Burton Leister’s article, “The Death Penalty is Permissible”, delves on the importance of imposing the death penalty in order to ensure the general peace and order of a given society. Mainly, Leister’s contention is that “the death penalty is necessary to prevent the American people from taking the law into their own hands” (Leister 728). The author also cites the Eighth Amendment, which emphasizes human dignity, in opposing death penalty in that human lives are not “objects to be toyed with and discarded” (729). On the other hand, Hugo Adam Bedau’s article, “No, the Death Penalty is Not Morally Permissible”, delves on the tenet of self-defense as a means to justify his rejection of the death penalty. However, Bedau cautions that self-defense is wrong when it is aimed at inflicting harm on other people through retaliation, even those who had committed grave crimes against humanity. He explains this in the statement, “it is hard to see why morality compels the victim to acquiesce in the attempt by another to hurt him or her” (Bedau 733). He likewise emphasizes that the deterrent effects of death penalty are yet to be established, and there are studies that even suggest that death penalty can incite unstable minds to commit murders (Bedau 735).
Bedau’s argument on rejecting the death penalty seems to be flawed. The fact that the complete social effects of death penalty has yet to be established does not erase the reality that countless lives had been lost due to heinous and insensible murders. Moreover, the possible effect that it may provoke unstable minds to kill is beyond the concerns of morality, given that unstable minds will still continue with their irresponsible way of life, regardless of existing administrative and criminal punishment.
In this regard, Bedau’s most probable counter to the argument mentioned in the preceding paragraph concerns morality and punishment, in that “all other things being equal, less pain and suffering is always better than more. Human life is valued in part to the degree that it is free of pain, suffering” (Bedau 735). As such, under this line of reasoning, the death penalty may be considered as an inhuman form of meting-out punishments to offenders, even to those who have committed highly atrocious forms of violence against fellowmen and women.
However, despite of the sound logic and pathos ingrained in Bedau’s use of morality in his idea of punishment, it still cannot be denied that some crimes are innately too harsh that they demand a ‘life-for-a-life’ type of punishment. Some of these include rape, rape with murder, terrorist acts resulting to numerous deaths, child abuse, arsons of immense repercussions, and others of the same moral gravity. This same sentiment is expressed by the renowned Lord Justice Denning when he presented his case at the British Royal Commission, whereby he expressed that “Some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on capital punishment, because the wrong doer deserved it, irrespective whether it is a deterrent or not” (Leister 728). As such, to justify that the wrong doer deserves a humane form or punishment for an evil deed, especially if lives have been brutally lost and people’s futures destroyed, would prove laughable to the victims and their families. Justice has to be served fully, for failing to do so would be justice denied. Finally, the death penalty is defended and assured on every citizen of any self-respecting society, such as what can be evidenced in the Constitution and religious scriptures, which are generally regarded as bastions of a nation’s morality.
Works cited
Bedau, Hugo Adam. “No, The Death Penalty is Not Morally Permissible.” Contemporary Moral Problems 2012: 732-741. Print.
Leiser, Burton. “The Death Penalty is Permissible.” Contemporary Moral Problems 2012: 727-732. Print.
