Is the Death Penalty Ethical?
In modern society, the optimal penalty is considered to be in conjunction with the reformation and social rehabilitation of persons who have committed a crime. In this context, the death penalty is an extreme measure of punishment that is only a punitive penalty. It is only punitive, because the death penalty cannot lead to one of the main purposes of punishment that is reeducation of a person that has committed a crime.
Death penalty that is also called capital punishment is deprivation of life as a punishment by the state for committed crime. Can be institutionalized by the state and implemented by a final decision of a court.
In modern civilized society, the death penalty in many jurisdictions is illegal, while in other countries is legitimate as criminal punishment only for extremely serious crimes. However, in China it is used widely for less serious crimes, such as bribery, pimping, counterfeiting, tax evasion, poaching (in particular, haunting the Amur tiger) and others. In Russian and Soviet legal practice to refer to the death penalty at different times used euphemisms "the highest form of social protection", and in more recent times, "an exceptional measure of punishment", as it was officially stated that the death penalty in the Soviet Union as a punishment was not practiced, but was used as an exception, as a punishment for especially serious ordinary crimes and crimes against the state. The most common type of death in the modern world is shooting. Also widespread types of death penalty are hanging, lethal injection, electrocution, beheading and stoning.
Speaking about United States, the culture of the death penalty in this country is pretty uncommon for worldwide practice and usually includes the right of convict for the last supper - food, served a few hours before his execution in accordance with its request (with certain restrictions), and the last word just before the execution of the sentence. When the execution is usually the presence of witnesses. The amount and composition of persons entitled to be present at the execution differ from state to state, but as a rule, this persons are the relatives of the convict, relatives of the victims, lawyers, and priest.
Answering the question is the death penalty ethical I would personally say that: death penalty is a big throwback. And that I support nowadays movement against the death penalty in the United States. Relatives of victims of crime, that is dead, killed. The Death Penalty in America is present in some of the traditional states, but there are a lot of really comes from a long tradition of old ideas. Oddly enough, in this matter, as well as the right to carry firearms, the country is very conservative. And I think it is inevitable, and America will have to ensure that the death penalty will also be canceled. Anyway, as far as I know, that's how I communicated with the Americans, with opponents of the death penalty, this movement is gaining more and more power.
Death penalty - is one of the most ancient forms of punishment. Initially it arose during the implementation of the principle of Talion, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." According to this principle, a just punishment for causing the death of another person is the death penalty. Moreover, big role has played an existed in many societies custom of blood revenge.
In developed countries, the death penalty is always preceded by a long trial at different levels, the defendant is provided with the possibility of appeal. Often this leads to the fact that between sentencing and execution (or pardon, or the death of the convict from natural causes) takes years or even decades. Penalty may be authorized only by representative of the state, otherwise the action is considered as murder and is punishable by law.
In most modern states the death penalty is enforced non-public, that is, it has the right to attend only certain persons by law (for example, according to the Criminal Executive Code of Russia - a prosecutor, a representative of the prison, which is carried out executions, and the doctor) .In some cases, death penalty may be commuted to life imprisonment or long-term imprisonment by the court. A person who was sentenced to death may be also pardoned by the highest official of the state or state (president, monarch, prime minister, governor, and so on).
Thus, by now in the world there are 130 countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or practice and 68 countries which retain and continue to apply the measure.
There is a division of the death penalty for qualified and unqualified. Qualified death penalty is applied in different forms for different crimes, unqualified death penalty is applied when legislation provides one type of the death penalty for all crimes, for commitment of which you may be sentenced to death.
Here are the methods of the death penalty that are practiced in the world nowadays: execution by firing squad, hang by the neck, stoning, lethal injection, electric chair, beheading, gas chamber. As we can see they are much more humane than other historical types of the death penalty, that were: execution by elephant, stings by scorpion, tearing apart by horses, trampling by horses, blowing by a gun, blood eagle, boiling to death, breaking wheel, buried alive, burning, cooking, crushing, drawing and quartering,
Ih his work Victor Hugo stated following: «The scaffold is the accomplice of the executioner; it devours; it eats flesh and drinks blood. The scaffold is a monster, manufactured by the judge and the carpenter, - a spectre that seems to live a sort of horrible live made up of all the death it has inflicted.
So here are the most important arguments that are against death penalty:
Firstly, the death penalty has morally corrupting effect on human society. It has a direct impact directly through the people who are involved in it, and also has an indirect impact by the fact that the very fact of having the death penalty approved as the fact that killing in some individual cases may be fair, beneficial to society and a good deed. Citizens thus get an extra motive sometimes to act as overseers of justice and commit vigilante justice according to criminals, if they have the opinion that public officials are performing their duties badly. Proof of this corrupting influence of the death penalty is, in particular, that it is almost perceived and used as a terrible vice.
Death penalty occurs to be as something inhuman, as a shameful thing: the executioners often hide their profession; there are special methods that are applied to the death penalty procedure in order to make it impossible to know who plays the role of executioner. Prosecutors that require judges to impose the death penalty would never agree to be its direct executors. Not to mention the legislators who have instituted the death penalty, or philosophers who justify it.
Secondly, the death penalty is anti legal act. The basic principle of law is a balance of freedom of the person and the common good. The death penalty, which destroys the individual, by itself liquidates legal relationship. This is not law anymore, but, as pointed out Beccaria, «war of the nation against the citizen.» Legal punishment is always individualized, addressed purely to the culprit. But in the case of the death penalty almost all relatives of the criminal also become the subject to the punishment, as it can have such a very strong influence on them that is able to bring to committing suicide or become mentally ill, not to mention their heavy moral suffering. According to the law, there is a principle of reversibility of punishment that gives permission to some extent to make reversible cases when miscarriage of justice can take place. With regard to the death penalty this principle is violated, since the one who was killed, cannot now return to life, as well as the possibility to compensate him harm caused by legal error.(Mitchell, Hayley 2001)
It should be noted that these errors are not such a rarity. Scientists estimate that, in particular, only in the US there were 349 wrongly issued death sentences, 23 of which have already been carried out. Also known case of the Soviet Union practice, when, before finding the real killer-maniac, there were more than ten people arrested, who were supposed to be the maniac and even were "aware of their guilt" and were sentenced to death penalty.
At third, the death penalty is unjust and deceitful because it certainly violates the boundaries of human competence. Not a single person has power that is over life. Life is a condition of human affairs, and they should remain beyond this barriers. At the same time, man has no right to judge anyone's guilt and what is more to approve the perfect of incorrigibility of a criminal. Skilled observations of scientists have shown that the death penalty is often performs a deep spiritual change in the person to whom it was intended. A person sentenced to death begins to look at the world differently, experiencing enlightenment. Finally, in some cases, the death penalty is applied when there is no need in punishment anymore, because the criminal is already rehabilitated.
At fourth, the death penalty is an attempt at a fundamental moral principle of self-worth of the human person and human person dignity. To the extent that we equate morality to nonviolence, to the commandment «do not kill», the death penalty cannot be a moral sanction, as it is the exact opposite. Not only arguments that surround it, but the fact of its existence, the death penalty is fraudulently trying to bring to society the idea of killing can be humane, reasonable thing.(Banner, Stuart 2002)
The big question that arrises is: «are there any ethical arguments in favor of the death penalty?» By the statements below I want to talk about ethical and moral arguments that can consider the death penalty to be justified.
First of all, death penalty can be considered as a fair retribution, as is a moral act, since it is applicable as a punishment for a murder. This argument has the greatest amplification. It seems to be a very strong and compelling, as justice is based here on the equivalent position. But actually the principle of equivalent in this case is not respected. Murder, for which the death penalty is applied, is qualified as a crime here. But the death penalty is an act of state’s activity. It turns out that the crime is set equal to an activity of the state.
Secondly, the death penalty, may be possibly unfair to the person to whom it should apply, but nevertheless it is justified, since its deterrent effect helps to prevent the commission of same crimes by others.
The third statement is that the death penalty is the advantage of society that exempt it from very dangerous criminals.
Another statement that supports death penalty is that the death penalty can be justified humane in relation to the the person who has committed a crime, since the life in the prison for the rest of the days is much more worth than the death penalty.
References
Mitchell, Hayley R. The Death Penalty. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Print.
Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002. Print.
Bedau, Hugo Adam, and Paul G Cassell. Debating The Death Penalty. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
