Capital Punishment: Ethical considerations
The use of capital punishment is often framed as the action of society in acting on its moral responsibility to safeguard society and its citizens. For example, killers pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the society; by sentencing the murderer to death will ensure that society will never pose a threat to the society again. On the other hand, those that condemns the use of capital punishment is established on the foundation that rather than society is given the right to destroy threats to its safety, society in fact has a moral duty to safeguard human life.
The taking of another person’s life is only allowable if the particular resolution is necessary to bring about an optimal equilibrium of “good over evil” for all the stakeholders in the scenario. Given that society places a high premium on human life and its responsibility to reduce instances of suffering and affliction and when possible, and if there is a lesser alternative to capital punishment and this will achieve the same end, then society is duty bound to jettison capital punishment in favor of the less severe sanction.
Though it is a given that the imposition of the death penalty does accord a number of social benefits, it imposes grim “costs” to the general society. For one, the death penalty squanders human lives. Majority of those that have been sentenced to suffer capital punishment could have been restored to transform the offenders into productive members of society.
In the utilitarian view point, the imposition of capital punishment as a deterrent against crime is effective. Here, the criminal cannot commit another crime and more innocent people or probable victims will be saved. However, the argument here is that these criminals will commit crimes frequently against society. The premise is that, for example, murderers will once again kill, then it must be first established that the probability that killers will once again kill is so high that such a severe response is justified.
Here, the question is whether the use of the death penalty will effectively deter the murderer from killing again. In a study conducted by Robinson, out of 238 killers paroled, less than one percent were rearrested and convicted for another homicide while these were outside prison walls. On the other hand, Sunstein and Vermuele argue that for each executed criminal, 18 lives are saved in the process. However, one can contend that imposing the death penalty on the convicted is already unconscionable if the goal of the process is to incapacitate the individual, which can be achieved by sentencing the person to life in prison. However, there is a risk that the offender can kill again once these enter prison.
In another light, the death of the criminal that inflicted harm to their family will bring some form of resolution and ending to the tragedy in their lives. However, the delay in the execution of the criminal can bring additional suffering and anguish on the family of the plaintiff. In the opinion of Kant, the justification is “retributivist” in nature; the imposition of capital punishment not only is justified, it is even mandated. In the context of the United States, Robinson states that the imposition of the death penalty generates minimal benefits but creates huge societal and human resources tolls (World Medical Association, 2012, pp. 4-5).
References
Andre, C., Velasquez, M. (2014) “Capital punishment: our duty or our doom?” Retrieved 20 October 2014 from <http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n3/capital.html
World Medical Association, the (2012). “White paper on ethical issues concerning capital punishment.” Retrieved 20 October 2014 from <http://www.wma.net/en/20activities/20humanrights/50other/Final_WMA_white_Paper_capital_punishment-June20121.pdf
