The death penalty involves condemning a criminal to death due to a horrendous crime (Roberts-Cady 185). Its existence in the criminal justice system remains is a subject of contention. Stephen Nathanson advances an argument against the death penalty in his article, Why We Should Put the Death Penalty to Rest, by refuting the moral and legal grounds upon which its proponents base their arguments. In a separate article, An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment, Nicole Smith shows that despite the mounting opposition towards the death penalty, there is reason to keep it in the penal code. These two articles form the core of this essay since its main concern is to determine which one of the two arguments is stronger.
(Yes) Nicole Smith – An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment
The gist of Nicole Smith’s (Smith par. 1-8) argument is that the death penalty or capital punishment is necessary because it deters murder, thereby saving the victims’ families and friends the pain of losing loved ones. She further argues that in cases where a murder has occurred, the death penalty serves justice to the victim’s loved ones.
Smith’s position on the killing of innocent individuals is apparent. She esteems human life and strongly argues against the killing of innocent individuals. She argues that since victims die and are oblivious of what transpires afterwards, the point of concern is the agony that their loved ones undergo. According to Smith, these people deserve nothing less than retribution. Smith quotes a famous biblical expression, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, to support her argument (par. 2). Since the criminal takes away human life, the only punishment that is commensurate with such an act is to take their life as well. Although she recognizes that the criminal justice system may sometimes err and convict innocent people, she downplays such possibilities on grounds that the error margin is negligible.
(NO) Stephen Nathanson – Why We Should Put the Death Penalty to Rest
Nathanson for his part presents two major arguments in support of his position. Firstly, he argues that the death penalty violates the same values it is supposed to promote (Nathanson 124). For instance, if a criminal receives a death sentence, the only circumstance under which the conviction can be justified, is when the justice system determines beyond any doubt that the convicted individual is the perpetrator of the said crime. Unfortunately, sometimes the system captures and convicts innocent individuals. According to Nathanson (124), the execution of just one innocent individual due to lapses within the justice system contradicts the value of justice.
Secondly, Nathanson refutes the claims that the death penalty preserves human life. Murderers are guilty of killing and so is the justice system when it sentences an individual to death (124). The ideal of respect for human life denies anyone authority over another person’s life under whatever circumstances. Therefore, even if one is guilty of murder, their life is equally important because they are also human. Executing such a person over claims of respect for the life of the victim is inconsistent with the principle of respect for human life.
My Evaluation
I esteem ethics and I believe that matters of life and death, such as those presented in these arguments can only be evaluated adequately by the use of relevant ethical theories. The ethical theories that can best evaluate this issue include utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. In utilitarianism, the merit of an action is evaluated by its consequences. From this perspective, Smith’s argument seems plausible because she places emphasis on the effects of murder on the victim’s loved ones. To strengthen the argument further, she adds that it serves the greater good to execute a criminal to avoid the recurrence of murder cases by the same individual. Therefore, if a single individual is executed to save an entire society from pain, suffering, and mayhem such as that caused by serial killers; it is understandable (Berns and Bessette 1).
However, according to Kantian ethics, although it is wrong to kill, executing one person in an attempt to pay for the death of another is not plausible. Executing a criminal to pay for another death is tantamount to assuming that two wrongs can make a right (Gray 257). This assumption does not make sense at all. This position is consistent with Nathanson’s argument that executing a criminal for whatever reason is inconsistent with the belief in the sanctity of life. It is therefore hypocritical to assume that the criminal’s life is of less value in comparison to the victim’s life.
Additionally, the criminal justice system is notorious for some unforgivable lapses that often lead to the incarceration of innocent people (Nathanson 124). Even if only one out of every a thousand convicts is innocent, the system cannot claim to serve justice. The life of that single innocent individual is precious. Moreover, even the 999 who are rightfully convicted do not deserve to die. Their lives are equally important and should be protected by the same system.
My Opinions of the Arguments
While Smith’s argument seems plausible at the superficial level, it is not entirely ethical. It is equally unethical for a criminal to kill an innocent victim, but the idea of punishing murder by death is certainly outdated and has no place in modern society. Human society has advanced in many ways and has abandoned the wisdom of its ancient ancestors, which did not seem to make sense. It would, therefore, be plausible to apply the same standard to the death penalty debate. Even the bible, which is the source of the principle, cautions against it in the second testament. Therefore, using such a principle as the basis for dispensing capital punishment cannot be right by any standards.
Nathanson’s argument is, therefore, more endearing because it shows that no matter the angle of perception, the death penalty remains unreasonable. He points out an important issue in the debate about the death penalty by arguing that both sides cite justice and respect for human life as the values they seek to promote in their arguments. Then he proceeds to show that the death penalty does not serve justice in all cases and is therefore wrong.
He also shows beyond doubt that the death penalty undermines the sanctity of life. Therefore, it’s being part of the penal code allows some unscrupulous individuals to use it for their selfish gain. As such, it should be abolished altogether. Countries that do not have the death penalty, such as Britain have much lower murder cases compared to the U.S. Therefore, proponents of the death penalty, such as Smith, who claims that its removal will cause a rise in murder cases have no ground to make such claims.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both arguments seem to appeal to the sense of reason. However, based on one underlying belief, the distinction can be made as to which argument is more plausible. Although there are circumstances, under which I believe in utilitarianism, in this case, Kantian ethics carry the day. Nathanson’s arguments sound more reasonable to me because I believe that no human being has authority over the life of another whatsoever. Since no element of bias is identifiable in both arguments, my position is that the death penalty should be abolished.
Works Cited
Berns, Walter and Joseph Bessette. “Why the Death Penalty is Fair.” Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition ed.: 1. 1998. ProQuest. Web.
Gray, James P. “Essay: Facing Facts on the Death Penalty.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 44.3 (2011): 255-264. Academic Search Complete. Web.
Nathanson, Stephen. “Why We Should Put the Death Penalty to Rest.” Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics 15 (2005): 124.
Roberts-Cady, Sarah. “Against Retributive Justifications of the Death Penalty.” Journal of Social Philosophy 41.2 (2010): 185-193. Academic Search Complete. Web.
Smith, Nicole. An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment. Article Myriad. 2011. Web.