Capital Punishment - Research Paper Example

? Capital Punishment Summary There is much debate surrounding the imposition of capital punishment in the legal system. Those who oppose capital system assert various grounds including injustice in the legal system and protecting the value of life. On the other hand, the main assertion by advocates of the death penalty is that it helps to deter prospective crimes. Another assertion is for exercise of justice. However, even the opponents deem that there is injustice in imposing capital punishment. There is much controversy since opponents indicate that death penalty does not produce deterrence in reality. Introduction Although the United States remains the only western country imposing the death penalty, the issue is subject to much public debate. Much of the debates surrounding capital punishment entail moral and ethical issues in the society as well as in the lives of individuals. This is because capital punishment involves a state-authorized termination to an individual’s life (Grover, 2011). The perceptions of many people opposed to capital punishment rests on the value of life, and the wrongness in executing murder. These arguments take different forms including the deficiency of revenge as a motivation, the unreliability of the criminal justice system, an alleged racial prejudice in executions, a supposed lack of statistically confirmable deterrence, extreme governmental power, the likelihood of executing a blameless person, and among some Christians, the dissolution of Christian love (Charles, 1994). Discussion For the proponents of death penalty, the main reason for advocating for capital punishment is that it deters prospective criminals. In this case, capital punishment advocates have a belief that when people in the society realize that if they commit murder they will face the same, then most people will avoid committing murder. Conversely, the reality is that there is no reduction in murder cases due to imposing capital punishment. This brings out the difference between perception and reality. It is true, there is a perception that imposing capital punishment will deter prospective murders but on the other hand, the reality is that there is no much deterrence in that there is no real reduction of murders after executing murderers (Grover, 2011). The opponents of capital punishment deem that by imposing capital punishment, it is possible to execute blameless people, without giving adequate time for investigation. Moreover, these opponents assert that there exists error in the criminal justice system that may render killing of innocent people due to various reasons. Conversely, justice asserts that someone has to suffer the consequences of the murder committed. This implies that the issue of executing an innocent person does not override the issue of justice. In addition, the perception of the criminal justice system making errors is not realistic and opponents should not solely base their arguments in this. This is because it is always possible that any legal system will have errors and that there could not be any perfect legal system (Charles, 1994). The main major reason of supporting capital system rests of the moral responsibility of the society to safeguard the safety and interests of its citizens. The assertion in this case is that those people who murder other people deprive the society of this safety and people interests. This assertion extends to the perception that the only way for the society to ensure safety of its citizens is through imposing capital punishment on murderers, which ensures that these killers do not kill again. In addition, this assertion claims that death penalty is very beneficial in the society since it deters future and more aggressive violent crime. Although there is no direct proof to support this assertion, the perception and outlook of the issue deem that when people realize that they will face murder after executing a particular crime, they will most likely restrain from committing such an act (Andre & Velasquez, 2010). Many of the opponents of the death penalty assert that there should be any comparison between the convicted murderer and the victim. However, it is paramount to provide this comparison due to the differences in the quality of the life taken and the life spared. For instance, a good comparison entails a murderer who is a criminal, killing a person who led a good life and even left children and a partner behind. By executing such a criminal, it is possible to save another innocent life as well as save the agony that might invade the people left behind by the victim. This provides the assertion that saving the life of such a victim’s should take permanence compared to taking the life of the criminal, who might as well kill other people if spared (Becker, 2006). Charles (1994) argues that extended or life imprisonment cannot provide deterrence as opponents of death penalty would assert. Extended or life imprisonment unavoidably afford the killer the likelihood of escape, pardon, or parole, and more disastrously, the likelihood to kill again, whether within or outside the prison. Capital punishment opponents are not willing to admit that guiltless deaths accruing from freed or paroled criminals are recurrent and disastrous than the unusual case of a blameless convict dying. If the threat that an innocent individual will die is present with or without capital punishment, it is paramount to formulate the system in support of society and not the criminal. Opponents of the capital punishment however argue that there is no proof to imply that capital punishment is a more effectual restraint of aggressive crime compared to life imprisonment or any other form of deterrence. To support this statement, various studies examining the relationship between imposing death penalty and deterrence indicate that there is no direct link between imposition of capital punishment and reduced murders. These studies also indicate that the murders executed without imposition of the death penalty and murders executed after the imposition of the same occur in similar rates. The opponents of death penalty therefore assert that there should no be any reason to impose capital punishment on the grounds of deterrence of prospective murders. The opponents also deem that unless there is a clear demonstration that only capital punishment is capable of deterring crime, the state should restrain from imposing it and turn to other means of punishment for instance life imprisonment. Justice necessitates that the weighty crimes obtain the harshest punishment that our ethical standards would permit us to impose, without taking another life (Andre & Velasquez, 2010). The assertion of justice is another major connotation that advocates of capital punishment use to support their premise. Justice in the society deems that every member of the society has the right to life, freedom and the quest of happiness. This implies that the absolute and intentional denial of life and future to others sacrifices ones personal assertion to continual membership in the society. In this regard, for justice to prevail, the person who terminated the life of another person should also receive the same fate. This also means that the value of life in a moral society must be so highly respected that an individual who do not respect the life of others renders their own right to membership illogical and invalid. In addition, those who persistently infringe the personhood of others ought to pay the eventual punishment. The imposition of this punishment is necessary for the sake of upholding the society, which offenders have infringed its foundation (Cauthen, 2007). Advocates of death penalty also assert that justice is fundamentally a matter of ensuring equal and fair treatment of all members of the society. It is unfair when an offender intentionally and incorrectly imposes greater harm on others than he does or she has to tolerate. If the harm society inflicts on offenders is less than those that the criminals inflict on their blameless victims, society would be supporting criminals, permitting them to get off bearing lesser costs than their victims had to tolerate (Andre & Velasquez, 2010). Most civil authorities and other activists ridicule justice by deeming the life of a criminal having more worth compared to the life of an innocent victim who did not have the comfort of even selecting life confinement. This assertion of justice that articulates excessive feelings toward the killer, hailing him as a champion of rights of victims is a distortion of genuine justice and a mockery of colossal proportions (Charles, 1994). The irony is that the justice asserted by the proponents of death penalty is also a major connotation in opposition of the same. These opponents deem that the mechanisms used to impose execution of death penalty are very unfair. These opponents also claim, just as the proponents that justice requires equal treatment to all members of the society. In this regard, many executed people are mainly because they do not have enough money to appeal the case, their defence is poor or incompetent, lack the money to bring witnesses to courts, or they belong to certain political or racial minority (Andre & Velasquez, 2010). In addition, the system is not fair because people convicted to death do not have a chance to appeal or might not receive the benefit of future developments of the case. This means that, if the convict serves a life imprisonment, there may be future witnesses, or new developments, which may cause a twist in the case. In addition, the imposition of death penalty sometimes takes away the lives of innocent persons, and there remains no other way of changing that course (Grover, 2011). In other cases of injustice, death penalty even affects people who are mentally ill, even if there is proof that these people did the crime unconsciously. In other cases, there may be a tendency of failure by the legal system to investigate false confessions. As a result, people who are not the real perpetrators of the crime receive the punishment. In addition, justice eliminates chastisements that differ with the social status or race of convicts, or in some other aspects implying that citizens are not equal before the law. Where such prejudices subsist, even the execution of real murderers is ethically doubtful. This is because there is much institutional extent for execution of an innocent person or for acquaintance of a guilty person due to his social status or he has prominent friends (Sorell, 2002). Another strong reason for opposing the imposition of capital punishment involves the unconditional love demonstrated by religious beliefs. Most religious beliefs especially Christians assert that love for others does not depend on the merit or value of the concerned persons. In addition, it continuously endeavor to do good to others notwithstanding whether they return the goodwill or even merit good treatment on the basis of their own continual illegal behavior. In regard of this love, even those who have committed murder merit this love hence need for spring their lives. In addition, an ideal society would extend compassion even to those who had extended no compassion. If there is murder, no much effort can return the person to life, even capital punishment but some actions are necessary to prevent other crimes (Cauthen, 2007). Cauthen (2007) further argues that the contemporary practice of death penalty is an ethical disgrace. The complex sarcasm is that the economic breakdown and cultural malfunctions in communities causes the aggression that makes it essential to unleash even more suppression and cruelty against its disorderly citizens to protect order and stave off turmoil. To the extent that the community offers chances for all its members to enjoy a good life in a reasonable culture, it is sensible to assert that the demand for death penalty will reduce. The reason why prisons are full of convicts is that there is a failure in creating a good society. Enormous imprisonment points to the inconsequentiality of our devotion to solving the fundamental problems of poverty, ethical decay, worthlessness, and social conflict. This therefore means that it is unfair to impose capital punishment before solving the problems in the society. Conclusion It is evident that the debate surrounding imposition of capital punishment entails moral grounds as well as different beliefs, values and perception. In the end, there becomes no looser and no winner. This is because each side renders its arguments on moral bases, while the counterparts counter the arguments. In particular, the issues of justice and deterrence have much controversy with each side asserting to be right. However, there are strong connotations of opposing the death penalty, which are not subject to much controversy. These include the moral malfunctions of the society and possibility of executing an innocent person. These premises provide a valuable ground in opposing the imposition of capital punishment. References Andre, C. & Velasquez, M. (2010). Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom? Retrieved from Becker, G.S. (2006). The Morality of Capital Punishment. Retrieved from Cauthen, K. (2007). Capital Punishment. Retrieved from Charles, J.D. (1994). Sentiment as Social Justice: The Ethics of Capital Punishment. Christian Research Journal, 17, 1, 1-7. Grover, S. (2011). Ethical Issues in the Death Penalty. Retrieved from Sorell, T. (2002). Two ideals and the death penalty. Retrieved from Read More