Paper guidelines to help you choose an ethical dilemma:
In a 4–5-page paper (1000–1250 words), choose and analyze an ethical decision situation within the criminal justice system that you think needs to be addressed. For instance, a judge might have to release a serious felon based upon technicalities that have arisen in a court case. Although the judge knows this person is guilty based upon impeccable evidence, the law dictates the judge must dismiss the case. What should the judge do? Override the system and invoke their power as a judge to continue the trial? Release the person? These dilemmas arise regularly in police agencies, courts and prisons.
Write an introduction to the issue. You then need to think about who it involves, who it affects, the various models of ethics that may come into play to justify a decision, and ultimately your position on the decision. What would be your decision? How would you decide and why? Write a brief summary of your ethical situation and decision-making process to close the paper.
Make sure you use citations and references to support any opinions you posit or statements you make.
Submit an annotated bibliography upon which Paper 3 is to be based. This will act as the foundation of your research and guide your paper. Annotated bibliographies also gather the reference materials and help summarize the articles, books, etc. you will be using in your paper.
Submit an annotated bibliography with at least seven (7) valid sources that you will use as the basis for your paper. See the following link if you are not familiar with how to write an annotated bibliography: Olin & Uris Libraries (Links to an external site.)
Submit your paper in one MS Word document in APA format and place it in the appropriate assignment dropbox, using the naming convention: “JSmithANNBIB3.doc”, etc.
Compose your work in a .doc or .docx file type using a word processor (such as Microsoft Word, etc.) and save it frequently to your computer. For those assignments that are not written essays and require uploading images or PowerPoint slides, please follow uploading guidelines provided by your instructor.
Check your work and correct any spelling or grammatical errors. When you are ready to submit your work, click “Submit Assignment” in the upper right corner. Click on “Browse,” browse your computer, and select your file. Click “Open” and verify the correct file name has appeared next to the Browse button. Enter your comments, if any, in the Comments area. Click on “Submit Assignment.”
This assignment will be graded using the SPS Default Annotated Bibliography Rubric displayed below. Please review this rubric prior to beginning your work. You can also access the rubric on the Course Rubrics page within the Start Here module.
Annotated bibliographies make up 20% of the total course grade.
Paper guidelines to help you choose an ethical dilemma:
In a 5–7 page paper (1250–1750 words), choose and analyze an ethical decision situation within the criminal justice system that you think needs to be addressed. For instance, a judge might have to release a serious felon based upon technicalities that have arisen in a court case. Although the judge knows this person is guilty based upon impeccable evidence, the law dictates the judge must dismiss the case. What should the judge do? Override the system and invoke their power as a judge to continue the trial? Release the person? These dilemmas arise regularly in police agencies, courts and prisons.
Write an introduction to the issue. You then need to think about who it involves, who it affects, the various models of ethics that may come into play to justify a decision, and ultimately your position on the decision. What would be your decision? How would you decide and why? Write a brief summary of your ethical situation and decision-making process to close the paper.
Make sure you use citations and references to support any opinions you posit or statements you make.
Please use the EC Library resources to properly cite your work (login to the EC Library is required):
• Citing Sources (Links to an external site.)
• Plagiarism & Copyright (Links to an external site.)
Additionally, Excelsior OWL (Links to an external site.) at http://owl.excelsior.edu/posts/view/127 has many resources to Help you in the writing process. For help in focusing your thesis statement, see Parts of a Thesis Sentence (Links to an external site.) at http://owl.excelsior.edu/quizzes/view/29.
—
Capital Punishment
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction
Capital punishment is executing an individual as it has been considered the fitting punishment for a particular crime following an appropriate legal trial. Severe types of murder, grievous fraud cases and rape are primarily the cases that have seen capital punishment as punishment. Notably, the advent of the modern prison system and the emergence of modern nation-states propelled the moral debate on capital punishment (Mbah et al., 2019). At one end of the debate, the supporters argued that capital punishment does fit the particular crimes it is accorded, such as when one takes one’s life, they deserve to lose their own lives (White, 2000). On the other end, the opposers of capital punishment argued that the justice system could not be the adjudicators who get to live and who die to the opposers. As long as life has been taken, murder is committed (White, 2000). Despite this eternal debate not showing any signs of coming to an end, some countries abolished capital punishment from their system. Simultaneously, other states have the punishment running with constant ratification of the death penalty laws (Mbah et al., 2019). Capital punishment remains a highly debatable matter with the conversation relating to the ethics and morality of human rights.
Capital Punishment In The Criminal Justice System
One necessary party within the capital punishment debate is the Supreme Court. Considering the United States Supreme Court in the last three decades. It has taken the role of refining the jurisprudence in this field and differentiating the important legal issues (Marcus, 2007). The country’s constitution has imposed several fundamental limitations in regards to the imposition of capital punishment. With time, it has demonstrated support for the statutes that permit executing offenders because the statutes are limited to the offenders that have committed a narrow category of the most severe crimes (Marcus, 2007). It also covers the offenders whose utmost culpability makes them the most worthy of the executive. In short, the United States Supreme Court has viewed its mandate to ensure that a fair process is adopted and capital punishment is only chartered for “the worst of the worst”.
The legislative function in the country is also an essential party in this capital punishment discussion. Notably, the state and federal laws that have been imposed have primarily followed the path followed by the Supreme Court, which has attempted to limit but not eliminates the jury’s discretion on the types of offenses that could induce a capital prosecution (Marcus, 2007). For instance, the State of Indiana has the capital punishment available to murder alone if the prosecution could clearly show the presence of an aggravating circumstance(s) imposed by the state legislature. Apart from the legislative and justice systems involved in the enforcement of capital punishment to offenders, it is prudent to note that the punishment affects an array of individuals apart from the offender that is facing being executed (Penal Reform International, 2014). These include the offender’s family, the family of the victim, prison staff, the team that is to execute the offender, and the defense lawyers (Penal Reform International, 2014).
Models of Ethics on Capital Punishment
The utilitarian approach focuses on making most of the population happy. Therefore, it is a consequentialist theory of morally showing that its concern is mainly on the consequences of an action. In this case, punishment is appropriate and can be morally justified when it demands deterrence (Udoudom et al., 2019). The immediate principle end of punishment is mainly for controlling action that is the conduct of those liable to the punishment if they violate the respective laws and the conduct that is in the process of undertaking the punishment after violating the violation. In case there is a lack of proof that punishment such as the death penalty can act as a deterrent, then concerns will arise on whether it is a viable strategy for law enforcement. The Utilitarian approach looks at capital punishment as a moral punishment if there is evidence for its deterrence effect. For example, uncertainty has been reported about the racial and socioeconomic imbalance of the United States justice system, which insinuates the possibility of invoking harm via state-controlled mechanisms instead of mitigating the harm arising from the criminal conduct (Udoudom et al., 2019). These doubts surrounding the death penalty, especially on its efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability, are substantial in doubting how ethical the punishment is.
Considering the Kantian approach to capital punishment, it is evident that Kant was an absolute advocate for the level of state authority. Kant essentially states that the law system needs to be guaranteed against the propensity of citizens choosing to violate the country’s laws and the guarantee comes from threatening the citizens. The deterrence becomes fulfilling the public right of coercion (Udoudom et al., 2019). Kant’s categorical view indicates that the transgressors of the universally acknowledged norms of good and evil have relinquished their rights and hence are at the state’s mercy. Therefore, in a bid to protect the law-abiding citizens, Kant would argue that the country will need an instrument such as capital punishment (Udoudom et al., 2019). The instrument would be both the deterrent tool to the commitment of crime, and a way of retribution which others have commented is equivalent to particular crimes.
Virtue ethics founded by Aristotle is another approach that could be used to look into capital punishment. One of its ways of considering the punishment is through Teleology which means the end of the process. The end to capital punishment is primarily the offender found guilty of dying (Sifferd, 2016). Capital punishment is meant to punish the offender by taking their life. However, a second view to the end of capital punishment is whether it prevented the crime in the first place. Virtue ethics will utilize the motivation, the individual act, and the consequences; if deciding on morality. With capital punishment, the motivations are punishment, retribution, and deterrence. While punishment and deterrence are positive motivations, retribution is a negative motivation. The different execution actions in capital punishment include electrocution, lethal injection, hanging, among others (Sifferd, 2016). In relation to the consequences of the punishment, it is not only the life of the individual affected but also the psychology of the team carrying it the execution; the family left behind among other parties. Notably, the death penalty is primarily an unethical punishment considering the wrongfulness of the actual actions, the consequences, and the retribution motivations affiliated with it.
Personal Position on Capital Punishment
For a long time, capital punishment was implemented to deter potential criminals from violating the laws. However, over time there has been minimal information to prove that people stopped committing a crime due to the fear of capital punishment. Also, to demonstrate how effective a deterrent measure is, lower crime rates are expected in countries that have implemented the death penalty. The more executions are imp[lmente, the lower the number of violent crimes. However, information proves otherwise, with Southern states accounting fr 80% of the executions, yet they experience the highest murder rates. Therefore, it is evident that the death penalty is no longer a practical means of deterring people or being imposed as a punishment. It accrues both financial and moral costs.
Additionally, capital punishment raises moral concerns about how the execution is carried out. Lethal injection has been the primary method of execution as it is considered to be more humane than the gruesome electric chair. However, an increased number of botched injections causing the lethal injection method to attract extensive scrutiny. High-profile executions were the inmates choked and gasped for at least half an hour to dies have been heard before the Supreme Court. The possibility of also an innocent person being killed in the process also raises moral concerns. There is a moral reckoning concerning capital punishment that consistently shows how immoral the mechanism is, the poor implementation processes, and its failure to attain desired outcomes.
Considering these reasons, capital punishment is an unethical form of punishment that is causing more pain than gain. It is time that the criminal justice systems abolish the use of capital punishment with the replacement of workable strategies that will ensure respective crimes are deterred entirely.
References
Marcus, P. (2007). Capital punishment in the United States and beyond. Melb. UL Rev., 31, 837.
Mbah, R. E., Pruitt, T., & Wasum, D. F. (2019). Cruel choice: the ethics and morality of the death penalty. Research on humanities and social sciences, 9(24), 14-22.
Penal Reform International. (2014). Fighting for clients’ lives: the impact of the death penalty on defense lawyers. retrieved from https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/fighting-for-clients-v3-web.pdf
Sifferd, K. (2016). Virtue ethics and criminal punishment.
Udoudom, M. D., Bassey, S. A., Okpe, O., & Adie, T. (2019). Kantian and Utilitarian Ethics on Capital Punishment. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 28-35.
White, P. J. (2000). Errors and ethics: Dilemmas in death. Hofstra L. Rev., 29, 1265.
