Introduction
Every society must be guided by laws and regulations, and distinguished philosophers such as Kant have been quoted (Avaliani, n.d) to have said that no state or society can exist in the absence of laws. Violation of these laws attracts punishment.
Most states and justice systems employ the death penalty as punishment for crimes that are considered to be serious. Crimes such as murder, treason and most recently terrorism attract the death penalty. Many ethical issues are raised about the death penalty (Mosser, 2010), and this paper examines and analyses the ethical arguments for and against the punishment.
Do we need the death penalty?
It is only the state that has a right to execute a person, and this execution must be premised on the decision of a court (O’Neil, 2012). The debate surrounding this issue is not about its legality but on whether it is ethical or not.
Most people agree that a person who violates the law must be punished, even those who argue against the death penalty. Kant argues that a society that does not punish those who violate its laws becomes the offender’s accomplice (Avaliani, n.d). Every individual has a right to life. Why then, should the state sanction the willful taking away of life by its agents?
Everyone who commits a crime against society puts himself in debt, and this debt must be satisfied in full (Vollum, Mallicoat, & Buffington, 2009). The implication of this is that punishment should have a retributive effect.
One of the strongest arguments that support the death penalty is that it satisfies the need for retribution. Therefore, one who takes away life must give up his own.
The retributive value of the death penalty is distinguished from revenge, which is said to be based on hatred and is ethically unjustifiable. The argument is that executing a murderer is a way of ensuring that he/she pays back the debt owed to society.
The punishment that the society imposes on a lawbreaker must act as a discouragement from committing similar crimes (Vollum, Mallicoat, & Buffington, 2009). The death penalty is supported for its purported deterrence effect (O’Neil, 2012 & The BBC, n.d.).
It is alleged to cause fear in others, so that they restrain themselves from committing a crime for which they may face the death penalty. Proponents of the death penalty reason that if someone has the knowledge that he/she may get a lighter punishment than the taking away of his/her own life, then there will be nothing to deter people from committing serious crimes.
The death penalty is used in cases of murder, and other serious crimes such as treason and terrorism (The BBC, n.d.). One may argue that a crime such as treason does not involve taking away of another person’s life and, therefore, applying the death penalty in such a case is unjust.
This argument is strongly countered by the reasoning that these crimes involve acts or actions that result in the loss of life, though it is not taken by the accused person. For example, if a person unsuccessfully leads a revolt against an existing legal government, this cause the loss of thousands of lives, though the accused person may not kill anyone personally.
Therefore, the death penalty is justified in cases where the crime exposes the society to grave danger or causes it serious harm. Kant argues that another sentence such as life imprisonment for someone who should be punished by death is unjust because he/she undergoes a worse punishment because it is accompanied by shame (Avaliani, n.d).
If it is practically possible, punishment should ensure that the criminal is not able to commit further crime (The BBC, n.d.). This is why many people support the death penalty because it permanently incapacitates the offender.
Taking the life of the criminal makes sure that he/she will not be in a position to commit further crime, and makes the society a safer place by reducing chances of recurrence of the crime. It is thought to be an excellent way of preventing crime as it ensures that re-offending does not occur (The BBC, n.d.).
Families and friends of murder victims have been reported to say that when the convicted murderer is killed, they get closure and are satisfied that justice has been served (Vollum, Mallicoat, & Buffington, 2009).
Most people feel that justice is only served if the murderer pays for the crime with his/her own life. This kind of closure and satisfaction has the capacity to prevent further murders committed in revenge.
The death penalty decongests prisons and reduces the financial burden of keeping criminals behind bars (Vollum, Mallicoat, & Buffington, 2009). It is expensive to maintain guests of the state in prisons and, this burden is shifted to the taxpayers.
Those who support the taking away of criminals’ lives argue that it is unethical to make the victims pay for his/her upkeep (Vollum, Mallicoat, & Buffington, 2009). Keeping convicted criminals who deserve the death penalty in prison amounts, therefore, to punishing the victims of the crime that the offender committed.
Doing away with the death penalty
It is a fact that the death penalty enjoys popular support from the public. However, human rights have gained prominence amidst calls for its abolition across the globe.
The death penalty is increasingly becoming unpopular as a form of punishment (The BBC, n.d.) and questions are being raised about its ethical basis (Vollum, Mallicoat, & Buffington, 2009). The growing opposition to the death penalty is seen through the many arguments that are advanced in its opposition.
The death penalty is a violation of the most basic right – the right to life (O’Neil, 2012). Every individual is vested with this right from the moment of birth (or conception as argued by sections of the public), and it is not granted by the state (O’Neil, 2012).
Opponents of the death penalty argue that no one has the moral right to sanction the killing of any individual (The BBC, n.d.). Since the state has no capacity to give life, therefore, it has none to take away life. The offender may have taken another person’s life, but there exists various ways of dealing with him/her other than by taking away his/her life.
Another argument against the application of the death penalty is that it trivializes the value of human life (Crime and causality: do killers deserve to die? 2005). This argument is based on religious sentiments that, life is sacred and should be honored.
By putting in place a legal process of taking another person’s life, then the state is sending a message to the society that human life is not worth much. The argument is that taking another life to avenge the one already taken does not in any way add value to life (The BBC, n.d.). It only shows that human life is something that can be taken away at will, and the state sanctions it.
Persons who are opposed to the death penalty also argue that retribution is unethical and serves no purpose in the dispensation of justice (Vollum, Mallicoat, & Buffington, 2009). The argument is that true justice would be served by retribution if it would give back the lost life or its worth (The BBC, n.d.).
Since this is impossible, retribution is, therefore, no justification for the death penalty. What it does instead, is to brutalize the society through the notion of “an eye for an eye”. Taking another life by the state because one has already been taken is in reality revenge, in another name, and no ethical argument can justify it.
Punishment is supposed to have a deterrence effect on the offender and other people in the society (Vollum, Mallicoat, & Buffington, 2009). When the offender is killed, the punishment bears no deterrence effect on him/her. It is also argued that the public is not deterred from crimes by the death penalty.
Many criminals are said to prefer dying to being locked in prison for life because death is instantaneous and the suffering ends there (The BBC, n.d.). These arguments strongly question the alleged deterrence effect of the death penalty.
The death penalty is said to be cruel, degrading and inhuman (O’Neil, 2012). All human beings have a right to personal dignity, and should not be subjected to treatment that is inhuman or degrading. In the first instance, passing the death penalty exposes one to mental anguish and it is, therefore, inhuman.
The manner in which executions are carried out such as the gallows, electrocution and firing squad, are also inhuman and degrading, and for these reasons, the death penalty is strongly opposed.
Another argument that opposes the death penalty is that there is a likelihood of killing an innocent person (O’Neil, 2012). Judges and other judicial officers are human beings who can be mistaken, even when they are being truthful or acting in the best interests of justice.
Cases where evidence that exonerates an offender who has already been convicted surfaces later have been cited in support of this argument. It is not possible to reverse the events in such cases, and innocent persons die for crimes that they did not commit. This cannot be said to be justice in any form.
Analysis of the arguments and personal opinion
Both sides of the argument advance strong reasons in support of why we should continue having the death penalty in our law books, and why it should be abolished.
Any given punishment should be proportionate to the crime that the offender is alleged to have committed (The BBC, n.d.). It is, therefore, justified to punish murder and similar crimes with death. One of the issues that arise is whether the death penalty can be justified in all murder cases.
Every case is based on facts that are peculiar to it in their nature (O’Neil, 2012). People commit crimes for different reasons, and not a single case is the same as the other. People who justify the penalty do not indicate circumstances where it is unjustifiable.
The society is expected to adopt is as it is presented and apply it in all cases. Common sense should prevail to determine cases in which the death penalty would serve no purpose in ensuring that justice is served.
The society must show its abhorrence towards crime in the strongest language possible (O’Neil, 2012), so as to discourage further commission of a crime. Death is considered to be one of the worst forms of punishment in existence.
For this reason, many people advocate for its continued existence because of the purpose it serves in the criminal justice system while others demand its abolition because it is considered to be too severe and unethical. In my opinion, the case made in support of the death penalty is stronger.
Though the reasons advanced against the penalty may be numerically high, they do not carry much weight and crumble to pieces when they are subjected to a critical examination.
Arguments such as that the death penalty serves no purpose in the dispensation of justice, or is unjust do not take into account the different perceptions of justice. What the law says is just may not be morally just, or what is considered to be morally just may not mean much to some individuals where justice is concerned.
For most people who have been severely harmed or offended by the offender’s actions such as murder, any punishment lesser than death may not be justice to them. To this section of the society, paying with life for a life taken is justice served and in this way, the death penalty fulfills its purpose.
The death penalty carries the risk punishing innocent persons who have not committed any crime. However, these cases are few and rare since the criminal justice system provides a lengthy trial process and appeals against such verdicts in order to eliminate chances of executing a person who can prove his/her innocence.
This should not be used to justify not executing thousands of people who should pay their debts to society by death.
Conclusion
This paper examines and analyses the arguments in support of and against the death penalty. The arguments against it are higher in number than those in support, but this does not take away the weight of its support.
By surviving all these years amidst calls for its abolition, the death penalty provides proof of the popular support that it has in the society. However, this debate is not about to come to a conclusion.
References
Avaliani, A. Kant-The Death Penalty. Web.
Crime and Causality: Do Killers Deserve to Die? (2005). Web.
Mosser, K. (2010). A Concise Introduction to Philosophy. San Diego: Bridgepoint Education.
O’Neil, B. (2012). Balancing Ethics and the Death Penalty. Web.
The BBC. Capital Punishment. Web.
Vollum, S., Mallicoat, S. & Buffington-Vollum, J. (2009). Attitudes in an Increasingly Critical Climate: Value- Expressive Support and Attitude Mutability. South West Journal of Criminal Justice, 5(3), 221-242. Web.