Category: Capital Punishment

Introduction

Capital punishment refers to the act of killing an individual who has been found guilty of committing a certain crime (Gottfried, 2003, p.35). Capital punishment is a severe form of punishment because a victim cannot repeal a death sentence. A less severe alternative to death sentence is life imprisonment. Despite its existence, some countries still practice capital punishment.

The debate on whether capital punishment is ethical and moral has elicited different opinions in different societies. Proponents of capital punishment argue that it guarantees permanent security and safety to communities, it deters crime, it is appropriate for some crimes such as murder, and it is less costly (Gottfried, 2003, p.37).

On the other hand, opponents argue that it is inhuman, it is unfair if someone is wrongly convicted, it is a violation of human rights, it affects the emotional and psychological well-being of a victims family members, and it is against Gods will (Gottfried, 2003, p.41). Capital punishment should be reaffirmed because it is an effective method that could be used to deter crime and improve security.

In the United States, 35 states have the death penalty in their legal system. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there have been 1226 death sentences in the United States since the year 1976 (McCafferty, 2011, p.53).

In 2010, there were 38 executions. This number decreased from 106 executions in 2009 (McCafferty, 2011, p.53). Some methods used to kill criminals include hanging, shooting by a firing squad, intoxication in a gas chamber, electrocution, and lethal injection.

Arguments for capital punishment

Capital punishment has several advantages that render it valid as a form of punishment for crime. First, it guarantees the safety and security of prison staff and the people in the external community (McCafferty, 2011, p.58). Individuals who receive a death penalty are usually dangerous and highly violent people.

Executed criminals cannot commit crimes either after their release from prison or in prison. Their execution guarantees the safety of prison staff and the public. Their death is an assurance of security because they cannot continue their unlawful acts and this improves security.

Secondly, capital punishment deters crime by discouraging criminals from engaging in crime (Gottfried, 2003, p.42). In countries such as Singapore that have death penalty, lower rates of crime have been reported. Capital punishment deters crime because of its severe consequences.

Between the years 1993 and 1997, the death penalty was widely used in the United States due to a rise in crime. As a result, the rate of murder dropped from 24,562 people to 18, 209 people (McCafferty, 2011, p.54). This drop was as a result of the avoidance of the severe consequences of capital punishment by criminals.

Thirdly, it is the right form of punishment for certain crimes because it is equal to the crime committed (Gottfried, 2003, p.45). For example, capital punishment is the best punishment for murder because it is equal to the crime.

Any other form of punishment would be unfair because it would be less serious than the crime itself. Proponents argue that victims of crime receive justice when criminals are killed because the penalty is equal to the crime committed. The individual is made to pay by death in proportion to the crime committed.

Fourthly, capital punishment is less costly that other forms of punishment such as life imprisonment (Gottfried, 2003, p.46). The cost of imprisoning an individual for life is more than the cost of killing the individual. It is logic to award a death penalty to an individual instead of life imprisonment because it prevents use of government resources, which are instead used for other more viable projects.

Arguments against capital punishment

Opponents of capital punishment present several arguments to support the abolishment of capital punishment. First, they argue that it is unethical and cruel (McCafferty, 2011, p.61). Killing a person is inhuman even though the person may have acted in an inhuman manner. They claim that each person has a right to life and should not be killed under any circumstance.

Capital punishment is inhuman because the methods used for execution inflict intense pain and suffering to the individual. As such, the individuals right to life is violated. Even though a criminal practices inhumanity by committing a crime, killing the individual does not solve the problem entirely.

Capital punishment is ironical because its main teaching is that killing someone who has killed is moral and justifiable (McCafferty, 2011, p.62). However, this argument is ambiguous because different cultures interpret the concept of humanity differently.

Secondly, it is an unfair form of punishment for individuals who are convicted wrongly. For example, since 1976, 130 people have been released from death row after they were proved innocent (McCafferty, 2011, p.64). In severe cases, some people are killed after being wrongly convicted.

It is unfair for a person to be executed even though he/she is innocent. Some people have been proven innocent but the proof of their innocence came too late that they were executed before they were released. In addition, some criminals ask for a chance to amend their ways and become better citizens. However, with a death sentence, that is impossible.

In a case where an innocent individual is executed, the execution is irreversible, and the government lives with the guilt of executing an innocent citizen. The fact that an innocent individual could be wrongly convicted is not a good enough reason to abolish capital punishment. This is because in the same way, guilty individuals could be wrongly released for lack of enough evidence (McCafferty, 2011, p.68).

Thirdly, capital punishment is a violation of the human right to life (Gottfried, 2003, p.73). Despite the degree of a crime committed by an individual, killing him/her violates his/her right to life. This argument varies from society to society because human rights are determined by factors such as religion, cultural beliefs and religion, which vary among societies.

Opponents argue that sentences such as life imprisonment could be awarded instead of capital punishment because they do not violate an individuals right to life (Gottfried, 2003, p.74). In some societies, the interpretation of human rights allows capital punishment for individuals who violate the human rights of others.

Fourthly, capital punishment is not fair and may cause emotional and psychological trauma to a victims family members (McCafferty, 2011, p.71). In countries where it is practiced, capital punishment is a form of compensation for a crime committed using the life of the criminal. This is immoral because two wrongs cannot make a right. An individual deserves a chance to reform for a better life.

In addition, the pain experienced in executions could be unbearable. The degree of pain depends on the method of execution used. Despite the method used, the pain affects both the individual and his/her family.

Family members may be traumatized and as such suffer emotionally and psychologically, which may affect their lives negatively (Gottfried, 2003, p.72). For example, if the individual has young children, they may be unable to live normal lives owing to the effects of the knowledge of their fathers execution.

Fifthly, capital punishment denies the victims a chance to reform and practice spiritual redemption (Gottfried, 2003, p.75). Even though an individual may be sorry and remorseful for committing a crime, reformation is impossible with a death penalty. In most societies, spiritual redemption is considered a priority mainly at the time of death. Spiritual redemption means making peace with fellow human beings and God before death.

However, capital punishment victims do not get this opportunity. Opponents consider capital punishment unethical because they argue that death should be natural and not induced in any way.

Conclusion

Capital punishment is the killing of an individual who has been convicted of committing a certain crime. The issue of whether capital punishment is moral and ethical is a controversial one. Some countries have abolished it while others still practice it. For example, in the United States, 35 stares practice capital punishment.

Proponents argue that it deters crime, guarantees permanent security, it is appropriate for crimes such as murder and rape, and it is less costly than alternative punishments such as life imprisonment.

Opponents argue that it is inhuman, may be unfair if someone is wrongly convicted, it is a violation of human rights, it affects the emotional and psychological well-being of family members and it s unfair. Capital punishment should be reaffirmed because it is the best method of stopping crime and hence improving the security and safety of all people.

References

Gottfried, T2003, Capital Punishment: the Death Penalty Debate, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.

McCafferty, J 2011, Capital Punishment, Aldine Transaction, New York.

Introduction

The death penalty is arguably the most controversial legal punishment imposed by the Criminal Justice System of our country. This form of punishment stands out from the rest due to its harshness and severity. There is general agreement that capital punishment is the most severe punishment that a judge can give an offender.

Due to the perceived severity of the death penalty, there has been intense controversy surrounding the issue. Opponents of the death penalty declare that it is barbaric and inhumane hence the government should do away with it. On the other hand, its supporters maintain that the death penalty is a necessary form of punishment that should be used on the most vicious offenders in society.

The highly polarized debate on the death penalty has continued to exist for decades. Ethical theories can be used to come up with a solution to this highly controversial issue. Ethics determine what is the right course of action in a given situation. A number of solid ethical theories have been proposed by scholars and philosophers over the years. This paper will make use of one of the most widely applied ethical theories, which is utilitarianism, to demonstrate that the death penalty is indeed justified.

Overview of Utilitarianism: Death Penalty

Utilitarianism is a popular and widely applied ethical theory that was first proposed by John Stuart Mill. According to this theory, the moral nature of an action can be deduced by calculating its net utility. According to the utilitarian, an ethical action is one that maximizes the happiness for the largest number of people. Actions are viewed as having either benefits or negative consequences.

Individuals should act in a manner that increases the benefits since if the consequences outweigh the benefits, the action will be considered unethical. From a utilitarian perspective, actions that promote the happiness of the majority in society should be pursued while those that deter this happiness should be avoided. The utilitarian theory can be applied to the issue of capital punishment since this form of punishment produces both positive and negative consequences.

Utilitarian View on Capital Punishment

Net Benefits

The first major benefit offered by the death penalty is that it plays a significant deterrence role. The most important goal of the criminal justice system is to discourage people from engaging in crime.

This is achieved by attaching punishments to crimes so that a person perceives the merits of engaging in illegal actions as being outweighed by the consequences. As such, an ideal society would be one where no one is punished since the threat of punishment keeps everyone from engaging in crime. The death penalty is the most severe punishment and its availability is likely to deter people who might not be scared by long prison sentences.

Research indicates that there is a negative relationship between executions and murder incidents thereby suggesting that the death penalty plays a deterrence role (Kirchgassner 448). From a utilitarian perspective, the deterrence role is ethical since it contributes to the overall happiness of the society. When criminals are deterred from engaging in crime, the society is safer and people enjoy the peace and security in their communities.

Another significant benefit offered by the death penalty to the society is that it leads to the permanent incapacitation of the convicted person. Unlike other forms of punishment which only restrict some of the freedoms of the offender, the death penalty takes away his life.

Once the convicted person is executed, the community can be assured that he/she will never commit another vicious crime against the society members (Sunstein and Vermeule 848). While other forms of punishment such as life imprisonment also have an incapacitation effect, this effect is not as definite.

A person who has been imprisoned for life can still engage in vicious crimes against his fellow inmates or even the prison guards. The probability of recidivist murder is removed by implementing the death penalty. From a utilitarian point of view, this benefit is significant since it completely safeguards the society from future offences from a convict. The communitys peace of mind is also ensured since the death penalty permanently gets rid of vicious criminals, ensuring that they are not able to reenter society.

The death penalty leads to a sense of justice for the individuals affected by the crime perpetrated by the convicted person. As has been highlighted, the death penalty is only given to individuals who have engaged in vicious crimes such as violent murder. When a person commits a violent murder, he causes significant emotional distress to the family and friends of the victim (Stambaugh and Gary 1).

This pain and suffering can be alleviated if the convicted person is given a punishment that fits his crime. Without the death penalty, the convicted person is given a long prison sentence. This might expose the family of the victims to future emotional suffering as they might be required to attend parole hearings for the convict. The death penalty provides maximum retribution and therefore gives peace to the family and friends of the victim.

The final benefit of the death penalty is that it gives the judge the ability to provide adequate retribution for any crime. For justice to be served, it is necessary for the severity of the punishment to equal the crime committed. If the punishment is regarded as lenient, then there will be a sense of injustice by society members.

There are crimes that cannot be punished satisfactorily without the death penalty. Without the death penalty, people found guilty of these crimes would be given the maximum life imprisonment sentence. This would create a sense of injustice therefore decreasing the credibility of the justice system.

This might cause people to engage in extrajudicial killings (Steiker and Jordan 649). A utilitarian approach would support a punishment that leads to a sense of justice and hence increases the credibility of the justice system. Capital punishment fulfils this role and leads to the perception of justice therefore preventing the breakdown in law and order that might occur if people seek out their own justice.

Utilitarian Argument Against Death Penalty

A significant consequence of the death penalty is that is has a high fiscal cost compared to the alternatives. The taxpayers have to shoulder the financial burden associated with implementing the death penalty. Traditionally, the death penalty was considered to be a cheaper method of punishing convicts compared to the alternative, which is a longer prison term. However, this has changed as procedures that are more stringent have been put in place when dealing with capital cases.

Instead of tackling these cases as other criminal cases, the prosecutor and defender are required to be thorough and make use of expert witnesses. Once the judgment has been passed, the offender can engage in numerous appeals making the case last for many years. While it is possible to reduce the costs associated with capital punishment, such a move would require neglecting some of the procedural safeguards put in place to ensure that the risk of wrongful conviction is reduced to the minimal.

From a utilitarian perspective, the huge financial cost is a negative consequence to the society. Opponents of capital punishment point out that the society would benefit more if the money currently used to sustain the death penalty was used for other pursuits such as building rehabilitation centers or increasing the police force in order to deter crime in the community (Dieter par.15).

Another major consequence of the death penalty is that it might lead to a miscarriage of justice. If this happens, an innocent person can be put to death by the criminal justice system. While miscarriages of justice occur even in non-capital cases, there is the hope that the innocent person can be exonerated in the future through appeals.

However, the death penalty is final and once the sentence has been carried out, there is no chance for the innocent person to challenge the wrongful conviction and attain his freedom. Aronson and Cole reveal that the danger of wrongful conviction remains to be the most dominant issue in capital punishment discussions (604).

This situation can lead to a crisis of confidence in capital punishment since killing an innocent person is unacceptable. To a utilitarian, the wrongful killing of an innocent person is a great loss to the society since he can no longer make a positive contribution to his society. In addition to this, wrongful execution might lead to emotional distress by the people who were involved in the trial. It therefore has a negative impact and reduces the happiness of the society.

Ethical Analysis

To determine the ethical nature of an action using utilitarianism, one must weigh the benefits against the consequences. In this case, the benefits of the death penalty include deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and the preservation of law and order. On the other hand, the consequences include high fiscal cost and a potential loss of innocent lives.

As can be seen, the benefits of implementing the death penalty outweigh the consequences. It can therefore be asserted that the death penalty is ethical from a utilitarian perspective since it has a net beneficial effect, which leads to the maximization of the happiness of the greatest amount of people.

Conclusion

This paper set out to demonstrate the ethical nature of the death penalty using the utilitarian theory. It began by acknowledging that the death penalty issue is highly controversial and people are divided in their opinions concerning its usefulness.

The paper then demonstrated how the utilitarian theory, which seeks to maximize the happiness of the majority, could be used to ascertain the ethical nature of capital punishment. It has shown that the death penalty has major advantages to society including deterrence, incapacitation, and an increase in the credibility of the criminal justice system. However, the death penalty also has major consequences since it is costly to the citizen and it might lead to wrongful executions.

However, the benefits are more prominent and when implemented, the death penalty reaffirms the value of observing the law, thus creating a safer society for all citizens. From the arguments provided in this paper, it is clear that the death penalty has the most favorable results for the majority in society. This punishment should therefore be implemented more often in our country since it is ethically sound and leads to overall benefits to the society.

Works Cited

Aronson, Jay and Cole Simon. Science and the Death Penalty: DNA, Innocence, and the Debate over Capital Punishment in the United States. Law & Social Inquiry 34.3 (2009): 603-633. Print.

Dieter, Richard. Capital Punishment Is Too Expensive to Retain. Death Penalty Information Center 21.2 (2009): 1-2. Web.

Kirchgassner, Gebhard. Econometric Estimates of Deterrence of the Death Penalty: Facts or Ideology? Kyklos 64.3(2011): 448-478. Web.

Stambaugh, Irl, and Gary Stam. Death Penalty Would End Punishment of Victims Family. Anchorage Daily News. 2009. Web.

Steiker, Carol and Jordan Morris. Capital Punishment: A Century of Discontinuous Debate. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100.3 (2010): 643-689. Print.

Sunstein, Cass and Vermeule Adrian. Deterring Murder: A Reply. Stanford Law Review 58.1 (2005): 847857. Web.

Capital punishment refers to the legal process that subjects criminals to the death penalty as provided by the state laws. In this case, the jury sentences the criminal to death by the process of killing known as execution. Capital offences trigger the state to subject individuals to the death penalty.

Some of the common capital offences include crimes against the state, homicide and crimes against humanity. When intelligent individuals aggravate the crime incidences such as murder, felony or contract killing, the death penalty is sought (Kerby 36). After one is sentenced to the death penalty, there are multiple methods of execution based on the jurisdiction. Although the form of execution has continuously changed with time, the common form is lethal injection.

Over time, capital punishment has been a contentious issue with respect to social issues in the United States. Although the main reason for reaffirmation of the practice has been to act as a deterrent to capital offenders, people have different perceptions about the same issue.

Some of the reasons that drive people to oppose the death sentence include value for human life, lack of deterrence, unfairness, chances of errors, and Christian beliefs. These reasons are valid and acceptable to some degree, but they cannot be the main reasons for the need to abolish the death penalty (Wolf 69). This subject is attributed to the benefits that exist when capital punishment is upheld.

The death penalty has been opposed because it is considered barbaric, useless and a practice of the past. Most critics argue that such practices should not be propagated to the civilized society at the time. One main reason for such argument is that the death penalty is a cruel and strange punishment contradicting the respect for human rights. Through the Christian teachings, most people have been influenced to consider the death penalty as illogical and unethical practice.

base their argument on the insensibility of vengeance acquired through execution of murderers. In this case, they feel that executing an individual would not bring back the lost life. Consequently, the practice of the death penalty is useless and should be abolished. Nevertheless, the variation in religion necessitates the consideration of the death penalty. This issue is critical in the society since most people may exploit the death consideration of other individuals to murder people for personal interests.

The frequency of murder and cruelty of humans has demanded rules and policies that govern the deeds of people. In this regard, the death penalty has been considered to ensure that the society is in order. At the same time, the death penalty is used to ensure that people do not use their power or capacities to defend themselves, but they should adopt legal procedures. This implies that the death penalty is the ideal and moral punishment that should be used to deter individuals who murder other people (Kerby 12).

Furthermore, it is morally wrong to let a murderer live when already an innocent person has been killed. Under such a scenario, the death penalty serves as the ultimate penalty for murderers as long as justice and morality is to be upheld. Consequently, it implies that the death penalty is essential to prevent the chaotic state of nature expected from humanity. In addition, it offers sufficient vengeance against individuals who have condemned the law.

Another main reason for the reaffirmation of the capital punishment is to provide justice to the victims. The killing of convicted murderers gratifies the necessity for vengeance for most people. Since some crimes are regarded as heinous, execution of perpetrators offers a sensible response.

Although Christians stipulate the need for forgiveness or mercy, their view is usually disregarded to offer vengeance in such circumstances. Nonetheless, the bible portrays a sense of need for the capital punishment through the practices of the Hebrews. Therefore, it is critical to uphold capital punishment to offer justice for all people.

The subjection of capital offenders to the death penalty acts as a form of deterrence to other potential individuals. Although there is no confirmed correlation between the two concepts, most people appreciate its intuitive validity in maintaining the respect for human life and nurturing human value in the mindset of people. It is indicated by statistics that most countries upholding the death penalty have reduced cases of murder.

The information given to people is that they should not commit crimes since the ultimate punishment is death. Meanwhile, the state kills the murderers to depict that human life has the greatest value. Moreover, it indicates that there is no adequate value to pay for taking someone else life other than death. For this reason, death penalty is the ultimate penalty for the convicted individuals (FCNL 28).

The cost of maintenance of the convicted individuals is also one of the reasons that necessitate the death penalty. Expenses incurred after individuals are convicted of crimes such as murder in prison are unnecessary for the state. Some of the costs involve maintenance of individuals and protection of other counterparts in the prison. In this case, such criminals offer threats to the correctional officers as well as other prisoners.

Therefore, once an individual is found guilty of a capital offense, one should be executed and buried, which in turn reduce the expenses of extra maintenance. In addition, the state reduces the costs of meeting multiple appeals by eradicating individuals convicted of murder from the society (Kerby 48).

The need for public safety gives a valid reason as to the need for the death penalty. After a convicted murderer is executed and buried, there is no possibility of future reoccurrence of the same incident perpetrated by the same individual (Young 82). For this reason, execution, which results in the elimination of chances that the individual might break out of jail and harm other people, clearly portrays the need for capital punishment.

At the same time, people with attachment of the victims of murder may never assimilate with the released individuals in their lifetimes. In such circumstances, the affected individuals may be triggered to avenge for their lost ones since no punitive penalty is offered by the state. On the other hand, most murderers have limited chances of being rehabilitated with the conditions exposed to them in prisons.

The reaffirmation of the death penalty is also attributed to the teachings portrayed by most religions. Initially, the bible portrays that the death penalty is essential for horrendous crimes such as sorcery, homosexuality, murder and lack of women virginity during marriage. In this case, such crimes demanded the individuals to be burnt or stoned to death.

Such teachings depict that the death penalty is necessary to maintain order in a society. Although the evolution of Christianity with time has changed the whole concept of the initial teachings, it is essential for the state to uphold practices that are considered just and moral.

On the other hand, the Muslim teachings also deem the necessity of the death penalty for serious offenders. The common crime that demands the death penalty with Islam is the practice of homosexuality (Kerby 56). Since the construction of legal practices borrows some ideas from the religious teachings, it implies that it is essential to adopt the death penalty to counter heinous crimes. Consequently, the society will be orderly maintained with the presence of the death penalty.

In conclusion, the death penalty is necessary in the modern society that is associated with a significant amount of evils. The practices and cultures of people have changed tremendously, which necessitate punitive measures to restore the society to its norm. In this case, crimes that affect the welfare of humans will be curbed effectively. At the same time, it is essential to consider that adoption of rules that prevent people from engaging in certain activities divert their attention to other productive activities (Young 45).

Through this practice, individuals who do not suit the needs of the community are also eradicated leading to the creation of a sober generation. As a result, people will change with time and learn the appropriate ways to adopt in the event of adversity rather than using their power. This will boost the psychological and emotional stability of citizens with the state. Consequently, the issues addressed by the presence of the death penalty depict its importance to the society.

Works Cited

FCNL. FCNL: Federal death penalty. FCNL. N.p., n.d. Web.

Kerby, J. Facts about deterrence and the death penalty. Capital Punishment. N.p., n.d. Web.

Wolf, Alice. Letter to constituents concerning her vote as a state representative for Mass. opposing the death penalty. Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web.

Young, R. Religious Orientation, Race and Support for the Death Penalty. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31.2 (1992): 76-87. Web.

Within the realms of the American laws, criminal justice system comprises of the law creators (legislative), courts (adjudication), and correctional facilities such as probation, parole, prisons, and jails. American criminal justice system comprises of the jurisdictional, normative, functional, and institutional components.

These components work simultaneously in defining the goals of procedural laws and decision to be taken by the court of law. Factually, these activities take place at different points. This paper analyses impact of death penalty at the Walnut Street Jail of Philadelphia.

Actually, capital punishment refers to a death sentence on individuals who have committed unlawful deeds. Indeed, such punishment arises due to capital offences. Death penalty is normally conducted by knocking out head from an individuals body. Initially, death penalty was practiced by many countries but currently several nations have abandoned the practice.

Indeed, many positions have been raised due to religious and cultural explanations, and political principles. In fact, the Holy Bible justifies death penalty against criminal offenses such as murder. This paper examines death penalty from an impartial view by considering disadvantages and advantages of capital punishment in society.

Advantages of Capital Punishment

First, according to Teeters, death penalty eradicates criminal activities in a community. Indeed, capital punishment is an important mission for every person simply because it instills moral while discouraging criminal activities in society. Actually, dead victims would not commit more illegal actions either when freed from jail or in jail.

Secondly, money is ever a limited commodity. In this case, nations would utilize wisely their scarce resources to care their citizens who need help rather than spending such resources in imprisoning criminals for long term basis. Capital punishment is hence cost-effectual. Indeed, infinite appeals would spend much time and more resources in resolving death disputes.

Death penalty is therefore cost-valuable. Thirdly, Teeters views that death penalty is a retribution action in which a victim is punished because of offenses committed. In fact, capital punishment is an eye for an eye formula which is revengeful with no forgiveness. Lastly, capital punishment is a deterrent device that has discouraged crimes. Actually, before committing crimes, criminals have to perceive possible impacts of their actions because they are aware of what death penalty justifies.

Disadvantages of Capital Punishment

Teeters explains that there is a conviction that innocent persons would be killed and therefore there would be no alternative manner for compensating and rehabilitating such people. Secondly, death penalty is an unkind, barbaric and unashamed inhuman act, regardless how atrocious offense is.

Indeed, human being has self-respect to exist which is a natural law from religious perspective. In addition, human being has dignity to exist with self-respect which should be key priority for any government objective for people. Moreover, there has been a big concern how a government would tread on persons dignity and right.

Third, according to Teeters, death penalty never gives a victim possibility to be regretful of his actions. Actually, capital punishment has never treated criminals with a just prospect to recover their deeds. Lastly, there is no tangible proof that death penalty has been capable to prevent latent victims from performing offensive acts.

Furthermore, mitigating capital punishment as way to prevent future unlawful acts is likely to be an obvious one-dimension justification to several people. Indeed, this should not be the case. Actually, people should look for objective justifications that support every person, even criminal offenders.

Though parole and probation are community correction strategies which functioning on the concept of community supervision, they are different in many aspects. Despite these differences, they were initiated to mitigate the magnitude and severity of the punishment process. Parole was introduced in America in the mid 19^th century.

Under this arrangement credit marks are awarded for behavior change, and release from detaining heavily relies on the cumulative score per prisoner. After probation, the suspected offender is passed through criminal justice system, and if found guilty, may be sentenced to a jail term. Since these detention camps have parole officers, prisoners are registered in parole programs and the best behaved released before full jail term. Generally, these processes are designed to promote positive behavior change initiated by the suspect.

Conclusion

Capital punishment had been a controversial dispute since ancient era, though remains certainty in some nations in the world. Actually, India and other countries still endow death penalty for most terrible unlawful acts. However, Human Right Advocates have remained persistent to resist against capital punishment in order to restore human dignity. However, some States have embraced death penalty as an eventual sentence so long as unlawful deeds typifies intense brutal act.

Bibliography

Teeters, Negley. The Cradle of the Penitentiary: The Walnut Street Jail at Philadelphia 1773-1835. Temple University, 2001

The public reflection on the legality and morality of capital punishment has over the years been well documented by historians, philosophers and other theorists amid the complexities and controversies the debate continues to attract.

Although the practice is institutionalized and practiced in some countries, the raging debate about its appropriateness demonstrates a subtle balance of thought among critics and advocates that continues to be analyzed under the rubric of moral, legal, philosophical and political underpinnings (Homans 44).

It is therefore the purpose of this essay to critically examine recent arguments in support and against the practice of capital punishment with a view to elucidating facts about its appropriateness or inappropriateness in modern society.

It is indeed true that a growing number of countries across the world are abolishing capital punishment, which basically implies the lawful infliction of death as a form of punishment (Arguments para. 1).

However, supporters of the practice continue to echo their concerns in popular media using deep-seated rationalistic arguments and counterarguments that aim to widen the focus and the historical framework of capital punishment.

One school of thought argues that damages caused by some egregious behavior such as murder and rape cannot be sufficiently compensated, hence the need to formulate legislation that will provide optimum deterrence to the offender in the form of capital punishment (Baron 855).

Undeniably, the stakes in support of capital punishment are even higher if such egregious conduct is proved beyond reasonable doubt by a court of law, or if the perpetrator readily admits to taking part in the murder or rape of the victim.

In such scenarios, the upholding of capital punishment is seen as a necessary antidote to such uncivilized and inhuman behavior (Steiker & Stetker 649).

In line with the above argument, supporters of capital punishment argue that the practice permanently removes thieves, murderers, rapists, and other criminals from the face of society, in the process making it safer for compliant members of society to leave in peace (Steiker & Stetker 651).

This rationalistic argument is founded on the fact that dead criminals cannot in anyway engage in further criminal activities, either within prison or after being released into the public domain (Arguments para 9).

This is, in my view, a flawed argument since it does not only lack any moral justification, but it denies the murderer or rapist the chance to reform and look upon life from a positive standpoint.

Assuming a rather economic perspective, some pro-capital punishment advocates argue that limited state resources should be used on important issues rather than on long-term incarceration of murderers, rapists, and other criminals (Arguments para 10). Supporters of this school of thought argue that countries should not use an inexhaustible commodity such as money to cater for individuals condemned for murdering or raping innocent victims.

However, this argument can be challenged from the viewpoint that some techniques used to execute condemned criminals are as a matter of fact more expensive than putting such individuals on long-term imprisonment. In consequence, the issue of cost does not hold much water.

Still, other proponents of capital punishment argue that the criminal must be made to suffer the full consequences in proportion to the offence he or she might have committed, otherwise known as retributive justice (Baron 855; Arguments para. 11). As such, a murderer must meet the full force of the law by being executed instead of undergoing some form of rehabilitative treatment.

However, this standpoint, in my own view, is faced with a serious challenge because it does not only assumes the old-fashioned logic of an eye for an eye, but it also lacks in establishing effective standards for punishing offenders in as far as crimes such as rape, robbery with violence, and other odious criminal activities are concerned (Baron 856).

For instance, a rapist cannot in anyway be raped under the instruction of the criminal justice system just to make sure that such a criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the crime committed. In consequence, this argument is a non-starter.

Lastly, pro-capital punishment advocates argue that the practice has been effectively used to deter serious criminal activities in countries such as Singapore, China, and Iran, among others. Indeed, consecutive studies reveal that there are far less serious crimes in countries that practice capital punishment, and the opposite is almost always true in countries that dont (Arguments para. 12).

Indeed, &those in favor of capital punishment believe that the threat of severe punishment should bring the crime rates down and that capital punishment or the death penalty is the ultimate crime deterrent (Cox para. 1).

But as observed by this particular author, capital punishment is no longer effective in deterring crime, in part, due to the fact that it is neither swift nor certain as it used to be in early days.

For instance, one can be convicted for a capital offence but the swiftness of taking the convict to the gallows or firing squad is no longer present, thus it cannot be used to deter other members of society from committing crime.

In equal measure, the practice lacks certainty in countries such as the U.S. by virtue of the fact that different states apply the law regarding capital punishment differently (Steiker & Stetker 650).

Critics of capital punishment employ both moral and pragmatic justifications to argue their case. Pragmatically, critics argue that capital punishment lacks any reformative purpose in as far as re-establishing a good citizen is concerned, thus the case for its application relies on retribution and deterrence (Homans 43).

This further implies that the death penalty cannot in any valid way be used to reform society; on the contrary, it can only be used to protect society from individuals perceived to be deviating from the norm.

In consequence, capital punishment fails to serve one of the basic tenets of the criminal justice system  that of reforming individuals to comply with the norms and values set by society.

The moral argument against the death penalty holds that killing an individual for the sole purpose of letting justice take its course is unequivocally wrong.

The basic premise for this argument is that the murderer or rapist is wicked to kill or to rape, but so is the state or the criminal justice system (Homans 43). This is a valid argument in as far as the American Constitution and many religions protect the sanctity of life.

Indeed, many religions worldwide are of the opinion that life is God-given and that it is only the Almighty who can take away the life of someone. Consequently, it is morally and spiritually wrong for the state and the criminal justice system to assume the role of God (Styers 99).

Moving on, critics of capital punishment postulates that it is often awarded in an inconsistent manner, not mentioning the fact that there exist a real possibility of executing the innocent (Homans 46). This incontrovertible point of view further argues that there is no possible way of compensating the innocent in the eventuality that justice was miscarried, thus the legislation does not carry much weight.

In the case of murder, the shallowness of slapping capital offenders with the death penalty is further demonstrated by the fact that it is only the culprit and the victim who knows what really happened, not the prosecution and defense lawyers in a court of law. As such, it is not out of the ordinary for an individual to be convicted for murder when he should actually have only being convicted for a lesser charge such as manslaughter (Styers 115). This is undeniably wrong.

Capital punishment is a cruel and unusual form of punishment. Indeed, many countries are abolishing capital punishment due to its very own inhuman nature, not mentioning the fact that international law and treaties are edging towards declaring the death penalty to be a human rights violation (Styers 117).

It is interesting to note that none of the various international criminal courts and treaties provides for capital punishment, and some regional and international bodies such as the Council of Europe and the European Union are advocating for the abandonment of capital punishment as a precondition for membership.

Indeed, not only does capital punishment projects a negative image for any country that puts it into practice, but it also seriously dents the image and esteem of innocent family members and friends of criminals lined up for executions (Homans 45). This must never be allowed to continue.

To conclude, it is evidently clear from the discussion that capital punishment does not only assume a backward trajectory, but it also raises critical moral and ethical challenges that must be answered for the practice to gain credence.

Yet, proponents of the death penalty have failed to provide satisfactory answers to the questions asked, not mentioning the fact that their own justifications as can be observed above rests on shallow waters.

It is indeed true that no one in his sane mind can possibly deny the anguish of the victims family in a murder or rape case, but the anguish and despair of the murderers or rapists family must also be taken into consideration (Homans 47).

In addition, knowledge about the poor administration of capital punishment by most countries is in the public domain. Whats more, it must be remembered that murderers, rapists and other criminals are ordinary mortals who have a life and with it the capability to experience pain, fright and the loss of family members and friends.

It should also be remembered that there is no such thing as a compassionate technique of executing a criminal irrespective of what the state may claim because every form of execution is a horrendous ordeal for the criminal. As such, it is only right that capital punishment be abandoned.

Works Cited

Arguments for and Against Capital Punishment. (n.d.). Web.

Baron, J.C. The Monstrous Heresy of Punitive Damages: A Comparison to the Death Penalty and Suggestions for Reform. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 159.3(2007): 853-891. Web.

Cox, E.V. Why Capital Punishment Doesnt Deter Crime. 2006. Web.

Homans, L. Swinging Sixties: The Abolition of Capital Punishment. History Today 58.12 (2008): 43-49. Web.

Steiker, C.S., & Stetker, J.M. Capital Punishment: A Century of Discontinuous Debate. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 100.3 (2010): 643-689. Web.

Styers, R. Capital Punishment, Atonement, and the Christian Right. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 18.3 (2007): 97-127. Web.

Introduction

Capital punishment is a judicial death punishment for people convicted of committing heinous crimes. The use of capital punishment all over the world varies from one country to another, although it is being removed gradually from the current constitutions of various countries because it is considered as an inhuman form of punishment.

Capital punishment raises a lot of controversy world wide on whether to continue using it or not. If yes, what type of punishment and on what category of crimes?

Proponents

Proponents of capital punishment argue that, the only way to punish heinous criminals is by capital punishment because life imprisonment is not an effective way of punishing and warning potential criminals against committing terrible crimes. Hence, capital punishment is not only a punishment to criminals but also a warning to prospective criminals from committing heinous crimes.

Capital punishment supporters also argue that it is the cheapest way of eliminating horrific criminals from the society as compared to life imprisonment that needs tight security and much worry of possible escape of the criminal back into the society and repeat the same crimes.

They also say that elimination of the criminals will stop them from haunting the families and friends of the victims. Proponents further argue that there are just and humane ways of executing capital punishment without torturing the criminal.

Opponents

The opponents of capital of capital punishment argue that it is not a just and humane way of punishing heinous criminals in the society because everybody has right to life.

They also say that, since there is no standard definition of heinous crimes, there are high possibilities to execute innocent people or misuse execution in revenge to suite personal interests.

Another argument in opposition to capital punishment is the lack of a standard in judicial procedures worldwide in determining what constitutes heinous crimes and what form of capital punishment is acceptable.

For instance, in the Middle Eastern countries, homosexuality and unfaithfulness of a woman to a spouse is considered as crimes punishable by stoning while in United States homosexuals and prostitutes have their rights protected.

Discussion

Capital punishment should be allowed in punishing heinous criminals so that they pay the price of their actions and further convey a strong warning to other potential criminals. However, several questions remain unanswered; what constitutes heinous crime? What strategies are used in convicting suspects? In addition, what is the form of capital punishment?

The capital punishment simply implies death punishment, which means it is possible to arrest, convict, and execute innocent suspects for subjective reasons. There must be clear and standard definition of what constitutes heinous crimes or crimes that are punishable by death penalty.

The judicial system must have structures of vetting innocent suspects and standard form of capital punishment applicable worldwide to avoid subjective and stereotype forms of punishment that are inhuman.

Conclusion

Capital punishment is the effective punishment to horrific criminals who are there to destroy our societies. Capital punishment does not only punish the criminal but also gives the right impression to fellow criminals or prospective criminal of the imminent punishment awaiting them.

This warning will give them an opportunity to change their life styles while still free since they have no second chance to reform. Unlike life imprisonment where criminals finds the opportunity of reforming but remain ruthless while still free.

The death penalty also referred to as capital punishment, is a topic infused with varied opinions and worldwide concerns. It is the infliction of death by governmental agencies as a mode of penalization for the most detrimental crimes. Taking into account the laws of all the countries still practicing capital punishment, the majority of the crimes that are attributed to this sentence include murder, espionage, treason, extensive drug trafficking, violent robberies, and a multitude of other serious offenses. Parallel to the massive alterations in the laws concerning the death penalty, opinions on such punishment have also begun to change, many of which advocate for a move towards abolition. In 2014, Ambassador and Head of the European Union Delegation to Zambia and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, Mr. Gilles Hervio, published an evocative paper determining the death penalty as an infringement on basic human rights and integrity (Kyambalesa, 2019). Still, the conclusive thoughts on the manner are divided due to culture, religion, political affiliations, and a myriad of other variables.

Current analysis of the importance of the death penalty worldwide focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of the punishment. First, there is no exact and indisputable evidence to suggest that the death penalty is a more effective measure in cases of deterring and preventing crimes than life imprisonment or any other form of punishment. However, there are also arguments that, despite having no effect on potential criminals, the death penalty ensures that already imprisoned offenders will be unable to commit further felonies. Current rates of reincarnation or repeated offenses are an often-cited link that is used in support of capital punishment (Kyambalesa, 2019). Therefore, multiple varying opinions on these topics exist in the global community.

Coming to an international consensus concerning the retention or abolition of the death penalty becomes further complicated with the insertion of religious values and cultural standards. For instance, the complexities of religious-oriented laws in the United Arab Emirates have a great impact on the general populaces opinion and federal law in relation to capital punishment. As of 2018, the UAE has issued ten death sentences with no occurring executions (Cornell Law School, n.d.). The UAE Constitution has a statement that forbids the humiliating or degrading treatment of personal liberty and promises a fair trial, but does not exclude capital punishment. The religious proponent of the law is prevalent in the Sharia, which is upheld as the primary source of legislation. Under Article 7 of the Sharia, the guarantee is made that the death penalty must be approved by the President with the permission of the Council of Ministers (Cornell Law School, n.d.). The crimes that are currently punishable by the death penalty include aggravated murder, terrorism-related felonies, rape, drug possession, treason, espionage, and other severe offenses.

The UAE has a mandatory death penalty which is susceptible to the judgment of authorities and religious standards. It is described under Article 98, in which the judge may decide to award capital punishment or a lesser than death sentence depending on the context of the crime (Cornell Law School, n.d.). While terrorism laws suggest reducing the sentences of offenders to life imprisonment, drug laws do not have a sentence that prohibits the use of Article 98. The religious aspect also influences Article 1 of the Penal Code, in the cases of hadd or retributive punishments (Cornell Law School, n.d.). The hadd offenses are described within the Sunna and cannot be reduced or changed. As such, it is advised that the hadd penalty be given only in the gravest situations, and should otherwise be avoided. The victim or their family have stakes in such cases, with the death penalty potentially being avoided if the victim is able to issue forgiveness to the offender.

References

Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Database  Cornell Center on the death penalty worldwide. Web.

Kyambalesa, H. (2019). The death penalty: Arguments for and against. Agenda for Change, Advance Online Publication, 1-29. Web.

Capital punishment is a controversial topic in the world especially in the Western countries. Countries such as United States of America, India and China give the penalty in the severe murder cases. The human rights activists however continue to complain on the disadvantages of capital punishment in the judicial system. My hypothesis is that Capital punishment should be abolished and discontinued immediately.

In this paper I will discuss both sides of the argument against and in support of capital punishment and show how the cons far outweigh the cons. There are arguments from the economic angle that it is highly expensive for a prisoner to serve a life sentence than be sentenced to the death penalty.

The people of that country end up paying higher taxes to enable the State to maintain. It is reasoned that these funds could have been used in other more profitable economic sectors such as education and health. Secondly, capital punishment is reserved for the most heinous of crimes in the judicial systems.

The more cruel and cold-blooded the crime, the more an individual should suffer for his crime. In the Bible, in the Old Testament, the only people who were killed for their crimes were the ones who had committed the greatest crimes one of them being murdering their neighbors. The death penalty therefore fits the crime.

The officers in the judicial system argue that the death penalty acts as an effective deterrent to other potential criminals. As no one in the world wants to die, the potential criminals will think twice about committing heinous crimes. The criminals who face the death penalty are a potential and a serious danger to the other criminals and other workers such as wardens and doctors in the prisons.

Since they have killed in cold blood before, the probability of them committing another murder is much higher. It would therefore be better to get rid of them. The death penalty assures the public of safety in that the prisoner will never get out on parole. It is argued that with imprisonment there is the possibility of the hardened criminal getting out and committing other crimes in the society. Prison time may not contribute to positive rehabilitation of the criminal.

I will look at the arguments one by one and demystify the arguments one by one. They are shallow and not conclusive. Beginning with the social costs, research has shown that most cases where the death penalty is handed out, most of them are appealed in the higher courts. More costs are therefore incurred and more procedures have to be taken care of.

The cost-effectiveness of the death penalty is therefore brought down. The appeals in the death penalty cases are usually many and cause the social costs of the cases to be even more expensive (Warden, 2009). The death penalty is a cruel form of punishment and it is actually barbaric. The executions lower the dignity of the individual. Every individual has the right to live.

The State therefore commits an ethical error in killing an individual. Two wrongs do not make a right at all. The State is expected to protect the right of an individual to life. There is also the possibility of improvement of behavior. The death penalty does not give an individual the opportunity to repent or be remorseful of what he did.

It takes way the opportunity from the individual. There have also been no concrete evidence or research findings that have proven that that the death penalty has deterred potential criminals from committing a murder. A better deterrent for the potential criminals would be life imprisonment. The restricted freedom and lower social living conditions serve to discourage the criminal more from committing a crime.

The most important argument against the capital punishment comes to the issue of miscarriage of justice (Haines, 1992). There have been cases where an individual was executed only for evidence to emerge later that it was a wrongful execution. Prisoners waiting for appeals on death row have been exonerated and released.

The death penalty therefore leads to unnecessary deaths. There is no absolute guarantee that the state will carry out justice in the correct manner each time. The justice process is like any process, it is subject to errors, bias, judgmental errors and other flaws.

Knowing that there is a probability that the individual may be innocent should the State engage in issuing out the death penalty? In United States of America, prisoners stay on the death row for years waiting for judges to decide the many appeals that their lawyers have filed.

Most of the appeals are usually not valid since the lawyers are looking for a chance to simply delay the execution as they look for more evidence that will exonerate their client or change the key elements of the case. The loss of an innocent life is not worth it.

Life imprisonment should therefore be preferred. It gives an opportunity for justice to prevail in certain cases and the prisoners life is spared.

There are also cases where the individual killed the victim but is should have been ruled as manslaughter instead of murder. The truth of the matter is that the only people who know what happened are the deceased and the criminal. At the courts however it all comes to the expertise and skills of the defense lawyers and the prosecution in proving their stance in the case.

The probability of someone being convicted of murder instead of manslaughter is therefore high. There is also the emotional turmoil that the family and friends goes through before and after the execution. The individuals have to come to terms with the possibility that their loved one could be guilty of a heinous crime.

Most people concentrate on the feelings of the victims family never thinking of the turmoil the prisoners family is going through. The public is always concerned about the family of the victim finding closure and being able to move on with their lives.

It is easier for them to heal faster than when they think of the criminal being in prison still alive. However, what if there is a miscarriage of justice? The criminals family goes through so much emotional trauma accepting that their family member was killed by the State for a crime that he did not commit.

Conclusion

Looking at all the arguments mentioned above, it is clear that the death penalty should cease operating in any country in the world in this century. It is a traditional form of punishment and now with the government officials being enlightened on the ills or consequences, it should cease immediately. The information and statistics against capital punishment is overwhelming and should not be ignored at all.

Works Cited

Haines, Herb. Flawed Executions, the Anti-Death Penalty Movement, and the Politics of Capital Punishment Social Problems, 39.2 (1992):125-138.

Warden, Rob. Reflections on Capital Punishment Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy,2.1(2009): 229-259.

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial issues that evoke heated debates in the United States. On the one hand, Americans place the highest value on human life and peoples basic rights. The right to life cannot be alienated, according to liberal views that reign in the USA (McCarthy, 2017). On the other hand, violent crimes are often associated with the violation of these basic rights. For instance, murders take other peoples lives, so such crimes deserve the most severe types of punishment, including execution (Zhang, 2017). Capital punishment can serve as a way to deter people from committing certain crimes and to ensure retribution (Tuckness, 2020). This perspective is grounded in the philosophy of John Locke, who remains one of the most influential philosophers, whose approach determined the development of the western world. The present paper includes a brief justification of capital punishment that is supported by the philosophical framework of John Locke.

First, it is important to stress that the highest value of human life, which is one of the natural rights of any individual, cannot be questioned. According to the liberal paradigm, all people are born equally enjoying the right to life (McCarthy, 2017). All people have the right to live, accumulate and protect their property, and ensure their health and wellbeing, which are central principles articulated by John Locke.

It may seem that these postulates make capital punishment impossible as it presupposes taking a persons life. Based on such a perspective, all people, including murderers, have the right to life. Some may note that even if a person violates some laws (and kills another person), their right to life cannot be alienated. The supporters of such views emphasize that other forms of punishment should be employed.

Nevertheless, this claim is weak and even groundless due to several reasons. John Locke made a number of valuable assertions regarding the matter. One of the strongest arguments for capital punishment for violent crimes is the likening of a murderer to a creature who does not enjoy natural rights. Murderers become noxious and savage creatures losing their status as reasonable human beings (Seliger, 2019). They violate another persons natural right, which is seen as an unreasonable act.

Therefore, these creatures do not enjoy the same right to life as they become inferior things. According to John Locke, humans have the right to use inferior creatures, such as animals, and even destroy them if necessary (Seliger, 2019). In this way, the primary argument of the opponents of capital punishment is refuted. In simple terms, the individual who violates other peoples natural rights cannot enjoy the same rights.

On top of that, not only is capital punishment justified but needed to maintain order in contemporary human society. It can be the strongest deterring aspect motivating people to avoid committing certain crimes (Tuckness, 2020). John Locke stresses that reason is the major feature of a human being. People consider potential consequences whenever they choose the most appropriate and beneficial behavioral pattern. If a person decides to violate major natural laws, they need to be punished for this violation in order to make others acknowledge the adverse outcomes of their actions.

Based on this philosophical perspective, capital punishment should be used across the United States. All states should reconsider their legal systems to ensure the development and enactment of the corresponding laws. Clearly, it is critical to ensure that the Eighth Amendment is not violated as no excessive punishment can be inflicted on any person (Pineo, 2019). However, capital punishment is not excessive when it comes to diverse violent crimes involving the death of a person or several people. Human life and wellbeing are the highest priority, so the one who violates an individuals right to life deserves the most severe punishment, which is death.

Importantly, people give away some of their rights to the state in order to make their life easier and more comfortable. For example, they delegate their right to choose the most appropriate type of punishment to the corresponding representatives. Hence, these individuals should make sure that the most serious crimes will inevitably lead to capital punishment, while milder types of misconduct may result in other forms of punishment (Tuckness, 2020). Of course, the execution itself is also subject to the provisions of the Eighth Amendment and no excessive suffering can be accepted.

In conclusion, it is necessary to state that liberal morals articulated by John Locke can be seen as arguments supporting the use of capital punishment in particular cases. If an individual commits a violent crime, they should be deprived of their right to enjoy a similar right. If a person kills another human being, they can no longer enjoy the same status. The murderer becomes a creature who undermines the wellness and life of others and, more generally, the future of the established order. Such violators have to be punished accordingly to make sure others would avoid engaging in such illegal activities.

Capital punishment should be utilized in all parts of the United States, which will be instrumental in strengthening the created social contract. John Locke, who placed the highest value on human life, also claimed that certain people (those committing violent crimes) could not be regarded as human beings, becoming inferior creatures. Such creatures do not enjoy the right to life, and, moreover, they need to be punished severely to make sure that others will be deterred from committing violent crimes.

References

McCarthy, G. (2017). Marx and social justice: Ethics and natural law in the critique of political economy. BRILL.

Pineo, S. (2019). Controversy and the death penalty. Across the Bridge: The Merrimack Undergraduate Research Journal, 1, 4151.

Seliger, M. (2019). The liberal politics of John Locke. Routledge.

Tuckness, A. (2020). Lockes political philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.

Zhang, Y. (2017). Reconsidering the legitimacy of capital punishment in the interpretation of the human right to live in the two traditional approaches. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 11, 534545.

Introduction

Capital punishments attract immense controversies. Human rights advocates claim that a death penalty violates human rights, especially considering that the crimes for which death penalty is applied involve multi-killings. The issue here is whether an act of killing one person, the offender, can measure up to the lives lost because of the acts of the wrongdoer. Nations, which still practice capital punishment, hold that death penalties are essential in helping to prevent or reduce homicide crimes.

While this position receives scholarly support such as Radelet and Lacock (489) and Manski and Pepper (123), an important question is whether it is ethically and morally justified to execute one person for the benefit of manipulating the conducts of other people in the society. This paper deploys a deontological school of thought, theory of Kantianism to respond to this interrogative. The paper assumes the Kantian approach to capital punishment to show that the strategy is the only punishment that fits the crime.

Summary of Kantianism

Several theories explain the manner in which people react when they encounter certain situations. These theories fall into normative and descriptive approaches (Forschler Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics 88). In the perspectives of normative approaches, ethical concepts define various values and principles, which guide peoples decisions and behaviors. Descriptive approaches consider ethics as constituting the permissible individual and societal behaviors. Kantianism constitutes one of the deontological normative theories that shed light on what should be considered a right accomplishment or a wrong action.

Kantianism refers to the philosophical school of thought developed by Emanuel Kant. According to Kant, any rationale should not be exposed to rebellion (Forschler Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics 88). Kant believes that this problem can be resolved only by subjecting the power of reason to criticism in the endeavor to establish its limits clearly. This thesis constitutes the main objective of Kants book Critique of Pure Reason.

Kant argues that critique of reason creates room for the possibility of establishing a distinction between legitimate deployment of reason in philosophy and rhetoric coupled with dialectical use (Forschler Willing Universal Law 142). Hence, the foundation of rationality in science and the room for religion coupled with morality are also left. The main interest of this paper is in the morality and ethicalness of actions such as capital punishments as a well-reasoned necessary cause of action. Therefore, I restrict my discussion to Kants arguments on the morality that may apply to capital punishment.

Kantian deontology is guided by duty, as opposed to desired end goals and/ or emotions. Therefore, in the discussion of its applicability in capital punishments, no emotion should be aroused due to the manner in which a person is executed. Rather, an important question is should capital crime offenders be punished through capital punishments? According to Kant, all actions are done within some parameters that support the action (Forschler Willing Universal Law 142).

He termed this issue as maxim. From the basis of maxim, it becomes possible to judge any moral worthiness of an action. Kant developed his reasoning of any action as constituting the evaluation of rationality of the action, the best action being the one that delivers utmost good. Kant asserts that people are rational in a fundamental way. The awareness underlines the criterion deployed in the evaluation of the appropriateness of any maxims developed through rationality.

Categorical imperative leads to the experimentation of peoples thoughts. Categorical imperative entails attempts to universalize the maxim (by imagining a world where all people necessarily act in this way in the relevant circumstances) and then see if the maxim and its associated action will still be conceivable in such a world (Forschler Willing Universal Law 145). For example, taking the principle that one should kill every annoying person and applying it universally raises the chances where all people will be killed, thus leading that to a situation where one would not have anyone to kill since all people will have been killed. Hence, such a principle is both irrational and impossible to sustain.

Kant believed that universalizing a principle had two possible implications, namely, inconsistency-in-will and outset incongruity. Contractionin-will means a situation where people will challenge the implications of universalizing maxims. The second contraction denotes the situation in which a maxim is an invalid way of achieving an end. The first case of contradiction results in perfect duty while the second case suggests a defective duty.

Kants deontology focuses on maxims that underline a given action where the judgment of the action is done based on whether it amounts to the best thing to do or to a bad thing. The main criterion for accomplishing this end is conformity of the judgment to reason.

Kant admits that most of peoples common sense with respect to what is bad or good matches his value systems. However, he is quick to note that actions executed for any other reason, apart from being rational, are not good actions (Potter 269). For example, it is not necessary to salvage a drowning individual because of sympathy or pity, as this action is not morally right. He denies the assertion that the repercussions of any act contribute to a moral justification of an act. Based on these basic tenets of Kant deontology, the next section suggests that capital punishments are appropriate for capital offenders.

Application of Kantianism to Capital Punishments

Kant advocated for capital punishment for offenses such as murder. This position attracts controversies from different scholars, including Gudorf (99) who support the theory while others such as Gius (199) opposed it. The theory attracts debate across the world, especially with the increasing threat of hardcore criminals who engage in serial killings. Instead of capital punishment for such offenders, those in position of capital castigation would propose holding the criminal in Supermax prisons.

Nevertheless, some human rights activists argue that Supermax prisons violate basic human rights. Besides lacking human contact, they are deficient of intellectual stimulation. The prisons have negative consequences on the confined inmates. In this context, any argument against some forms of punishments, including capital retribution, is based on the consequences of the justice, which Kant cautions should not be a determining factor for the appropriateness of the action (Forschler Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics 87).

The above opinions may be justified when viewed from the lens of the proclamation of human rights as provided for in the US constitution and the international law. However, a question emerges whether the lives of the inmates held at Supermax prisons or those who are executed are more superior when compared to the harmless multiple lives claimed by the inmates, individually or in collaboration with others.

To this extent, the argument about the human rights activists is unjustified to the extent that all people have equal rights and that ones rights ends where the other persons civil liberties begin. From Kants deontology, the execution of such people is the best punishment (Forschler Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics 89).

Justice is delivered to match the threshold of the offense committed. For example, a terrorist who bombs 100 people to death while he or she narrowly escapes death can only be an aggravated source of national and international security when an intermediate sanction is deployed to punish him or her. Such a person needs not to be in contact with other people who he or she can potentially harm or people who he or she can conspire to commit another deadly crime.

To eliminate such a threat in totality, it is better to act without emotions by extending capital punishment. However, an important question is whether this action is the right thing to do. A response to this question requires the examination of the justification of capital punishments from Kants deontology as Rachels and Rachels reveal (3).

Death penalty helps in deterring the rates of murder in the US. Hence, when capital punishment is given to offenders who deserve it, more people fear committing crimes that can attract similar punishments. However, sentencing an individual to death penalty for the benefit of other people with the hope that they will not engage in crime that attract capital punishment is not right from Kants deontology. In addition, human rights activists arguments against capital punishments based on the claim that the action violates human rights are founded on consequence, which is not a rational basis for not doing the act.

Death Penalty Focus reckons that jurists fail to deliver capital punishment judgment to women compared to men due to emotional responses towards the women capital offenders (par.5). Kant warns against acting in a manner that is dictated by emotions, as opposed to rational justification for an action. From this context, delivering lesser punishments for crimes that require capital punishment is morally wrong. Is the act itself (capital punishment) right?

Normative theory of Kant leads to two important ideas that justify the need for capital punishment. One person should not be punished as a means to submissive purposes for any other person. Hence, one should not be punished as a way of manipulating the conducts of another person. Rather, such a person should have given consent to such punishment. In the same capacity that one should not make another person a slave, but can enter into an agreement to work for wages or salary, it is inappropriate to prescribe capital punishment to a person who consents to it by way of acting in a manner that prompts the jurist to extend such sentence.

The second important idea is that justice should guarantee equality. For example, if one kills another person, the best justice is the one, which brings the killer to an equal position relative to the person who was killed.

Kants basic moral rule is that people should act in accordance with the principle that the best action should be one that becomes a universal law. This claim implies the principle that permits one to demonstrate a given behavior. Consequently, one should act in a manner that he or she permits other people to do. For example, killing somebody permits other people to kill the murderer. Hence, if one robs other people, then he or she gives all other people the authority to rob him or her. However, only the guilty people deserve being punished in accordance with the universal law that one has developed.

The punishment should be one, which enables an individual to develop awareness of the degree of his or her deeds. This case underlines the need for developing creative punishments. For example, in case of insult from a powerful person, imposing a fine may not be an adequate penalty to make the person realize the badness of his or her deeds. Rather, he or she should experience humiliation in the public domain. Similarly, in murder cases, the criminal should suffer similar fate since no other humiliation can measure up to the degree of his or her deeds, apart from capital punishment. Therefore, the penalty is the justified retribution.

Kant directly supported the need for capital punishments. He argued that even if the entire civil society was dissolved after people consented, the very last murderer in a prison needed to be executed. This statement may be interpreted as extremism in matters of support for capital punishment. Secondly, it may be interpreted as supporting the doctrine of retributivism, which has been considered the rationale for justifying death penalties (Potter 267).

Kant lived in a time when capital punishment was an acceptable form of punishment for different types of crimes, especially in Europe. However, he argued in its support for crime that involved murder. Therefore, he did not assert that other crimes should be punished using death penalty. Similarly, this paper argues that capital punishment measures up to the crimes of killing other people. By the actual act of killing, one invites other people to kill the assassin. Therefore, by killing, the murderer has already invited other people to kill him or her. Through capital punishment, one is brought to equality with the murder crime that he or she commits. Otherwise, failing to give a death penalty to somebody who has already invited other people to do it by the act of killing another person is injustice to the murderer.

The above position attracts mixed views, especially in the cotemporary world. For example, capital punishment may not be an appropriate punishment for serial murderers such as terrorists who kill hundreds of people. The point of argument here is that Kant advocates doing actions that match what one person does to another. Therefore, a serial killers life may not be equivalent to that of several people he or she has killed.

From the premise of creative punishment, an appropriate punishment should be passed to the serial killer for him or her to suffer equal humiliation. Should he or she be confined to Supermax or be executed? From Kants deontology, the number of people that one has murdered does not matter. What matters is the act of killing, which the murderer invites other people to do as a universally acceptable act. Therefore, capital punishment is the justified punishment for serial killers, including terrorists.

Conclusion

Today, many nations have abolished capital punishments. In the US, those who have committed the worst crimes are convicted to life imprisonment at Supermax prisons. However, from Kants deontology, those who convict murderers to life imprisonment fail to deliver justice to those who have acknowledged capital punishment as the most justified punishment. Therefore, any punishment given to a murderer that does not include the death penalty is not equal to the magnitude of the crime committed. Failing to execute murderers suggests collaboration between the offender and the person who delivers justice in violation with Kants understanding of justice.

Works Cited

Death Penalty Focus. Arbitrariness in the Application of the Death Penalty, 2009. Web.

Forschler, Scott. Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics: The Gap Can Be Bridged. Meta-Philosophy 44.2 (2013): 88-104. Print.

Forschler, Scott. Willing Universal Law vs. Universally Lawful Willing: What Kants Supreme Principle of Morality Should Have Been. Southwest Philosophy Review 26.3 (2010):141152. Print.

Gius, Mark. The Impact of the Death Penalty and Executions on State-Level Murder Rates 1980-2011. Applied Economics Letters 23.3 (2016): 199-201. Print.

Gudorf, Christine. Christianity and Opposition to the Death Penalty: Late Modern shifts. A Journal of Theology 52.2(2013): 99-109. Print.

Manski, Charles, and John Pepper. Deterrence and the death penalty: partial identification analysis using repeated cross sections. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 29.1(2013): 123-141. Print.

Potter, Nelson. Kant and Capital Punishment Today. The Journal of Value Inquiry 36.2 (2002):267282. Print.

Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Right Thing to Do Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2006. Print.

Radelet, Michael, and Traci Lacock. Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates: The Views Of Leading Criminologists? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 99.4 (2009): 489-507. Print.