Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is an institutionalized exercise meant to execute people in response to intentional, supposed, or actual misconduct. The human rights union in the United States believes that capital punishment inherently infringes on the constitution’s ban against the death penalty and the provisions of the legal process and equal safety under the law. The government should not award itself the liberty to kill convicts, particularly when it does so with a premeditated purpose. Thus, a death sentence is considered an intolerable infringement of human rights and conflicts with the core values of a democratic nation. Moreover, it is ineffective, inequitable, inhumane in theory, and unfair in real life. This paper aims to discuss capital punishment ethics and explain why it is ethically incorrect to inflict the death penalty on a human.
A death sentence is typically the most hardened mode of physical punishment since it involves taking away the life of a criminal offender in the criminal justice system. The practice involves the obligatory execution of convicts as a punishment for committing offenses believed to be capital, including treason, murder, robbery with violence, and rape (Gilani, 2023). Whether or not it is correct to inflict the death penalty on humans has generated a lot of heated debate and controversy among different entities. The moral perspective is attained in deciding the morals behind the death sentence, particularly considering the right to deny humans of their life. The morality behind capital punishment is undermined by diverse views presented by multiple theories and philosophies in moral philosophy (Gilani, 2023). Despite the fact that murder is generally viewed as being immoral and evil, killing is nonetheless considered to be wrong and bad regardless of the circumstances. Most of the time, killing someone in self-defense, for the benefit of society, or to prevent harm from being done to innocent people is justified.
Arguments against Capital Punishment
Groups and people who are against the death sentence base their views on a variety of points. Many states and nations oppose the death penalty because they see it as an outdated, barbaric, and ineffective practice, and as a result, they have less public support when it comes to its resurrection. The fact that it is inhumane is one of the reasons why a person should not be subjected to the death penalty (ACLU, n.d.). Some methods employed in the death penalty include hanging, lethal injections, firing squads, and the electric chair, which are considered cruel and inhumane (ACLU, n.d.). In addition, it violates the right to life of criminal offenders. The death penalty is an infringement on this right because everyone in society, even those who commit murder, has a right to life. On the other hand, the agony and suffering experienced by the convicts while being sentenced to death are extreme. This is because some methods used in the process, such as lethal injection, cause much physical and emotional anguish.
A vital feature of the death penalty is that the judgment cannot be reversed even when misconduct, new evidence, or inferior legal assistance is discovered. That results in the execution of innocent persons owing to many flaws in the criminal justice system. Some mistakes include insufficient evidence, false confessions, official misconduct, perjury, and insufficient legal defense (Vaughan et al., 2019). Thus, capital punishment legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the government and shall inevitably claim innocent people. Furthermore, inflicting capital punishment does not deter crime; thus, it is ineffective (Vaughan et al., 2019). This is because most crimes are driven by depression, mental health disorders, and substance use; thus, people in these states cannot think about the consequences they might face (Vaughan et al., 2019). Poverty and trauma are also linked to crimes; thus, imposing the death penalty does not address these underlying causes (Mbah et al., 2019). Therefore, most states which support and implement this practice have not witnessed any significant signs of a decline in capital criminal acts.
Society has a moral obligation to safeguard human life. Thus, it is not morally acceptable to take away an individual’s life unless there is a necessary condition to attain the most incredible balance of good over wrong for everybody involved. According to Johnson (2020), capital punishment is morally wrong regardless of what the condemned persons have committed. In reality, killing is evil and unethical as it involves infringement of the civil right to life of the victim regardless of whether they have committed a crime (Mbah et al., 2019). Moreover, the practice of capital punishment demonstrates several negative aspects of the community as it focuses on murder as a good act in some circumstances. Performing an execution is unethical to the persons and executors involved in implementing the practice as it adversely affects them mentally and may impact their perception of life issues. Furthermore, capital punishment wastes lives as most condemned offenders could be rehabilitated to live socially productive lives. Therefore, executing a death sentence destroys all goods such individuals could have done for the community if they had been allowed to live.
The case against the death sentence is also made based on the religious teachings that only God can create and destroy life. Moreover, Christianity encourages compassion and forgiveness and provides alternative methods of punishment, making the death penalty incompatible with these teachings and, therefore, unnecessary (Gramlich, 2021). The church states that the imposition of this practice is biased, specifically against minority groups in society. Since the religious teachings advocate and support the poor, the Christian groups do not support capital punishment as it is unfair. Consequently, the abolition of capital punishment is consistent with the overall stand of religious groups that life must be supported. This is also taught in matters related to euthanasia and abortion.
done in as little as 1 hour
Capital punishment results in the brutalization of the community and increases the rates of murder. Research shows that more criminal activities occur in states where capital punishment is permitted. The practice may brutalize the state in diverse ways, jeopardizing its relationship with its residents (Brooks, 2019). Similarly, it generates an unacceptable connection between violence and the law. On the flip side, the death penalty lowers the tone of the community as most civilized nations do not tolerate torture. In the same way, most individuals feel that capital punishment is inappropriate for a modern civilized state to respond to even the most dreadful offenses. Since many nations do not execute individuals publicly, the death penalty is a degrading public spectacle.
Regardless of the moral status of the death penalty, the forms of executing offenders inflict much pain on the convicted individuals that are tantamount to maltreatment and are inhuman to a greater extent. Some of the techniques employed in this practice, including strangulation and lethal gas, are barbaric and cause much pain to the victim (Johnson, 2020). Lethal injection is one of the methods used since it is believed to be less harsh for the convict and less dehumanizing for the executioner. Nevertheless, this method has many flaws since it requires a medical practitioner to be involved in the killing instead of simply checking that the execution has terminated life, breaching medical ethics.
Punishment may only be an effective deterrent when it is consistent and promptly applied. The death penalty does not satisfy this condition since the percentage of first-degree murderers sentenced to capital punishment is small, and a small proportion of individuals are executed. Furthermore, the majority of crimes are perpetrated under conditions of intense emotional stress and when reason is compromised, notably when drunk (Hoyle, 2019). Similarly, the offenses are executed by individuals suffering from mental disorders. In these cases, violence is inflicted by individuals not appreciating the repercussions to themselves and others. Thus, imposing the death penalty does not resolve crime problems in society. It leaves the root cause of crimes unaddressed and ignores the many diplomatic and political sanctions that might appreciably minimize the prevalence of terrorism.
The due and legal process of the constitution requires that the judicial authorities of sentencing and trial be carried out with fundamental justice, especially where the irrevocable sanction of the death sentence is involved. Specifically, in a murder case, there is substantial proof that courts have put individuals to death unfairly, racially prejudiced, and arbitrarily. The criminal justice system uses socio-economic classes and gender to determine who receives capital punishment and the persons to be executed.
according to your instructions
People’s View on Capital Punishment
The use of capital punishment in the United States is gradually disappearing due to widespread concerns about its fairness, administration, and whether it deters capital offenses. Most U.S. residents believe capital punishment does not prevent individuals from committing crimes, is not applied in racial fairways, and does not have sufficient defense to stop innocent persons from being executed. Many jurisdictions have abolished the death sentence; thus, executions and death penalties are less common (Brenan, 2022). About nine out of ten adults in America support the death sentence arguing that the practice is ethically justifiable in specific cases, including for a person who commits murder. Additionally, statistics show that 63 percent of U.S. residents have issues with the effectiveness of capital punishment and that it does not prevent individuals from committing serious crimes. Roughly 78 percent of Americans believe there is a risk of executing blameless people (Brenan, 2022). Views and opinions about capital punishment vary by race, education, part, and ethnicity.
Capital punishments have steadily reduced in recent decades in America. Reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that by the end of 2019, there were approximately 2570 individuals on a condemned row in the United States (Gramlich, 2021). New death sentences have declined drastically as only thirty-one individuals were given capital sentences in 2019 as compared to 320 who received the death penalty between 1994 and 1996 each year. About 98 percent of the individuals on death row in the same year were males (Gramlich, 2021). The median and mean age of the country’s death row population was fifty-one, and African American prisoners accounted for 41 percent of the total inmates. Most states have recently removed capital punishment through court rulings or legislation.
Additionally, most states in America have capital punishment, but fewer apply it regularly. According to Death Penalty Information Center, a death sentence was authorized by 27 states and banned in twenty-three jurisdictions and Washington D.C. (Jones, 2021). Nevertheless, even in many states that authorize capital punishment, executions are rarely used, and more than 13 of these jurisdictions, including the U.S. (Gramlich, 2021). the military has not conducted an execution in the recent past. For instance, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and California governors have introduced an official ban on executions. Regarding religion, 58 percent of Catholics favor the death penalty, and 66 percent of protestants support the practice (Gramlich, 2021). Democratic leaders and democrats support capital punishment by forty-six percent. In contrast, the share of republicans who favor the death sentence has dropped slightly by seven percent.
Alternatives to Capital Punishment
One of the alternative methods to the death penalty is life without parole which entails locking up the convict until their natural death. However, it is punitive in some cases, mainly in non-violent offenses, and does not fulfill the principle of proportionality (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Another potential alternative to capital punishment is long-term imprisonment, in which the criminal offenders serve a long-term sentence after which they are released with or without further restrictions. An intermediate term of imprisonment is another possible alternative to capital punishment, which involves an offender serving a fixed number of years in prison, after which they might be considered for release. On such occasions, the convicts remain in the penal institutions until that time moment the relevant authorities consider them safe to be released. The release date rests upon the authorities’ discretion, which might result in unintended adverse consequences.
Finally, a release with restrictions may be applied whereby an offender is released but subsequently subjected to supervision for a specified time. When the convicts fail to meet the supervision requirements, they will be rearrested and returned to the correctional facilities to serve a prison sentence. Another method of preventing execution and imposition of a death sentence on innocent persons is limiting the application of death-qualified judges. Two independent juries should be convened for possible death penalty cases. In addition, courts should reduce their overreliance on controversial confessions. Instead, they should address false testimonies and deal with prosecutorial misconduct. All of these measures would help in abolishing capital punishment. Therefore, based on the above discussions, capital punishment should be abolished since it is not right to inflict it on a human.
Conclusion
Capital punishment adversely impacts all members of the family involved, perpetrators and victims, and the entire American community. It is also evident that the issue of capital punishment is linked with much controversy as individuals differ in what they consider wrong or right. The religious teachings and moral values differ in most cases with death sentencing. Regardless of the crime, depriving a person of the right to life is considered unethical and wrong. Even though most states and countries retain capital punishment to punish offenders who commit capital crimes, they do not practice it but adopt alternatives to the death penalty, including life imprisonment. Additionally, the death penalty is inhumane as the methods used, such as lethal injections, inflict pain and suffering on the convicts. Most arguments against the death sentence focus on its lack of deterrent effect, inhumanness, irreversibility, and continual economic and racial biases. Therefore, it is an ineffective method of deterring crimes since the underlying issues behind committing offenses include substance use, trauma, and mental disorders.
References
ACLU. (n.d.). The case against the death penalty. Web.
Brenan, M. (2022). Percentage of Americans who view the death penalty as morally acceptable remains near record low. Death Penalty Information Center. Web.
Brooks, T. (2019). Retribution and capital punishment. In J. F. Meyer (Ed.), Retribution (pp. 237-250). Routledge.
Death Penalty Information Center. (n.d.). Sentencing Alternatives. Web.
Gilani, S. (2023). The ethics of capital punishment and a law of affective enchantment. Social & Legal Studies, 32(1), 3-27. Web.
Gramlich, J. (2021). 10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S. Pew Research Center. Web.
Hoyle, C. (2019). Capital punishment at the intersections of discrimination and disadvantage: The plight of foreign nationals. In C. S. Steiker & J. M. Steiker (Eds.), Comparative capital punishment (pp. 177-200). Edward Elgar Publishing. Web.
Johnson, D. T. (2020). The death penalty and democracy. The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan, 101-120. Web.
Jones, J. (2021). Gallup poll: public support for capital punishment remains at half-century low. Death Penalty Information Center. Web.
Mbah, R. E., Pruitt, T., & Wasum, D. F. (2019). Cruel choice: The ethics and morality of the death penalty. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(24), 14-22. Web.
Vaughan, T. J., Bell Holleran, L., & Silver, J. R. (2019). Applying moral foundations theory to the explanation of capital jurors’ sentencing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1176-1205. Web.