Death Penalty: An Old Practice of Deterring and Abating Crime

The death penalty is a practice authorized by the government in various jurisdictions in which an offender is executed as punishment for a crime. To date, the United States remains one of the few jurisdictions in the world that employ the death penalty as a punishment for capital offences. The death penalty is an old practice that has been practiced for long as a punishment for crime. As such, since time immemorial, the death penalty has been practiced as a means to deter and abate criminal activities, but yet crimes persist (Nagin & Pepper). Currently, there has been an ongoing debate about the moral rights and wrongs of the death penalty. This essay aims to explore an ethical analysis of the death penalty by discussing the moral rights and wrongs. Additionally, the essay will discuss the views of different philosophers on the subject of the death penalty.

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

Save 25%

The Death Penalty: A question of Ethics and Morals

The debate about the death penalty is highly controversial, with some referring it to outright murder of a person. For decades, the debate has raged on and been waged in courts and social circles at large as to whether or not capital punishment is ethical. The proponents of the death penalty are of the opinion that it is ethical as individuals who commit capital crimes violate the laws that govern our society, and therefore they should be put to death. Conversely, opponents of the death penalty posit that killing an individual is unethical as flaws and errors in the criminal justice system can result in the wrongful conviction and execution of innocent persons.

Death Penalty as a form of Retribution

The death penalty is ethical and moral as it is the only form of retribution for the victims of heinous crimes. The fundamental element of ethics and morals is to govern the behavior of individuals in society. From an ethical perspective, when an individual is contemplating to commit a crime, they should be well aware that their actions to commit the premeditated crime will be in total contravention to the policies and laws that govern the society, state or country. In this light, the death penalty is the only proper form of punishment for a person who is found guilty of committing a heinous crime that causes bodily harm or ultimate death to another person. Therefore, the conviction and execution of the guilty party will be the only form of avengement for the victim and their family as the offender deserves to be punished for the crime committed by the loss of their own life.

Moreover, the death penalty is justifiable retribution and not a mere form of vengeance. According to Seumas Miller, the death penalty is a legitimate form of retribution as it is imposed when an offender is guilty of premeditated murder and that consequently results in the loss of the victim, which can cause immense effects on the lives of immediate families and friends (Miller). Thus in sentencing the offender to the death penalty, it not only offers avengement to the victim, but it also offers justice to the families and friends who will henceforth live with the loss of the victim. If the offender were not sentenced to death, the accused would not have received a commensurate punishment for the heinous crime that was committed.

Death Penalty as a Deterrent to Crime

Additionally, the death penalty is morally right as it is a deterrent to violent crimes. The conviction and execution of individuals found guilty of capital offences is a necessary deterrence for people not to commit similar crimes. In many instances, court cases sentencing a defendant found guilty of committing a heinous crime will become a subject of media coverage. The media attention these cases receive aid in creating exposure of the offences and thus informs other individuals who contemplate about committing a similar crime that their actions will result in a similar consequence. Therefore, capital punishment is ethical since, by sentencing criminals to death, it acts a deterrent to violent crime as individuals will re-evaluate their premeditated plans and refrain from acting on their thoughts.

Using deterrence is an effective strategy to dissuade others not to commit capital offences. Research shows that most Americans view the death penalty as a deterrence to violent crime (Dotson & Carter). The fear of a death sentence is effective in reducing the number of violent crimes in various states and the country at large. As a result, citizens are less likely to engage in capital crimes in fear of the death penalty. Therefore, the death penalty is morally right as it is effective at reducing the likelihood of capital crimes in society.

Death Penalty as a Prevention for Recidivism

Finally, capital punishment is ethical and morally rights as it precludes convicts from re-offending. In instances where an individual is found guilty of committing a capital crime and given a prison sentence, there exists a likelihood that the offender will be let free. Various factors may influence the likelihood of a convict being let free. Firstly, many guilty verdicts are appealed in appellate courts. Secondly, flaws may be uncovered in the criminal proceedings and trials. Thirdly, clemency can be applied to reverse convictions for capital punishments. When this happens, guilty verdicts can be rescinded, thus letting the convict free. Most importantly, if a convict is not handed a death sentence, there is a chance that the individual will be released from prison and commit similar crimes in the future. In this perspective, capital punishment is ethical as it is only a death sentence that could preclude convicts from re-offending and thus save lives and prevent the violation of the rights of probable future victims.

It is imperative to consider that the effectiveness of the death penalty in sparing the lives of future victims is subjective and not entirely conclusive. However, it is irrefutable that offenders have high recidivism rates, and thus there is a likelihood of re-offending in the future. Nonetheless, a research conducted by Miller buttressed the effectiveness of the death penalty in saving the life of a victim who survives the heinous crime (Miller). According to Miller, if the offender is set free, there is a likelihood that the individual pursue the victim aiming to seek retribution for having being in prison. Therefore, the death penalty is ethical as it precludes any chances of recidivism while also protecting the rights and sparing the life of the victim of the crime.

Argument against Death Penalty

The debate about death penalty aims to resolve various issues especially its inaccuracy and unfairness. The opponents of death penalty vehemently oppose it arguing that some mistakes can be corrected, whereas the wrongful conviction and execution of the offenders are not fixable. There has been recent developments such as the advent of DNA testing which has brought a new perspective to the public discourse about death penalty (Garrett). In recent times, DNA testing has exonerated many inmates who were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. The exoneration of death row inmates has shifted the conversation about the death penalty system, with those who previously supported the practice starting to question the fairness, validity and morality of the capital punishment. The opponents of capital punishment attack death penalty on various grounds such as right and respect of life, abuse of human dignity and unfair victimization of death row inmates. Those vehemently opposed to the death penalty insist that on a balance of scale, the risk of convicting and executing innocent convicts outweighs any benefits of capital punishment.

Moreover, the death penalty is an unethical and a morally wrong practice. Opponents of the death penalty call for the abolition of the punishment since its sentencing has tended to involve discrimination against African Americans and other minority groups. The discrimination of any individual based on race, gender, or religion is a contravention of the civil and human rights which are protected by law. The violations of these rights have led to errors in sentencing making the criminal trials to be flawed. According to Adam and Toth, the landmark case of Furman v. Georgia, was greatly flawed as it evidently displayed discrimination against African Americans. The case resulted in an abeyance on the death penalty as "vague death penalties were seen by the courts as the cause of a disturbing trend in Georgia whereby Whites who killed Blacks were seldom assigned the death penalty by jurors while Blacks who killed Whites were overwhelmingly sentenced to die" (Adam and Toth). Therefore, the perceived discrimination in the application of the death penalty makes it unethical and morally wrong.

The perceived discrimination against African American is further compounded as they cannot afford expert lawyers in their death penalty cases. Since they lack an expert defense team, African Americans are likely to receive death sentences at higher rates than in the cases involving White offenders. In a system where justice seems to be sold to be highest bidder, the income inequalities between Whites and African Americans will continue to give the former an advantage when it comes to criminal trials. In all, the death penalty is thus considered unethical as the perceived discrimination against minority groups during sentencing in criminal trials proves that Whites are more human than African Americans. Indeed, such a perception is in violation of the civil and human rights enshrined by law.

Ethical Decision Making

There seems to be divergent views on the ethical analysis of the death penalty. In analyzing the ethical perspective of the death penalty, it is imperative to take into consideration the work of great philosophers and explore their views either in support or against capital punishment. First and foremost, according to Aristotle's 'ethics of purpose', a practice is considered to be good only if it fulfills its function. Therefore, the death penalty must be considered to be either morally good or bad to the extent to which it fulfils its intended purpose (McLachlan, p.42). The death penalty is primarily intended to act as a deterrent to violent crimes. However, according to McLachlan, the rate of capital offences such as murder is higher in death-penalty jurisdictions compared to non-death penalty states (McLachlan). From this argument, it is evident that the death penalty does not achieve what it is supposed to do, and therefore it can only be considered as being morally wrong.

Furthermore, according to Socrates and Plato's 'healthy soul theory' our judgments should be ruled by reasons (McLachlan, p.38). The theory emphasizes on the importance of harmony between the rational, irrational, and spirited aspects of our souls. In practice, the rational aspect involves our intellect while the irrational element is driven by our physiological needs such as lust, hunger, and thirst. The spirited form is comprised of our emotional aspects such as anger, envy, and hatred. Thus, according to Plato, a soul in harmony is one in which the physiological appetites and the emotional aspects are ruled by reason (McLachlan). However, there is general consensus that the death penalty is driven by emotions rather than by reason. The administration of capital punishment is often as a result of vengefulness and it is mainly predicated upon a compulsion to punish the offenders. There have been cases where the offenders have been handed death sentences by a vengeful jury who were emotionally manipulated by partisan prosecutors. In criminal trial involving capital offences, the jury is more likely to be compelled by vengeance to hand down a death penalty to make the offender pay for the crime done to the victim...