Capital Punishment

 

 Capital punishment entertains development of differing ideologies in the community. For instance, some people belief in capital punishment whereas some other groups disregard the activity.  Arguably, capital punishment is associated with affluent definitions which are basically founded on moral aspects. For instance, some advocates belief that capital punishment is an effective strategy of managing social deviances whereas others disregard the act developing that it contains significant elements of inhumanity. Hesitatively, controversies develop from the opinion raised by the Supreme Court of the United States that emphasizes executions are not unconstitutional. According to the opinion of the Supreme Court, capital punishment does not violate expectations of contrary groups represented by the Eighth Amendment disrespects unusual punishment due to its inhumanity. For that reason, various perspectives have emerged such as the utilitarian perspective that supports the act and contrary perspectives that means to abolish capital punishment. To be certain, these perspectives endorse crucial impacts on the determination of perfect strategies of holding justices since both constitutional and philosophical aspects must be indicated in processes for social ethicality.

Retribution

Arguably, capital punishment is enhanced by advocates’ beliefs on matters regarding to the needs of managing harmful deviances in the society. It is logical to illustrate that most advocates base the relevancy of capital punishment on Social beliefs that mostly devalues acts that violate social ethics. For that reason, the perspective of retribution is commonly used to back capital punishment demonstrating it as a method of avoiding and condemning people characterizing attributes that reflect potentiality of social harm. This perspective illustrates that offenders of social ethics should be punished in ways that reflect social annoyance towards unconditional behaviors or activities. For instance, Pojman & Vaughin (2017) discusses Justice Stewart’s opinion that it “is an expression of society’s moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct” (732). Advocates as well contemplate that unusual punishment does not violate human worthiness and dignity of criminals in the society instead it is used to signify dignified consequences that suits offensive conducts. In dissimilarity to philosophical attempts to outlaw capital punishment, retribution insists that the punishment is actually meant to define dignity of offenders who characterize activities of harmful deviance which in real sense facilitate development of negative pressures in the society. This perspective develops coherent ideas of explaining constitutional transparency of retribution. For instance, retribution is based on the social scheme that capital punishment perfectly illustrates moral disrespect for offensive deviances. On the same note, vengeance is used as a method of sustaining moral beliefs by forbidding existence of unconditional crimes in the community. Some advocates such as Denning opinion that offenders of mischievous crimes deserve capital punishment in order to reflect moral guidelines which in actuality demonstrate the significance of ethical activities in the society (Pojman & Vaughin, 2017).  Additionally, Leiser illustrates that “death penalty based on retributivism actually affirms the offender’s dignity and worth” (Pojman & Vaughin, 2017. Pg 732),

Nevertheless, retribution is as well attached to some governmental theories which hold the duty of hindering and managing acts of harm in the society. As a result, a number of beliefs approve the use of capital punishment by developing opinions that consider it as a method of ensuring immediate justice in their surroundings. Advocates illustrates the need to impose capital punishment implying unusual strategies of enhancing its success since social beliefs indicates the relevance of applying cruel methods to control social abnormalities. Additionally, advocates emphasizes that capital punishment should not be abolished since the act accomplishes social necessity of vengeance. They believe criminal offenders should receive punishments that seemingly represent harshness of their behavioral deviance. For instance, Boyer (2015) exemplify that offenders face executions with procedural activities that “inscribe the letters of the law he has violated” (pg 84). In most a times, capital punishment is fueled by social beliefs that people should embrace self help hence development of harsh procedures of curbing social irregularities. Most supporters of this perspective believe in governmental strategy of imposing cruel executions or death penalties to criminals given that various beliefs order elimination of offenders of certain crimes.

Advocates present definite reasons as to why capital punishment should be used as a legitimate option of controlling acts of deviance that may fuel uneasiness in the community. The ability to indicate the importance of enhancing retribution can be termed as its primary strength.  It is logical to indicate that the main reasons presented by this perspective interpret significance of retribution. For instance, advocates strongly illustrate that vengeance is plays an important role of reflecting societal grief towards certain crimes (Georgia, 1976 Pg178). Additionally, the perspective has potentially enacted a coherent link between its beliefs and governmental roles on sustaining moral values. Its strength is attached to the ability to declare that retribution is to a certain extent meant to eliminate root causes of unusual behaviors from the society. However, the perspective fails to limit extent, to which retributive justice can be applied and so, failure to illustrate extent of applicability defines its main weakness. For instance, retributive justice raises a general perspective that every deviance in the society deserves such punishment regardless of its measure in accordance to moral values.

Contrary, social critics’ specifics notions implied by the Eighth Amendment to highly repute capital punishment. Critics repute the act of retribution developed by advocates as a result of ordinary beliefs emphasizing that it violates actual aspects of morality in the contemporary world. For example, Hugo Bedau illustrates that “no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal” (Pojman & Vaughin 2017 pg 737). The perspective developed by critics basically revolves on the need to show social respect for each individual in the community. It claims that societies and law enforcement should impose aspects of human dignity and other moral principles when evaluating procedures of sustaining justices. Nevertheless, this perspective critiques that procedures meant to bring up justice should not deviate from principles of social morality. Importantly, critics speculate that justices should not always rely on the perspective that offenders should face death penalties since the idea at times contain affluent assumptions (Pojman & Vaughin, 2017),

The primary goal of social critics is to ensure that procedures of holding justice entail considerable elements of social ethics. It reputes legitimization of uncontrolled retribution by specifying that it defies aspects of human dignity or rather violates moral guidelines. For instance, capital punishment in a variety of occasions encompasses violent procedures which disobey principles of humanity. On the other hand, philosophical reviews critique that capital punishment are unresponsive which may hinder social integration. The basic idea raised by this perspective is that unresponsive retribution violates definite elements of moral worthiness hence the need to abolish its continuance.

Justice Brennan supports termination of capital punishment by demonstrating that the practice is morally unacceptable. He claims that capital punishment insinuates human beings as worthless objects that can be eliminated from the society with fewer moral considerations (Pojman & Vaughin, 2017. Pg 734). He insists that justice should accept that every human deserves moral respect regardless of his or her social deviance hence mechanisms of controlling such acts must comply with moral expectations suggestible they must not be oppressing. Brennan disregards unconditional vengeance claiming the practice hinders attempts of building up social equality by communicating significance of social respect

However, philosophical perspectives ascertain that retributive justice may be ethical in some occurrences. For example, retributive justice can be applied in situations whereby wrongdoers accept and accounts for his or her social blames. Retribution justice is a viable method of indicating legitimate condemnation in situations whereby wrongdoers indicate intentional motives of defying moral jurisdictions. Such circumstances may be availed in illegitimate practices such as terroristic activities for personal gains. All the same, critics warn that termination of lives in such cases should as well follow constitutional laws in order to present morality. For example, courts may sentence offenders associated with terrorism attacks in order to protect lives of many societal members.

Critics fail to offer definite categorization of crimes that deserve death penalty and those that require alternative punishment which shows a substantial weakness. For instance, it provides complicated reviews which bring about differing notions in the determination of offensive crimes that should face death penalties. Nevertheless, the process is time consuming hence it takes to long before justice is accomplished.

It is important to state that critics provide reliable overviews of holding justice in the society. Therefore, overviews of critics can be considered as the best perspective of solving social deviances in the society, For instance, they equitably relate their perspective to moral guidelines hence illustrating the need to respect human dignity under any circumstance. This perspective ensures that community bond is not destroyed since it essentially communicates the importance of critiquing elements of humanity when showing justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Boyer, D. W. (2015) "Kafka's Law-Writing Apparatus: A Study in Torture, A Study in     Discipline," Yale Journal of Law & the humanities: Vol. 27: Iss. 1, Article 2.

Georgia, V. G. (1976). The death penalty. Us. - Extracted from             https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0dnx2SFzu3ENGpMSzZnR3pYYnc/view

Pojman P. L. & Vaughin, L. (2017), Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. Oxford University Press –             extracted from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0dnx2SFzu3EZlIwLUR1eElIcmc/view