Is the Death Penalty Necessary - Assignment Example

Is the Death Penalty Necessary? Section YES. Section 2. It may seem that the death penalty is NOT moral. In particular, as Bedau notes, “for some abolitionists, the death penalty is wrong because it violates the offender’s right to life” (3). Indeed, modern society pays special attention to the right to life. Regardless of whether God or nature are the source of human life, life is seen as priceless. In any case, life is a gift that is given to every man. For this reason, every person, regardless of whether he/she committed the murder or not, has the right to life. This right cannot be rejected, and even a murderer has the right to life. In other words, life is an inalienable right of every person, regardless of his/her actions in relation to others. Nobody, not even the state can deprive criminals of their right to life, because otherwise the state would violate the ethical foundations of the existence of the whole society. It seems that the death penalty is NOT moral because as Hitchens notes, there are many cases when “an innocent person is convicted and executed.” The legal system of any country is intended to protect the interests of innocent people in particular by punishing those who really deserves punishment. However, imperfection of the system leads to the fact that the death penalty is applied against innocent people. This is due to the fact that the legal system is characterized by a number of serious shortcomings, namely the ability to falsify the testimony of witnesses, use false evidence against the accused, etc. All this leads to the most terrible consequences, namely the imposition of the death sentence against an innocent man. The tragedy of the whole situation is that no one can give life back to the convict, while human life is priceless. In this case, the innocent person is deprived of his/her life, while the legal system discredits itself. As it is well known, its main task is to punish criminals and protect the innocent. However, in reality, the legal system is transformed into a system based on injustice and cruelty. If the judiciary cannot guarantee 100 per cent protection of the innocent, than means that it does not have the right to practice the death penalty, because there is always a risk that an innocent person will be deprived of his/her life, while the real killer escapes the punishment. Finally, it seems that the death penalty is NOT moral because the death sentence is tantamount to public retribution. Everyone realizes this as revenge. As a result, this revenge might lead to an infinite sequence of killings on both sides. According to Gilligan, “there is a great deal of evidence that is at least consistent with the conclusion that capital punishment is more likely to stimulate violence than to prevent it” (751). In other words, this legalized revenge leads to a tightening of manners, for all participants get used to the murder and that murder is normal. As a result, people can easily kill other people, because human life is devalued. Section 3. On the contrary, it seems that the death penalty is moral. For as Pojman says, “the death penalty as punishment for the most serious crimes is morally justified” (51). Pojman bases his position on the idea that every person has the right to a moral choice. People can commit either kind or cruel acts based on their moral choice. Intentional killing of an innocent human being is so evil that it justifies the death penalty against the killer. No one has the right to deprive an innocent human being of his/her life. Anyone who dares to do it is to die. The validity of the death penalty is that the killer is deprived of the right to life when he/she commits his/her cruel act by killing an innocent person. The killer loses the opportunity to have human rights including the right to life. The fact of a murder automatically gives the opportunity to apply an appropriate punishment by death. This view is consistent with the theory of retributivism. This theory suggests three main ideas: 1) the offender must be punished, 2) the punishment should be applied only to the offender, that is, the person who actually committed the crime, and 3) the offender deserves the punishment, proportional to the severity of his/her crime. In addition, it seems that the death penalty is moral because the death penalty brings frees the society from dangerous criminals. In particular, according to the English philosopher John Locke, “restraint and reparation are said to be what justify punishment” (Calvert 215-216). As it is known, many criminals are prone to recidivism, which means that out of prison, they can continue killing innocent people. The death penalty is thus a way that prevents the possibility of committing new murders by a criminal. Finally, it seems that the death penalty is moral because it is a proof of the desire of society to protect the value of the lives of innocent people. In fact, “disrespect for the sanctity of life must be punished” (Rodriguez). The practice of the death penalty should not be considered as an inhumane phenomenon. On the contrary, the death penalty indicates that society cannot forgive the murder of an innocent person, because his/her life is priceless and as well as other people, this person has the right to life. The death penalty enables society to defend its point of view, according to which no one has the right to kill an innocent person. Section 4. I answer that the death penalty is moral because it is a just punishment for the person who has intentionally committed murder against an innocent man. In this regard, I believe that the position of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant is rather convincing. Despite the fact that for Kant the sanctity of the human person was unconditional, he nevertheless defended the death penalty as a punishment used by the state against the murder (Sarver 460). Just punishment is expressed in equality. If in the case of any other offense, one can find a substitute to meet the justice, in the case of murder it is impossible, because life, even the most painful, is not similar to death. Here the imposition of a death sentence by the court is the fairest solution. In addition, the death penalty makes sense as a deterrent to all those who are capable of murder. Each potential killer must understand that his/her crime will be punished to the strictest manner, and he/she will not be able to re-commit his/her terrible crimes. The severity of the punishment is justified as a preventive measure. Finally, the value of the death penalty can be seen in the fact that it points to the existence in society both severe and just forms of punishment for murder. The existence of this practice suggests that society seeks to create equal and fair opportunities for all people, where the right to life is regarded as an inalienable human right. Section 5. For this reason, I cannot agree with the above three arguments against the death penalty. The first argument focuses on the fact that everyone, even the murderer has the right to life, because he/she is a human being. However, one should take into account the fact that killer deprives another person of a similar right to life. So why the state should take care of the killer’s right to life, if he/she ignored the right to life of another person? In addition, I can agree with the position that “murder victims are increasingly harmed by the continuing life of their murderers” (Aspenson 92). Even after their death, people have the right to preserve their dignity. If the killer is still alive, he/she destroys the right to dignity of the man whom he/she killed, while the right to one’s dignity continues to exist after death. The second argument of the opponents of the death penalty is one of the most powerful (Stichter 142). Nevertheless, one needs to remember that the judicial system is constantly being improved. The solution to this problem is possible by using the so-called the “beyond any doubt” standard, which does not give an opportunity to question the guilt of the accused (“Raising the Bar for Death Penalty”). As regards to the third fragment, it is unfounded for the simple reason that a just punishment in the form of the death penalty is intended to ensure equal conditions for the coexistence of people in society. People need to understand that their crimes will be punished by the appropriate punishment, and thus the murderer face the death just as he/she forced his/her victim to face the death. Works Cited Aspenson, Steve. “The Rescue Defense of Capital Punishment.” Ratio: An International Journal of Analytic Philosophy 26.1 (2013): 91-105. ProQuest. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. Bedau, Hugo Adam. “The Minimal Invasion Argument against the Death Penalty.” Criminal Justice Ethics 21.2 (2002): 3-8.ProQuest. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. Calvert, Brian. “Locke on Punishment and the Death Penalty.” Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 68.264 (1993): 211-29. ProQuest. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. Gilligan, James. “Punishment and Violence: Is the Criminal Law Based on One Huge Mistake?” Social Research 67.3 (2000): 745-72. ProQuest. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. Hitchens, Christopher. “Why We should put an End to the Death Penalty; the Death of Innocents an Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions Sister Helen Prejean Random House: 314 Pp., $25.95.” Los Angeles Times. Jan 02 2005. ProQuest. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. Pojman, Louis P. “Why the Death Penalty is Morally Permissible.” Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case. Eds. Bedau, Hugo Adam and Cassell, Paul G. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 51-75. Print. ProQuest. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. “Raising the Bar for Death Penalty.” Telegram & Gazette: A1. Mar 18 1999. ProQuest. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. Rodriguez, Ciro D. “You Don’t Have to Oppose the Death Penalty to be in Favor of Improving It.” La Prensa. Aug. 27 2000. ProQuest. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. Sarver, Vernon Thomas. “Kants Purported Social Contract and the Death Penalty.” Journal of Value Inquiry 31.4 (1997): 455-72. ProQuest. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. Stichter, Matt. “The Structure of Death Penalty Arguments.” Res Publica: A Journal of Legal and Social Philosophy 20.2 (2014): 129-43. ProQuest. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. Read More