Moral Justification of the Death Penalty for First-Degree Murder
Ethical debate has been ongoing on whether capital punishment is morally justified and should be maintained in criminal justice. Capital punishment refers to the execution of criminals who have committed serious crimes. It has been in place in the US since colonization, as it was Britain’s legacy. It is still legal in more than 20 states, but recently, some states have withdrawn from this type of criminal punishment, replacing it with life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. The existence of the life imprisonment alternative is crucial in the moral judgment of the death penalty because it significantly reduces public support for capital punishment (Thames, 2018). Moreover, the death penalty is concerned with several issues that undermine its moral justification. The most important of them is the possibility of killing a wrongfully convicted person. Statistics show that since 1973, more than 156 people sentenced to death have been released in the US because they were eventually found innocent (Bedau, 2012). Other common issues with the death penalty are that it is unconstitutional and has uncertain effects on crime deterrence.
This paper will analyze the problem of capital punishment from the utilitarian perspective. The utilitarian theory posits that the action is morally right if it leads to the greatest happiness for everyone (Thames, 2018). In order to judge capital punishment from the utilitarian point of view, one should look at its consequences for the whole society rather than only for the criminal. Moreover, one should compare the societal consequences of the death penalty with those of the alternative option, namely, a life imprisonment sentence. This paper will demonstrate how a utilitarian would argue that the possibility of preventing crime and, thus, saving numerous lives might outweigh the suffering of the criminal. Therefore, sentencing criminals to death for first-degree murder should be retained.
Explanation of the Ethical Theory
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory established in the 18th-19th century by a British philosopher named Jeremy Bentham. Bentham’s ethics is called hedonistic utilitarianism because it focuses on maximizing overall pleasure and minimizing pain. John Stuart Mill later refined this theory by explaining why pleasure should be the core value in determining the moral rightness or wrongness of actions. He argued that all people’s values or desires focus either on the pleasure itself or on the possibility of gaining pleasure or avoiding pain (Thames, 2018). It is noteworthy that the ultimate goal under utilitarianism is the greatest pleasure for all; therefore, if one sacrifices one’s pleasure for a greater good, it does not contradict utilitarian principles.
The core moral principle of utilitarianism is that actions are morally right if they lead to the maximum good for all people. As moral guidance, it sounds as follows: “Do that which results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number” (Thames, 2018, p. 78). In other words, when deciding on the course of action, a person should evaluate possible alternatives based on their consequences for society. Out of these alternatives, an individual should choose the one that will benefit the greatest number of people. Hence, utilitarianism represents a consequentialist approach to moral reasoning in which the moral value of an action is determined by its consequences.
One example of a practical application of utilitarianism is turning off the lights when leaving the room. The person has two alternatives: turn off the lights or keep them on. The consequences of the former option are beneficial for the person and society because it helps the person save money on electricity bills and reduces the adverse impact on the environment (Thames, 2018). The latter option results in the opposite: high energy bills and increased negative effects on climate change. Hence, a utilitarian would choose the former alternative because it results in the greatest good for all.
Application of the Ethical Theory
When applying utilitarian ethics to the issue of criminal punishment for first-degree murder, one can conclude that the death penalty is justified because it leads to the overall good, which outweighs the suffering of the sentenced criminal. The main reason for this conclusion is the deterrence argument. By sentencing a murderer to death, the court will prevent this person from harming others in the future because a dead person cannot commit crimes. In contrast, life imprisonment does not guarantee the prevention of a particular person’s criminal behavior because a person can escape from prison and continue murdering (Thames, 2018). Furthermore, capital punishment can deter serious crime by discouraging potential criminals from committing it. Pojman (2004) states that criminals refrain from committing homicide or carrying deadly weapons when faced with the possibility of the death penalty. By doing so, criminals also show they fear capital punishment more than a life sentence (Pojman, 2004). Hence, capital punishment can deter serious crime and, thus, increase people’s safety, which is why it is morally justified under the utilitarian theory.
Other issues concerning the death penalty are costs and wrongful convictions. Life imprisonment costs less than capital punishment if one considers all relevant expenses (Bedau, 2012). From a utilitarian perspective, higher costs could be an argument against capital punishment because they impose an additional tax burden on citizens. Executing a wrongfully convicted person would also be a great loss to a utilitarian because it would deprive that person of an opportunity to contribute to the well-being of society. Yet, to reach a conclusion, a utilitarian would “measure the overall pain and pleasure that are produced” (Thames, 2018, p. 76). Since the possibility of reducing overall suffering by deterring serious crime outweighs the pain from increased costs and occasional wrongful convictions, a utilitarian would find capital punishment to be morally right.
References
Bedau, A. H. (2012). The case against the death penalty. American Civil Liberties Union. Web.
Pojman, L. (2004). Why the death penalty is morally permissible. In H. Bedau & P. Cassell (Eds.), Debating the death penalty: Should America have capital punishment? (pp. 51–75). Oxford University Press.
Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). Bridgepoint Education.