The morality of capital punishment is a contested issue that frequently polarises people’s views. Nevertheless, in 2012 with the world moving towards global civilisation and human rights, it is arguable that it can never be acceptable to sentence an individual to death.
A chief argument against capital punishment is based around the value of life. Most people think human life to be of value and many abolitionists believe it to be so treasured that even the most ruthless murderers should not have their lives taken (BBC). Strict abolitionists argue that all people have a human right to life and that sentencing an individual to death is a breach of his basic human rights. Many people think the concept and the practice of retribution to be morally flawed. They view that demonstrating killing as wrong by implementing a second killing is unethical.
Conversely, capital punishment supporters argue that in order for justice to work effectively, criminals need to suffer for their crime proportionately. If maintaining this rule, it seems sensible that a murderer should be punished with his own death. Many people who are undecided about their views on capital punishment find that this idea sits well with their intrinsic sense of justice. This particular argument in support of retribution is often backed up with the “an eye for an eye” reasoning. Nonetheless, using this quote from the Old Testament in fact shows a misunderstanding of the concept. The Old Testament meaning of “an eye for an eye” essentially connotes that a guilty person should be punished but not too harshly.
A familiar case against capital punishment is that there are bound to be errors within the justice system and that, as a result, innocent people will be put to death. Mistakes can be made by jurors, prosecutors and witnesses, and if the death penalty has been carried out there is no opportunity to correct the mistakes.
A valid question when evaluating the ethical suitability of the death sentence is whether it actually deters crime. Evidence suggests that it doesn’t; what appears to deter crime is the likelihood of being found out and convicted. Social scientists tend to agree that the success of the death penalty as a deterrent is unconfirmed. In 1988 a survey was piloted for the UN to decide the correlations between the death penalty and rates of homicide. This was updated in 1996. It concluded that the death penalty did not work as a deterrent, over life imprisonment. Rather, it was the chance of being caught and punished at all that affected the likelihood of people committing crimes (Amnesty).
It is strange that America, one of the most highly respected nations in the world, can still be allowing this out-dated tradition of crime punishment. Thinking more globally, the answer is the same. In these times of civilisation and politics, there cannot possible be a situation where implementing the death penalty is acceptable.
Works Cited
BBC Ethics. “Capital Punishment”. 2012. Web. 7 June 2012.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/
Amnesty International. “Death Penalty.” 2012. Web. 7 June 2012.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty
