My Views

There are many facts and moral dilemmas that the death penalty has raised to a boil. Many might feel that the death penalty is justifiable, but in what regards is one coming to this conclusion? Is it anger, is it revenge, is it an eye for an eye, or do people actually believe that the death penalty is providing a safer society for all citizens? If decisions come from these reasons alone, then it is terribly wrong.

Stephen Bright a human rights attorney stated, “It can be argued that rapists deserve to be raped, that mutilators deserve to be mutilated. Most societies, however, refrain from responding in this way because the punishment is not only degrading to those on whom it is imposed, but it is also degrading to the society that engages in the same behavior as the criminals” (Anti-death).

Emotions highly affect the outcome of Capital punishment. This makes the death penalty not only injustifiable, but also blurs ones thought process. Feelings are very involved and take an extreme role on people’s verdicts. When acting on these feelings, it leads to complex problems that contribute to the overall situation. It is not our place in this world to put an end to a human life. We need to realize that there are many factors and moral dilemmas that arise from the death penalty which we can not ignore. The laws regarding the death penalty are not flawless and it does not deter crime. The two arguments to keep the death penalty have failed to provide accurate justification to keep the death penalty. I understand that something does in fact need to be done to prevent murders from happening, but the death penalty is not the solution and needs to be abolished from our society. The more we fight for an anti-death penalty world, the more fighting there will be.

Theory

There are no facts that can precisely state that the death penalty deters crime. A utilitarian thought can not be used in this scenario. The utilitarian theory is attempting to serve a greater good. In this case the argument is that the death penalty deters crime, so in return by the execution of one person you are saving a greater amount. But, in its defense this is not true.

The death penalty does not deter crime and in fact murders have rose 4.8 percent in 2006. This has been the largest increase since 1991. In addition, there has been articles that state that between 1933 and 1969 the homicides had dropped 8 percent for each execution conducted. The important fact that has been left out was that during this time frame execution had decreased by 80 percent. In other words, the fewer executions resulted in fewer homicides. So in fact the death penalty does not deter crime and therefore it is not serving the greater good.



Another theory that can be applied is Kant’s Categorical Imperative. According to the Kantian theory one needs to treat people as end; not simply as means. People that feel that the death penalty deters crime are treating people as means. They are attempting to achieve a goal regardless of the end result of an individual. Death penalty as a deterrent fails to pass Kant’s Categorical Imperative, subsequently leading the punishment to be morally wrong.

Pro-Death Penalty views...

As for the scientific studies, there are no true facts that have determine that the death penalty does not deter homicides. If all murderers are sentenced to the death and executed, potential offenders will think twice before committing a murder.

A professor from the State University of New York stated, “In fact, the empirical analysis suggest that on the average tradeoff between the execution of an offender and the lives of potential victims what it might have saved was the scale of magnitude of 1 for 8 for the period 1933-67 in the United States” (Ehrlich).

Meaning that for every one execution, eight victims will survive. By these facts alone one can use utilitarian thought, where the execution on one life is serving the greater good. In a utilitarian theory it is justified to kill a few if it will save the lives of many. It does not matter if the person is innocent or guilty the end result is what matters. Murders are not just committed in the heat of passion, but at times are well thought and planned. These individuals would be deterred if they knew that they would be executed without hesitation once incarcerated for murder.

Does it deter crime?

Scientific studies cannot prove that the death penalty deters crime. The death penalty does not work as a deterrent because the majority of people who do commit murders do not expect to be caught and furthermore the person acts in the heat of passion. According to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Crime Report, areas of the country that use the death penalty are the least safe for police officers. These stats show that the death penalty does not deter crime, but influences it. Former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox stated, “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse” (Death). To date, there has not been any evidence that the death penalty deters murderers rather than a life sentence without parole. We must provide justice to all or loose it all.

Cont...The Legal System

There are times when guilty individuals are set free due to mistrials. The law has been arranged so innocent people are not executed. Many moral dilemmas have risen from this argument; the law has deemed that it is better to let a murderer free than execute an innocent individual. This in fact is treating individuals as ends and not simply as means. When the law fails and executes an innocent individual then the law has contradicted its purpose and that is why the death penalty needs to be abolished. Once an execution is conducted, there is no way to repent if a mistake has been made.

Governor George Ryan of Illinois stated, “I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state’s taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate” (Amnesty).

The execution of an innocent person involves numerous of moral dilemmas.

The Legal System

Our capital punishment system holds many flaws, for example, where innocent people are sentenced to death and executed. Studies have shown that in 2003 alone there have been 10 exonerations. Once one is executed, there is no way to turn it around, even if mistakes have been made. Life in prison is the most logical manner to punish one; this makes sure that the system does not kill an innocent person. A study conducted by Columbia University Law School, “found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted” (Death). The death penalty should not be taken lightly and without a flawless system the death penalty should be abolished.

Capital Punishment

The United States along with China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and Sudan are the only fully developed countries that utilize the death penalty as a form of punishment. Why only six countries among thirty-four develop countries continue to use the death penalty as a form of punishment? The issue is whether capital punishment should continue to be a form of punishment or has society taken a new view about the death penalty. Capital punishment is a highly immoral penalty that needs to be abolished from our society. Our society circulates many arguments and reasoning, such as the Utilitarian theory, that suggest people need to work to obtain a greater good regardless of the means. On the other hand, numerous counterarguments suggest through Kant’s Categorical Imperative that the end results of the death penalty are not justifiable for any reason. Kant’s moral reasoning implies that people should not be treated as means, but as ends.

In this blog, I will provide a detailed analysis on moral dilemmas and provide supporting arguments and counterarguments regarding the death penalty. Some arguments that I will be discussing are issues regarding its ability to deter crime and the accuracy of the law in which people are incarcerated. I strongly believe that the death penalty is a violation of our human rights and should be abolished from our society.