Argumentative Essay: Capital Punishment
Introduction
Capital punishment is one of the most controversial topics pertaining to criminal punishment. For many years, this issue has been debated, yet until today, no conclusive position has been reached especially in the United States. Discussing the issue of capital punishment is important primarily because people are divided on whether capital punishment should be imposed or abolished. Furthermore, capital punishment raises an ethical dilemma that needs to be resolved since it is crucial in achieving a just justice system. This paper would like to argue that capital punishment is a just form of punishment.
The arguments that support the notion that capital punishment is a just punishment can be categorized into two: the retribution view and the welfare oriented view (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005, p.704).
Capital punishment as a just retribution. The retribution view suggests that capital punishment is just because it adheres to the tenets of justice, which is to give every man his due. A man who deliberately took someone’s life, for instance, would also have to pay with his own life since a lesser punishment would be unjust. As much as possible, justice requires that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. A theft, for instance, should return the stolen item or at least the equivalent of the stolen item in order for the retribution to be equal to the crime committed. While seeking equality is an acceptable parameter for what punishments should be, a just retribution should be more than what is equal. In the case of theft, for instance, returning the stolen item or the equivalent of such could not be considered as just primarily because it does not take into account the trauma and anxiety that the victim has suffered. For the same reason, in exacting a just punishment, justice suggests that the theft should suffer more than just returning the stolen item. Similarly, in exacting justice for heinous crimes such as murder, a punishment lesser than death is not appropriate and is, therefore, unjust.
Capital Punishment Benefits Society as Deterrence of Heinous Crimes. Another compelling argument that patronizes capital punishment is the view that capital punishment benefits society because it deters crime. Scholars, for instance, observed that murder rates increased incrementally when the Supreme Court imposed a moratorium on capital punishment (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd 27). Furthermore, murder rates declined when the moratorium was lifted, leading scholars to conclude that capital punishment does deter criminality (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd 27).
Conclusion
Capital punishment should be imposed primarily because it is a just form of punishment and because it benefits society by deterring crimes. Justice requires that in order for the punishment to be just, it has to be appropriate for the crime committed. Since there are crimes so evil wherein a lesser punishment than death is considered unjust, capital punishment is, therefore required for the sake of exacting justice. On the other hand, empirical studies prove that capital punishment deter crimes. In order to protect society, capital punishment as a deterrence, is therefore desirable.
Introduction
Capital punishment is an old practice that can be traced back even in the earliest human civilizations. However, over the years, people have found that capital punishment is not only cruel and unusual, but is also irrevocable, which led other people to doubt the justice behind capital punishment. In fact, many nations that were once imposing capital punishment has reformed their legal systems and abolished such punishment from their penal codes. There are still countries, however, that are still imposing capital punishment. For the same reason, this paper finds it important to discuss capital punishment because it needs to be universally abolished.
Arguing Against Capital Punishment
There are two compelling reasons why capital punishment or the death penalty must be abolished. First, capital punishment is a cruel and unusual punishment that violates human dignity. The second argument is based on the fact that there is no perfect justice system. In a flawed justice system, the finality, irreversibility and enormity of capital punishment could not be justified.
Death Penalty as a Cruel and Unusual Form of Punishment. Death, no matter what method is used, is considered as brutal and cruel. It is cruel in a sense that it deprives the condemned to life and effectively cutoff any chances or hope of rehabilitation. There are also instances wherein executions are botched due to the incompetence of the executioner or the failure of the instrument of execution being used. Statistics show that of the 9,000 death executions performed in the United States, 3 percent or 276 executions end up badly wherein the condemned suffered a gruesome death (Raybin, 2014, p. 30). The 8th Amendment of the United States constitution prohibits the state from imposing cruel and unusual punishment and being a cruel and brutal punishment, the capital punishment must be abolished.
Human Justice System is Fallible. The imperfect nature of human justice institutions is one of the major considerations why capital punishment should not be imposed. Chances of executing an innocent person may be slim, but not totally impossible. In such case, the wrongly condemned person is forever deprived of the chance to contest his case. Death is final and absolute while court decisions are inconsistent and often arbitrary. If capital punishment could not be imposed fairly, then such punishment should not be imposed at all.
Conclusion
The death penalty, in its enormity, is cruel and unusual and under the 8th Amendment, such punishment is unconstitutional. Furthermore, humans are not in a position to impose such final and irreversible judgment as the capital punishment primarily because humans and their justice institutions are fallible.
Introduction
Capital punishment or the death penalty is considered as the highest form of punishment that the state can impose. Such punishment, however, has been controversial because of unsettled arguments that create an ethical dilemma on whether the death penalty should be imposed or not. Some people, for instance, argue that capital punishment is cruel and unusual. Pursuant to the provision of the 8th Amendment, any punishment of such nature must be abolished. Some people, on the other hand, argue that capital punishment is absolute for a legal system that is imperfect and arbitrary. Concurring for capital punishment may not be a popular choice because most people associate the death penalty for being barbaric. Most people consider life as their most precious possession. For the same reason, capital punishment seems to conflict with accepted moral codes. Nevertheless, a closer examination of capital punishment would reveal that capital punishment is not only just, but also necessary.
Capital Punishment as Retributive Justice
One of the most compelling arguments why capital punishment is a just punishment can be based on the perception of justice as retribution (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005, p. 704). This view is based on the principle of ‘Lex Talionis,’or the ‘eye for an eye’ principle of justice (Finkelstein, 2002, p.4). If taken literally, the ‘eye for an eye’ principle would seem nonsensical. It is, for instance, ridiculous to punish a rapist by raping him or to punish the theft by taking his possessions as well. The ‘eye for an eye’ principle is therefore not intended to be interpreted literally, but is analogous to giving the proportionate penalty based on the gravity of the crime committed. Perhaps no one could refute the proposition that criminals must be punished. It is an established truth that criminals should be penalized for their actions, but the question is, what would be the basis of a just punishment? If justice must be served, the appropriate punishment for criminals should be no lesser than the damage that they have incurred; which is also the reason why most people associate justice with equality. For it would violate justice if the punishment is less than the suffering and damage incurred by the victim. The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, for instance, believes that one of the true test of what is ethically and morally right is the golden rule, which states, “do under to others as you would have them do unto you,” (Hull, 1979, p.8). For Kant, the death penalty is justified when it is used to punish crimes that deserves it (Potter, 2002, p. 267). Apparently, there are certain crimes that are so evil that a punishment less than death would be unjust. Consider, for instance, the case of murder. What can a person possibly give that is proportionate to the life that he has taken? The answer is obviously none except to give his life as retribution for the life he has taken. When examined closely, such measure is not even proportionate since the condemned person will experience a less painful death than the death experienced by his victim. The state, therefore, has no option, but to adopt the capital punishment so that its justice system will have an arsenal that it can draw when it is necessary. Another compelling reason why capital punishment should be pursued is due to its deterrence effect. Criminal theories such as the theory of differential reinforcement by Sutherland and Akers is consistent with the concept that the performance of a crime is largely influenced by the perceived punishment or reward (Jeffery, 294; Akers, & Jensen, 5). If, for instance, the reward for committing a crime is greater than the punishment, the theory of differential reinforcement suggests that the individual will most likely engage in criminal behavior. However, if the percieved punishment exceeds the percieved rewards, then most likely, the individual will refrain from committing the crime.
Refuting the Opposition
One of the major arguments against the death penalty is the fallibility of human institutions. The justice system, no matter how efficient it is, is still subject to error and bias. Such fallibility can manifest in varied ways. Justice Brennan, for instance, observed in the case of Furman vs. Georgia that arbitration and sentencing are often arbitrary . For the same reason, if a verdict could not be fairly imposed, it would be improper for the court to use a penalty as final and irreversible as the death penalty. The fallibility of the justice system also raises concern about the possibility of wrongful executions. But despite the fact that no justice institutions are infallible, it does not mean that justice institutions should be dissolved. Similarly, just because of the possibility of error in the arbitration of capital punishment, it does not mean that it should be abandoned based only on such criteria. By analogy, such reasoning is tantamount to saying that the government should stop functioning because it is not perfect, which by itself, is a flawed argument. Justice, on the other hand, must be pursued despite the fact that the justice system is flawed primarily because it is the most ethical thing to do. If criminals, for instance, are not punished in proportion to the crime that they have committed, then the justice institution would be more flawed and it will not benefit society. A just punishment, like what the capital punishment offers, benefits society, not only by providing justice, but by providing deterrence to crimes punishable by death. A research conducted by scholars, for instance, revealed that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to the crime of murder. As observed by Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd, the murder rates in the United States surged when the Supreme Court temporarily suspended all executions in 1972 (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd 9). But when the moratorium was lifted, murder rates gradually declined. For the same reason, Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd concluded that capital punishment, indeed, deters crimes. Abolishing capital punishment does not provide benefits to society. In fact, it hurts society because it could not act appropriately towards exceptionally evil crimes. Furthermore, the deterrence factor of the capital punishment adds to the protection of society from ruthless criminals.
Conclusion
Capital punishment is not an easy position to put forward because most people see life as precious. Most people would do everything to preserve their lives, even if it takes all their wealth and possessions. Such is the value of life that no things-of-value or service can compensate for its loss. For the same reason, when life is taken deliberately, a punishment lesser than life itself, would be an insufficient retribution. Justice demands that the retribution should at least be equal in proportion. For the same reason, the state justice institution, could not avoid adopting the capital punishment because it is the only option that it can use to address crimes that are exceptionally evil that it would be unjust to exact a punishment lesser than death. Theoretically, the possibility of wrongful executions could not be totally eradicated. However, in actual practice, such possibility is too slim to create significant consideration. Granting that the justice institution is not perfect, such reasoning does not mean that the institution should cease pursuing justice. While it is desirable for the institution to work towards perfection, it does not mean that the institution of justice has already lost its value because it is not perfect or it should already stop working because it does not meet such impossible criteria. Similarly, the value of capital punishment is not on its infallibility, but rather on its adherence to the tenets of justice as well as on its role in deterring crimes.
References
Akers, R., & Jensen, G. (n.d.). Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance: The Past, Present, and Future. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.cj-resources.com/: http://www.cj-resources.com/CJ_Crim_Theory_pdfs/social%20learning%20theory%20-%20akers%20et%20al%202009.pdf
Dezhbakhsh, H., & Shepherd, J. (2003). The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a “Judicial Experiment. Retrieved March 2016, from http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourcefiles/The%20Deterrent%20Effect%20of%20Capital%20Punishment.pdf
Finkelstein, C. (2002). Does Retribution Demand the Death Penalty? Retrieved March 2016, from http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449605988/05988_CH01_Mandery.pdf
Hull, R. (1979). The Varieties of Ethical Theories. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.richard-t-hull.com/: http://www.richard-t-hull.com/publications/varieties.pdf
Jeffery, C. (1965). Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory. Retrieved March 2016, from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5312&context=jclc
Potter, N. (2002). Kant and Capital Punishment Today. Retrieved March 2016, from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=philosfacpub
Raybin, D. (2014). Book Reviews: Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty. Retrieved March 2016, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b19c15bf-7c3f-428c-9fff-7d856a0e837f%40sessionmgr102&vid=20&hid=115
Sunstein, C., & Vermeule, A. (2005). Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/capital-punishment-morally-required-acts-omissions-and-life-life-tradeoffs
U.S. Supreme Court. (1972). FURMAN v. GEORGIA. Retrieved March 2016, from http://law2.umkc.edu/: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/furman.html
