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, 2012). 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.
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.
References
BBC Ethics. (2012). “Capital Punishment”. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/
