Introduction
Exordium
The death penalty is something which has existed for centuries in various countries, but recently it has been coming under increased scrutiny. More people are turning to the view that it is somehow inhumane, or perhaps that it is immoral to say that we who obey and make the law are better than those break and oppose it, while still committing the same acts as they do (presuming that the offenders are murderers, of course).
It could be said that the death penalty was a simple solution for a simpler time. Today, not only do we have the infrastructure to allow for the exploration of different forms of punishment, but we also arguably have the luxury to exercise clemency in these matters. Unfortunately, the recent drive towards clemency seems to be running hand in hand with a general lack of respect for authority, with people claiming that links exist between it and the death penalty.
Any discussion surrounding the morals and ethics of capital punishment must by necessity involve two separate discussions –that of the internal view, and that of the external view. The internal view is one which takes into accounts all sides of a society’s view of itself, and applies that to the ethical question at hand. The external one is the view of a society from outside – in this case, a society still having the death penalty in an era where many countries are ridding themselves of any notion of it will be judged by those countries, whether positively or not.
Narratio
The death penalty is an archaic punishment for a time which no longer exists. The 21st century, with all its attendant technologies and potential for rehabilitating prisoners, can do better than summarily executing those who do wrong in the eyes of the law. Koch believes that the death penalty is still needed after his years in service to the administration (1), but this does not mean that his assertions are correct. Of course, while this paper does not adhere to the same beliefs as Koch, it does not mean that they will be dismissed entirely. His ideas behind why the death penalty should be kept as an admissible punishment form a coherent argument which can be used to argue against keeping it as a punishment.
People who argue for the death penalty being kept tend to cite the growing lack of respect that recent generations are showing as one reason why the death penalty should be kept on the law books. The modern day propensity to show violence on TV and in popular movies, combined with the general lack of respect that seems to spring from a culture which grows more permissive by the day is cited by many people as one of the reasons we need to keep the death penalty; the flip argument of that seems to be that the reintroduction of corporal punishment will lessen the need for capital punishment.
The death penalty has been in place for centuries, but, in part due to the changes in society, and in part due to the external pressure which is being implicitly exerted by other countries who have abandoned such practices, the debates surrounding the death penalty are changing. Society is now debating the ethics behind the death penalty and other such forms of extreme retribution, where before the debate was firmly grounded in the immutable fact that capital punishment was a given for certain crimes: the only debate was which crimes would be so punished.
Partitio
This paper will approach the death penalty debate from the point of view that it is unethical and should be abolished. With that in mind, it shall approach the problem of defending its stance from several angles: first, a purely internal argument shall be made for the ethical arguments the death penalty, with an emphasis on the changing nature of society allowing for the exploration of alternative punishments (Radelet & Borg). Second, the paper will examine the external arguments against the death penalty, with emphasis placed on the negative implications of our society continuing to rely on capital punishment while continuing to participate in a world theatre which is increasingly populated with societies which have abolished capital punishment on the grounds of morality.
The internal ethical viewpoint – a viewpoint which is made up in its entirety by the ethical and moral objections and thoughts of a society that is not referencing anything outside the borders, is one which encompasses the beliefs and decisions of private and public personas alike. Therefore, this paper will encompass the views of private citizens in the arguments presented for and against corporal punishment as a stand-in for capital punishment (“Should Schools Bring Back Corporal Punishment?”), as well using the views of people who are in charge of dispensing justice as a whole (Logan), when talking about the morals behind abolishing the death penalty, and the reasons for keeping it.
The external view of capital punishment – where the world outside our particular society and the morals it holds important are taken into consideration when viewing our own answer to criminal behaviour and social deviance. The need to take such views into consideration does not, in and off itself, mean that the societal approach to capital punishment is necessarily wrong, especially when taking into account the effect the clash of moralities will have between societies. There may not be any explicit assertions that such a penalty is deemed inappropriate, but a society on the world stage can expect to be judged for such a move.
Body
Confirmatio
The death penalty has become obsolete in this day and age, due to a combination of increasing ethical concerns and the realisation amongst experts that it does not function well as the deterrent it is used as (Radelet & Lacock 490). These same experts are now coming to the conclusion that said penalty should be removed from the books; since their main purpose is to act as a deterrent (which puts a lie to the stance that they are there primarily as a punishment (Koch 2)) – something which is clearly not working - then there is no need for them to be kept.
Unique in its severity, the death penalty likewise evokes a distinctive mix of deeply felt moral, legal, and political views, resulting in a conspicuous absolutism among pro- and anti-death penalty camps. (Logan 41)
It is no surprise that capital punishment is such a divisive topic – the emotions involved on all sides of the debate run high, because death itself is a divisive subject.
The fact that no other major democracy makes use of the death penalty (Koch 2) is something which should give our leaders and lawmakers pause when they are debating the merits of continuing to use capital punishment. Society is judged by those outside of its sphere in part by how it treats its citizens, whether they are incarcerated or not: the use of capital punishment, when the 21st century offer so much more in terms of what can be done to rein in and rehabilitate offenders. Most countries have a greater focus on rehabilitation of offenders over incarceration\isolation of them, and so they have found uses for the technologies that are now available to create almost a mobile prison. This approach to incarceration is a favourable one, and has shown a lot of promise in the societies which make use of it.
Refutatio
One of the main arguments used in favour of the death penalty is that it is one of the only ways to ensure that the crimes covered by said punishment are not repeated.
If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all. Human life deserves special protection, and one of the best ways to guarantee that protection is to ensure that convicted murderers do not kill again (Koch 2)
While the point is well made, Koch has evidently found himself in the position of setting up a false dichotomy in support of his own point. There has to be some middle ground in existence between a state of laissez-faire, which allows murderers to roam unchecked, and keeping them from doing more harm than they already have by executing them. The circumstances which Koch found himself in may have informed his opinions, but there are other methods of punishment and incarceration which will serve equally well in the place of capital punishment.
There is a school of thought which suggests that the reintroduction of corporal punishment will, in a way, allay the need for capital punishment. The number of murders committed yearly has grown over the decades (Koch 1), with some people linking this to the more lax nature surrounding children’s upbringing. Teachers in particular are tired of not having the ability to discipline children (“Should Schools Bring Back Corporal Punishment?”), and see corporal punishment as a means of regaining some measure of control. The idea behind bringing corporal punishment back seems to be that the new form of discipline will teach the order and respect for authority which has been missing in the upbringing of the previous generations, and thereby bring back the days when murder was rare and not to be feared. This argument, much like the one made by Koch above, does make sense (one could make an argument for it making more sense than his argument purely through dint of being less extreme), but it can be as easily defeated. The stance taken by advocates of corporal punishment seem to be trying to promote the idea that corporal punishment meant no need for capital punishment. Except the opposite is true: liberal use of corporal punishment may have meant that people had more outward respect for authority, but this was during a time when capital punishment was not only widely accepted as natural and just, but also used as a punishment for more crimes.
Conclusion
The argument made in this paper is that capital punishment is unnecessary and backward in this day and age. In a modern era, where the image a country projects is paramount to its standing on the world theatre, keeping capital punishment as a viable option in the sentencing of offenders, especially when the times have led to such great advances in technology and other methods of incarceration. Society as a whole – public as well as private persons – are also beginning to make the move into calling for the removal of the death penalty as an option on the grounds of ethical concerns.
Arguments made in favour of keeping the death penalty, including the need for murderers and other people who commit such heinous crimes to be kept from doing so again, can be diverted by the simple fact that there must be a middle ground between allowing violent offenders free rein among society at large, and executing them to prevent them being a problem. Similarly, arguments made in favour of the reintroduction of corporal punishment as a possible means of reducing the impact of capital punishment (perhaps to turn it back into the deterrent it was meant to be?) are one-dimensional, and ignore the fact that when corporal punishment was widespread and accepted, capital punishment not only remained on the books, but was used as a means of punishing more crimes than it is today.
The death penalty is something which has no place in the 21st century, in any society. While the antipathy towards it is growing, there is an alarming propensity towards violence in today’s media. The tide is turning, but trying to convince people that capital punishment is bad when they are surrounded by media which glorifies violence will surely prove to be an uphill struggle. Nevertheless, for society to truly become an enlightened and forward-looking place, the word must be spread that capital punishment is inhumane and unfit for anyone who wishes to have a truly modern outlook. For the death penalty to be seen as a backwards institution which belongs with other institutions such as work houses and leper colonies, word must be spread to everyone.
Works Cited
Babcock, Sandra. “The Global Debate on the Death Penalty” Human Rights Magazine vol. 34, no. 2, 2007, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol34_2007/spring2007/irr_hr_hr_spring07_babcospr07.html Accessed 17 August 2016.
DeLeon, Dennis & Robert Naon. “The Regulation of Televised Violence” Stanford Law Review vol. 26, no. 6, 1974, pp 1291-1235.
Koch, Edward. “Death and Life: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life” The New Republic, pp. 1-3 https://englishcomposition2.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/kochdeathpenalty.pdf Accessed 17 August 2016.
Logan, Wayne. “Declaring Life at the Crossroads of Death: Victim’s Anti-Death Penalty Views and Prosecutors’ Charging Decisions” Criminal Justice Ethics vol. 18, no. 2, 1999, pp. 41-57.
Moskos, Peter. “In Lieu of Prison, Bring Back the Lash” The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-lieu-of-prison-bring-back-the-lash/2011/06/10/AGBIpUWH_story.html?utm_term=.edede6219a8c
Radelet, Michael & Marian Borg. “The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates” Annual Review of Sociology 46, 2000, pp. 43-61.
Radelet, Michael & Traci Lacock. “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates: The Views of Leading Criminologists’” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology vol. 99, no. 2, 2009, pp.489-510. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7323&context=jclc Accessed 17 August 2016.
“Should Schools Bring Back Corporal Punishment?” ABC News 2010 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/schools-bring-back-corporal-punishment/story?id=10989155 Accessed 17 August 2016.
