Punishment and Death Penalty
Since colonial times, more than 14 thousand people have been executed legally. There have been numerous public outrages and legal challenges leading to a decrease in the number of capital punishments. The number was reduced in 1930 (only 150 people were being executed annually). By 1967, the numbers became fewer. But still, there have been the executions of 52 convicts in 2009, 20 in 2016, 23 in 2017, and 25 in 2018 (Girelli, 2019). The death of a convict might seem harsh to some. There seems to be no credible evidence proving the theory that the death penalty prevents the occurrence of crimes more effectively. So, is this punishment constructive? Is state run execution for certain convicted criminals morally justifiable?
Retentionists. Retribution, Deterrence, and prevention
It might make more sense to try to cover the retentionist arguments first, making sure to cover retribution, deterrence and prevention separately (since they are all different arguments)
In a nutshell, retentionists maintain that capital punishment meets the idea of justice through retribution. Retribution is the idea that the offender is held responsible for their wrongdoing and receives punishment equivalent to the severity of the crime committed. In the case of murder, the only morally reasonable punishment would be the death penalty, in the theory of “a life for a life”. Retentionist argue that only capital punishment can provide the sort of justice required, because those who have lost loved ones in terrible crimes have the right to have those offenders held accountable. Earnest Van Den Haag favored in retribution. He states that “by committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime. you need to explain the logic of retribution—tie in van den Haag’s line of argument here and why anything short of death for certain crimes flouts justice)
Deterrence
Retributivists Earnest Van Den Haag argues that Capital Punishment can save lives. According to him “the sanction of capital punishment is needed to deter crime.” If people are afraid of the death penalty, they might refrain from committing heinous crime.
Prevention-Protection
To effectively prevent crime, it is necessary to have a high rate of executions and a justice system that works fairly, quickly, and consistently.
Kant
Kant supports the idea of capital punishment. He believed in retributivism in regard to capital punishment. He argued that social consequences are entirely irrelevant. The basis of the link between the death penalty and crime is “the Law of Retribution.” It does have a relation to “the principle of equality.” He believed that the only justifiable punishment for murder would be the life of the offender.
Abolitionist
Abolitionist are opposed to the notion of death capital punishment and argue that is unjustifiable and inhumane. They argue that it violates human’s rights by denying ones right to life. Due to scientific studies, there is no evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrence from future crime being committed or being more effective than rehabilitation. They advocate for rehabilitation oppose to retribution. (delve into rehabilitation and why some see it as a better approach, along with some powerful real life examples of such rehabilitation—but also possible problems with it)
Van Den Haag argues that the “abolition of the death penalty would promise prospective murders that we will never do to them what they will do to their victims. Such a promise seems unwise as well as immoral.”
Bedau
According to Bedau, the analogy between self-defense and the death penalty is problematic. He argues that self-defense (explain why). And he argues for the abolition of capital punishment (dig further into Bedau’s arguments against capital punishment) (Bedau, n.d., pp. 378-382).
Utilitarianism
In the views of utilitarianism, death as the punishment is justified if the extent of the punishment for murder is best promoted for the pleasure, happiness, and health of the society. As the approach is consequentialist. It is recognized as the punishment for the consequences of both societies, and the offender, which holds that the total good that comes from this punishment exceeds the total evil. They would argue that that capital punishment …. (okay but you need to address whether a utilitarian would judge capital punishment in 2022 as leading to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number—presumably only if it saves more lives, acts as a good deterrent, etc.) On the other hand, neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics (with the basis of Aristotle’s ethical theory) argues against capital punishment. Although, there is a presence of the punishment in the justice treatment within his lectures, he believes that it should not be there, while, as mentioned above, Mill holds that it’s morally permissible.
Conclusion and Discussion
From my point of view, the death penalty is unjustifiable. It is inhumane, ineffective, and irrevocable. (explain further why you think this) But sometimes, the punishment does fit the crime. (give a concrete example) In my opinion I think there is far more suffering in spending life in prison as opposed to being put out of your misery by lethal injection. (but if this is the case, then why does almost everyone on death row go through the appeals process?) Often times the offender facing the death penalty states they would prefer to die rather than to live. (really? If so then we would not see so many using the appeals process—you need to come up with some sort of evidence for the claim you make) The cases presented in the “Capital punishment can save lives” show that some criminals do not deserve to live (Van Den Haag, 1968). It is the ultimate level of punishment when a jury or judge grants death by the electric chair or lethal injection. The death penalty is just the reinstatement of the law for those who commit malicious murder and rape. The death penalty must be reinstated for murder with intent to kill and for all attacks. (for all attacks???) They no longer have the right to live, and justice (what justice) is too soft and inefficient to punish them. (Supermax prisons are a rough place to be housed in– check out articles about them) But even if the death penalty fits better into an authoritarian regime , at the same time capital punishments offers only a purely external control. The population only has an external motivation to not kill through the threat of execution. This leads to less efficiency (cognitively, affectively, mentally behaves, and on performance in general) than self-determined, more internal motivations, and nourished by three innate psychological needs: competence, belonging and autonomy. (cite where you are taking this from) The death penalty has a restricted influence on the potential criminals that judge of the risks of being arrested and sentenced to death. (explain further) Some argue against the inhumane act, while others support that the heinous convicts deserve the needle. However, the ethical issues will remain. In my view, the decision to take a life in exchange for another does not serve justice..
It is important to delve into why some think that capital punishment is inhumane (i.e sometimes lethal injections have been botched -see 2014 in particular on this score—-and some think it violates the 8th amendment—dig into this, along with new evidence that lethal injections are not painless but likely quite painful). Regarding prevention, dig into whether most killers kill again either within prison or after release/escape (along with how Bedau offers a rebuttal to the retentionists on this score—and look up Supermax prisons—so far no prisoner has ever escaped). It is important to explain why some see capital punishment as a deterrent (along with why it is so contentious—i.e. since capital punishment is not served either swiftly or certainly, it is not an effective deterrent; most murders are not even solved in the first place etc.) Regarding retribution, why do we not apply it to other types of crimes (i.e we don’t burn arsonists etc.) Your own position reads unclearly. You say that you are opposed but most of what you write in the final section seems to support it rather than criticize it. So make your position more clearly (if you are opposed to it as inhumane, explain why you think it is inhumane etc.)
