Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison.
The most famous retributivist Kant, states that the guilty ought to get punished because they chose to act wrongly, and by punishing them, we are respecting them as a moral agents. This occurs because humans are given the ability to reason and act morally and thus if we don’t punish them we are not treating them as moral agents. Also, according to retributivists the punishment must fit the crime committed. Hence, if an offender commits a crime we must treat him as a moral agent and punish, but while corresponding the act to the punishment quantitatively and qualitatively. Thus a retributivist can be against the death penalty if the crime committed doesn’t fit the punishment given. This argument by Kant shows that offenders will get what they deserve when they commit a wrongful act, but some criminals or murderers don’t really know what is going on, thus they are not deserving of punishment. Kant believes in universalizing the maxims which you act on, hence a murderer has willed that the same thing be done to him which makes the death penalty morally required according to Kant(Kant, pg 240). This shows that Kant is a strong supporter of the death penalty because without it how would we be able to rightfully punish murderers. Therefore all murderers ought to be sentenced to death row and if they are not proven inno...
... middle of paper ...
...idivist murders, in which murderers are given the opportunity to kill innocent people while they are sentenced. Therefore, no matter how you look at it the retributivists have two risks while Bedau only has one. It is true that murderers deserve to die, but how do you make sure it’s those people who die and not innocent people like Roy Roberts. Its always arbitrary and discriminatory as it is applied, while it is not even being an effective deterrent to other criminals, and its costs are twice as a life sentence in prison. Thus, if you are a supporter and you can’t come up with an answer to any of these arguments, then you are a false supporter and should re-think your views. The only argument for the death penalty is that in theory it could be agreeable because it seems as though it would deter criminals but in practice there are too many arguments against it.
Many positions can be defended when debating the issue of capital punishment. In Jonathan Glover's essay "Executions," he maintains that there are three views that a person may have in regard to capital punishment: the retributivist, the absolutist, and the utilitarian. Although Glover recognizes that both statistical and intuitive evidence cannot validate the benefits of capital punishment, he can be considered a utilitarian because he believes that social usefulness is the only way to justify it. Martin Perlmutter on the other hand, maintains the retributivist view of capital punishment, which states that a murderer deserves to be punished because of a conscious decision to break the law with knowledge of the consequences. He even goes as far to claim that just as a winner of a contest has a right to a prize, a murderer has a right to be executed. Despite the fact that retributivism is not a position that I maintain, I agree with Perlmutter in his claim that social utility cannot be used to settle the debate about capital punishment. At the same time, I do not believe that retributivism justifies the death penalty either.
Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.
In the argument for abolishing or retention of the death penalty, Igor Primoratz took the Pro-retributivism stand for the retention of the death penalty. In Primoratz’s “A Life for A Life,” he argues against the abolitionists utilitarianism stand on the issue of the death penalty. Primoratz argues on the premises that- (a) “Punishment is morally Justified insofar as it is meted out as retribution for offense committed” (Primoratz 356.) (b) Death is the only proportional punishment for murder; (c) Death is the only effective deterrence measure for murder. In response to Primoratz choice to use Kant’s Retributivism argument as the basis for his pro-retention argument for the death penalty, similarly Kant’s Categorical Imperative will be used as a measuring stick to validate or refute Primoratz’s argument for the retention of the death penalty.
Hugo Adam Bedau starts his essay out with a clear position on the death penalty. In his own words he says, “I strongly oppose the death penalty no matter what the crime or the criminal.” His essay is packed with historical information regarding the death penalty. Given that Bedau provides historical background the reader is able to get a sense that his decision is educated and well thought out. He mentions that in the beginning of 1980, the Capital Jury Project interviewed thousands of former capital jurors in several death penalty jurisdictions to determine whether they understood the judge’s instructions regarding sentencing and whether they complied with those instructions. According to their research and what has been published both points
Igor Primoratz defends the retributivist idea that a punishment is justified only if it gives a criminal his just deserts. But what do criminals deserve? Primoratz argues for the following principle: criminals deserve to be deprived of the same value that they deprived their victims of. Primoratz regards all human beings as possessed of lives of equal moral worth, and believes that the human life is the most valuable thing. He thinks that murders deserve to die. Since justice is a matter of giving people what they deserve, it follows that justice demands for murderers to be executed.
Seventeenth century philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) best summarized the justification for capital punishment with his theory of retributivism. In a famous passage, Kant says: “Even if a civil society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members--as might be supposed in the case of a people inhabiting an island resolving to separate and scatte
When viewing capital punishment in light of retributive justice, Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics can be applied in order to uphold the retentionist argument. Capital punishment continues to be a growing controversial topic in society and is an important ethical dilemma to discuss. It can most prominently be supported by Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics which when applied to the practice of capital punishment implies that it is morally acceptable in the sense that it gives people what they deserve. Additionally, despite consistent arguments by those who oppose capital punishment, the death penalty appears to be the most practical practice of punishment granted certain conditions.
Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.
Two major claims: death penalty serves as a deterrent and death penalty is morally justified because murderers can’t live and you have a right to kill them.
Hopefully I’ve made the point that the death penalty is useless except for delivering some sort of closure to a victims’ loved ones, through this type of closure is morally wrong, and can be achieved through life imprisonment of the murderer. And because capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, because life imprisonment is a better option, and because the innocent wouldn’t have to die; capital punishment should be abolished.
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
The death penalty has been around for centuries. It dates back to when Hammurabi had his laws codified; it was “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Capital punishment in America started when spies were caught, put on trial and hung. In the past and still today people argue that, the death penalty is cruel, unusual punishment and should be illegal. Yet many people argue that it is in fact justifiable and it is not cruel and unusual. Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual; the death penalty is fair and there is evidence that the death penalty deters crime.
Regarding the justification of punishment philosophers are not of the same opinion. According to the utilitarian moral thinkers punishment can be justified solely by its consequences. That is to say, according to the utilitarian account of punishment 'A ought to be punished' means that A has done an act harmful to people and it needs to be prevented by punishment or the threat of it. So, it will be useful to punish A. Deontologists like Mabbott, Ewing and Hawkins, on the other hand, believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive grounds. That is to say, according to them, only the past fact that a man has committed a crime is sufficient enough to justify the punishment inflicted on him. But D.D. Raphael is found to reconcile between the two opposite views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved.
Many people are split on the idea of capital punishment because it involves death. I feel that capital punishment is morally and ethically acceptable because it rids society of our worst criminals. Many people argue that killing criminals who kill is just as bad as being the criminals. For one the criminals killed innocent people who had no idea what was coming, and had no way to prevent it. The criminal who commited the crime in almost all cases had to commit first degree murder, which includes some planning of the act. To plan an act of murder and taking someone’s life is beyond emotion, it is psychological and takes some rationalization. If no rationalization takes place, then it can happen again.