the Seventh Century B.C.'s Draconian Code of Athens, which made death the only punishment for all crimes, and the Fifth Century B.C.'s Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets. Death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement (History 1).

But admittedly, punishments of torture are seen as unnecessary cruelty and were forbidden by the Constitution retaining only the idea of taking the life of a criminal in a less painful manner. c. value The imposition of capital punishment to maintain social order depends on the principle of general deterrence that intimidating and threatening people with the certainty of death will make them refrain from committing crimes. Its value is thought that by imposing punishment such as death penalty through a clearly written law and sanctioned by the state, people will be deterred from committing crimes which includes murders and their acts will be shaped according to a desired behavior that will produce an efficient society.

The imposition of death penalty as an instrument of general deterrence theory against murder is also argued to depend on the premise that a man acts out of self-interest or as Beccaria would put it “the despotic spirit which is present in every man” (Beccaria, 1764, p. 94). Beccaria proposed that for deterrence to be effective, the punishment that will be meted has to be proportional according to the crime; the severest punishment to be meted to those who commit the most heinous of crimes and the minor crimes should be meted with the least painful punishment (Beccaria, 1764). II. Evaluation This theory, however, was questioned and doubted by several scholars on the field of criminal justice.

Among them is Von Hentig, a former editor of the journal who dismissed the validity of death penalty as deterrence in reducing the incidence of murder. According to Von Hentig, death penalty will not work because the threat of punishment is not immediate and distant to the would-be offender. The danger presented by the punishment to the offender is perceived as remote and thus, can be readily offset by the immediate advantage of committing to the crime (1938). Von Hentig also critiqued the philosophical foundation of death penalty which is general deterrence that there are individuals who are immune from the threats of legal punishment.

He cited those who are motivated by “maternal instincts, the young and women who tend to be impetuous, those motivated by ideology, the “