Introduction
The death penalty is an ultimate punishment that is inhuman, cruel, and degrading. A state imposes a death sentence on an individual for crimes like murder, rape, and kidnapping. In other countries, the death penalty is declared for terrorism and crime-related felonies.
However, there is a global debate on whether or not capital punishment should be regarded as a moral form of punishment. Some individuals argue that the death penalty is an ethical way of punishing offenders because it reduces crime, while others oppose it without exception. In what follows, I argue that the death penalty is not morally justified because it subverts human dignity and violates human rights.
Historical and Philosophical Foundations
The revolution against the abolition of the death penalty dates back to the Renaissance period. According to early Renaissance philosophers like Thomas More, Montesquieu, Montaigne, and Erasmus, human worth is valuable and cannot be forfeited through a mere act of crime (Jouet 11). The philosophers played a significant role in shaping the abolition of the death penalty in Europe and France since it violates moral concerns. Their views were the first to drive the abolitionist movement in Europe through a historical process encompassing “a reduced range of capital offenses and eligible offenders” (Jouet 11).
The philosophical stance on this argument can be defined as the need for the abolishment of ruthless punishments like the death penalty, with the evolution of societies from monarchies to liberal democracies. From a philosophical perspective, capital punishment is not useful on the basis of its cruelty. It is a biased form of judgment made by the rich to oppress the poor. Instead, capital punishment should be replaced with alternative punishments like forced labor while expecting rehabilitation.
Public Support and the Influence of Ideology
Numerous people defend the death penalty, yet its effectiveness and ethics are questionable. Even in countries that have abolished capital punishment, many citizens maintain a validating stance on the method and sometimes even campaign for its restoration. Notably, while the identity of those supporting the death sentence has been established in considerable studies, the logic behind endorsing or opposing the practice remains somewhat unclear.
Typically, people approving of capital punishment are disproportionately white, male, married, Protestant, and politically conservative. However, it appears that attitudes toward the method are not based on its rational, pragmatic effects but rather on one’s personal value system. Although individuals may claim that the death penalty is righteous because of reasons like deterrence or perceiving it as a way of controlling crime, people’s ideologies seem more important than practicality. For example, from the utilitarian perspective, punishment is wrong because it causes suffering but may be warranted if it “prevents greater evils” (Bronsther 237). Therefore, it is difficult to justify the death penalty since its usefulness and precise morality are debatable.
The Right to Life
Nevertheless, it is inhuman to take another individual’s life regardless of the nature of the circumstances. According to the humanistic view of life, human beings have the right to life, and they deserve “the inherent dignity of all human beings” (Jouet 46). Human rights are, therefore, inalienable, and an individual cannot violate them through a mere crime or any other reason. Jouet argues that the death penalty is illegal because it focuses on an individual’s merit rather than the overall worth of human life (46).
A criminal offender should be punished differently in the form of punishment instead of taking away their life. In European countries, human life is supposed to be strictly protected by respective governments to show value to human beings. Even though murder may be reprehensible, it is illegal for governments to stoop so low as to kill an incapacitated individual. Doing so decreases the dignity of human life, and it attracts more murder cases among families and friends. Individuals can legally take away their lives only when they discount their duty to others and commit murder. Human life must be respected, and death should only be caused by natural factors.
Furthermore, the death penalty can be regarded as wrong when considering society’s obligation to protect human life. For instance, it is possible to argue that opposition to capital punishment and its strategies are comparable to the abolition of slavery and the methods of fighting for freedom. The author declares that in both cases, the stakes are the same: “life and liberty” (Farbman, 1941). When a person is sentenced to the death penalty, typically due to a gruesome and violent crime, a responsible lawyer will try to delay the execution and save the client from cessation. Society must and has been protecting individuals’ lives, so terminating one’s existence, even as a form of punishment, cannot be right.
Broader Consequences and Public Cost
Apart from claiming the lives of innocent people, the consequences of the death penalty extend to the public in general. First, some argue that capital punishment is not only corrupt but is “wasting taxpayer dollars” (Sarat et al. 43). Second, there is a high risk of mistakenly executing an innocent person, which will negatively affect their families and loved ones.
Third, those promoting the practice’s abolition state that the method leads society to moral degradation. Fourth, some people assert that the death penalty is not consistent with contemporary standards of civilized communities’ decency. Although each of the listed arguments may not seem substantial on its own, all of them must be considered when deciding to take away one’s life over choosing another type of retribution.
Those acting in defense of capital punishment often argue that the practice is righteous because it is applied to individuals committing heinous crimes. The primary claim in favor of the death penalty is deterrence on the basis that the method can prevent potential offenses and that its abolition will increase criminality rates. For example, some state that the execution of a convict is the only appropriate retribution for specific misdeeds and that it is “worth it” if it can save even one innocent life (Sarat et al. 46).
Moreover, the supporters of capital punishment declare that it does not implicate society because the procedure is not murder. However, there seems to be a significant number of concerns regarding the death penalty. For instance, the abolitionists declare that ambitious prosecutors abuse the practice to advance in their careers, that capital punishment is biased by race, gender, and geography, and that it represents poor human-rights standards (Sarat et al. 42). While there are some justifications for the death penalty, the method is troublesome because of ethical questions about dishonesty, discrimination, and fairness.
Conclusion
The death penalty is an immoral and inhuman way of punishing offenders of specific crimes like murder and rape. Human life is valuable, and no individual has the right to terminate another’s life. The death penalty causes pain and suffering; therefore, it is not morally justified according to the utilitarian perspective of life. It is also not ethically justified since it reduces the dignity of human life and causes trauma and violence among the victim’s family and friends. Even though contrasting views claim that it reduces crimes and increases justice, the death penalty should be abolished by replacing it with humane executions, like forced labor.
Works Cited
Bronsther, Jacob. “The Corrective Justice Theory of Punishment.” Virginia Law Review, vol. 107, no. 2, 2021, pp. 227-279.
Farbman, Daniel. “Resistance Lawyering.” California Law Review, vol. 107, no. 6, 2019, pp. 1877-1954.
Jouet, Mugambi. “Death Penalty Abolitionism from the Enlightenment to Modernity.” American Journal of Comparative Law, 2020, pp. 1-51,
Peshkopia, Ridvan, and Adam Trahan. “Support for the Death Penalty Reinstatement as a Protest Attitude: The Role of Political Trust.” International Criminal Justice Review, vol. 33, no. 2, 2020, pp. 1-19.
Sarat, Austin, et al. “After Abolition: Acquiescence, Backlash, and the Consequences of Ending the Death Penalty.” Hastings Journal of Crime and Punishment, vol. 1, no. 1, 2020, pp. 33-78.