Capital Punishment Philosophical Views - Essay Sample

Introduction

The question of whether life has any meaning is challenging to interpret and the more a person focuses on it, the more it appears complex. The case analysis focuses on Mr. Irk Yuckh, who was a minor when he committed a crime. Mr. Yuckh hacked his victim to death with a machete and is scheduled to die by lethal injection. The case further states that Mr. Yuckh has repented his since and is a changed person. The debate arises whether capital punishment is right or ethical. The paper analyzes philosophical views by Immanuel Kant, Ernest Van Den Haag, Jeffery Reiman, and Richard Taylor in regards to capital punishment and applies it to Mr. Yuckh's case.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Immanuel Kant’s Views on the Death Penalty

Kant's philosophy on crime and the death penalty is illustrated in his work, 'Metaphysics of Morals.' This doctrine is based on and derived from Kant's moral views on crime and capital punishment. Kant insists on the death penalty for murderers. As Kant notes, 'any person who has committed murder, must die, (Potter, 2002), because no matter how hard life may be, it is still better than death. Kant argues that a court judgment is mandatory for penalizing murder. He argues that a society that does not punish a killer to death turns into an accessory of this crime.

In Kant's perspective, capital punishment is defensible only concerning murder and not any other wrongdoing, unless it leads to very significant damage to the society. It is not right to permit a circumstance where a killer would be entitled to any legal right and would be able to vindicate his actions. Kant has convictions that death punishment is irreplaceable. Kant also notes that life imprisonment is an extremely shameful measure, worse than capital punishment. He believes that life imprisonment is an entire life of servitude and a man of honor would rather choose death than be enslaved. Based on that rationality, Kant infers that by banning capital punishment, we impose an even more detrimental punitive measure that is unjust because a murderer deserves death and not something worse. Kant also notes that a penalty must correspond with crime (Potter, 2002).

Based on Kant's views, Mr. Yuckh should be executed because of his crime. As Kant notes, a punishment must correspond with the crime. Mr. Yuckh murdered his victim. Therefore, corresponding punishment is death. According to Kant, enforcement of law means protection of the society and the state. In this case, pardoning Mr. Yuckh means that the law has not protected the society. Kant also notes that if there is no wrongdoing, then a guilty person should not be punished. However, in Mr. Yuckh's case, he is guilty of murder and should be punished according to the crime he committed.

Ernest Van Den Haag's in 'The Ultimate Punishment'

In the Ernest van den Haag's article 'The Ultimate Punishment' he strongly believes that the death penalty is a good thing. His contention is a utilitarian. Utilitarians have convictions that an action is ethically right if it brings the best repercussions for as many people as possible. Haag believes that merits of justice outweigh anything else. Van den Haag also notes that the implicit supposition that life prisoners will generate no judicial costs during their imprisonment. In any way, he notes that the actual financial costs are trumped by the significance of doing justice. Van den Haag arguments do not care about the costs, his focus on achieving justice. He argues that executing the guilty is worth it. Van den Haag points that there are ethical benefits from executing the guilty. He notes that execution gives murderers what they deserve. It is ethically right to kill the guilty because killing makes people give up their claim to being an individual in society (Van den Haag, 1986).

Based on Van den Haag's views, Mr. Yuckh should be executed. As Van den Haag notes, justice is what occurs when someone breaks social order. Therefore, execution of Mr. Yuckh will be justice because he broke the social order. Mr. Yuckh is only getting what he deserves as per van den Haag's reasoning. There is no moral obligation to place Mr. Yuckh under capital punishment. By committing the murder, Mr. Yuckh volunteered to assume the risk of acquiring a legal punitive measure that could have been avoided by not committing murder.

Jeffery H. Reiman' views in 'Against the Death Penalty.'

Reiman presents views against capital punishment. He claims that capital punishment is like torture. Reiman notes that it would not be ethical for people to beat assaulters, rape rapists or torture torturers even though it is the best ways to make them suffer in the same way that they made their victims suffer. Reiman argues that is my do justice to kill a murderer, but it does not make it ethically right. The notion of an eye for an eye is not justice. Human beings have moved to some civilized society. It is below a civilized society to murder prisoners. Reiman argues that the death penalty is morally impermissible (Reiman and Pojman, 1997).

Based on Reiman's views, Mr. Yuckh should not be executed. As Reiman notes, murdering is inhumane like torture. Therefore, it will be wrong to execute Mr. Yuckh. The capital punishment, will, therefore, eliminate humanity and make people subhuman. Taking a person's humanity away is insincere. Executing Mr. Yuckh is beneath the civilized society and unethical. The psychological pain is harsh and unusual. Mr. Yuckh thoughts about being executed constantly hang in his head. Capital punishment is different from life imprisonment. Mr. Yuckh life imprisonment is not costly for him; he gets to keep his life.

Richard Taylor's views in 'The Meaning of Life.'

Taylor argues that society gives meaning to people's lives by the active engagement their will has in their projects. Taylor notes that humans can save human existence for the last consideration. Taylor relates human life to Sisyphus existence. He notes that Sisyphus existence would possess meaning if there were some significance to his labors; his endeavors culminated in something that was not just an occurrence of fresh labors of the same characteristic. Taylor notes that humans attain things, but every achievement fades, offering only an occasion for renewed labors of a similar nature. Taylor notes that the meaning of life is from within the people, it is not bestowed from without and it far surpasses in both its beauty and permanence any heaven of which humans have ever dreamed or desired for (Taylor, 1907).

Based on Taylor's views, human life is important and should not be taken for granted. People like Mr. Yuckh should be allowed to live so that they can achieve their goals. Although they may have stumbled, they should not be allowed to despair. As Taylor notes, everything that breathes should be allowed to exist. Therefore, it is important to save Mr. Yuckh life because he is better alive than dead.

Most Compelling Response and Objection

Jeffery Reiman argues the most compelling response. Although it is cruel for a society to torture criminals, it is equally cruel for the same society to execute them. Capital punishment is not consistent with the civilization mission of contemporary states. As Reiman notes, capital punishment is unethical and should not be practiced. To execute Mr. Yuckh is not right and can be equated to torture. Mr. Yuckh is likely to suffer despite showing his regrets and changing his behavior. He has also repented his sins which is equally convincing. Therefore, murder should not be justified through murder.

One compelling objection to Reiman's views is presented by Van Haag. Van Haag believes that the death penalty is a moral thing. He believes that people who are against capital punishment will always be against the punitive measure no matter what. Van Haag believes that individuals who undergo death penalty are individuals who have committed capital crimes. Van Haag contends that death punishment brings closure to families that losses their kin due to the murderer's crime. Based on this compelling objection, it is clear that Van Haag would support capital punishment for Mr. Yuckh. In his arguments, keeping him alive through life imprisonment is not the solution, the best thing is to end his life.

References

Potter, N. T. (2002). Kant and capital punishment today. The Journal of value inquiry, 36(2-3), 267-282.

Reiman, J., & Pojman, L. P. (1997). The Death Penalty: For and Against.

Taylor, R. (1907). The Meaning of Life. Retrieved from: https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil150/Taylor.pdf on date 10/12/2018

Van den Haag, E. (1986). The ultimate punishment: A defense. Harvard Law Review, 99(7), 1662-1669.