Capital Punishment
Introduction
The use of capital punishment as a justified means of sentence is morally acceptable. The debate on morality of capital punishment is based on three premises; every guilty person deserves punishment, only the guilty person deserve punishment and a guilty person should have a punishment that is proportionate to the severity of the crime they have committed. In so doing deterrence and re-offending prevention can be achieved in the process. However, Capital punishment has been associated with vengeance instead of retribution and thus, perceived to be concept that is morally dubious.
Discussion
The moral reasoning for capital punishment is that actual justice needs guilty persons to experience suffering equal to their wrongdoing and the suffering should be appropriate to the specific crime that they have committed. Hence, a criminal who have been convicted of a crime deserves to be punishment and in a murder case, for instance, the criminal deserves to die. The punishment should be measured in relation to the atrocities perpetrated by the criminal, while considering the state of the defenseless state of a victim (Sunstein, 703). It is argued that such a position fits with the innate concept of justices with the leniency and severity of the person must correctly be measured. The other notion relates to the deterrence effect of capital punishment. In this case, meting of the punishment on criminals is regarded as an ‘act” but refusing to issue the punishment can be regarded as an outright “omission” (Sunstein, 703). Morality does not only involve avoiding doing something wrong but ensuring that the right thing has been done.
Capital punishment can significantly deter other individuals having the thought of committing heinous crime to reconsider their actions since they are aware of the results. When murderers are executed, other would be murders are discouraged from killing especially when such a punishment is provided immediately after the crime. In this case, the issue relates to saving human lives. When the risk of fear and punishment is increased, would be perpetrators of major crimes are discouraged from taking actions that would see them face the punishment (Sunstein, 703). Majority of the people will consider the costs and benefits associated with a crime and respond appropriately. Some studies have shown the relationship between execution of criminals and decline in rates of murder and such link can at times be strong. The case for the execution is that it is right for the guilty person to be punished but not an innocent person. The idea of capital punishment can involves a back-ward-looking perspective, not just for revenge, but expressing the moral seriousness of the crime committed (Sunstein, 703).
It is difficult to serious argue for human rights but not think that something serious has to be done so that the severity of violating human rights can felt. If an action is not carried out towards people who commit heinous acts towards others, it tantamount to saying that it does not matter a person can act in such a manner. This means that a brutal criminal can be called to give up his or her life so that the seriousness of their crime can be underscored. The failure to impose tough penalties on specific crimes can lead to increased crimes being committed in the society (Muhlhausen, 27). Hence, refusing to impose the capital punishment where murder crimes have been committed presents a problem from the moral perspective. Even in criminal law or justice system there will always be some risk-risk tradeoffs. Even where capital punishment does not rehabilitate a person so that they go back to the society, they can take such an opportunity to express remorse, repent and even have a deep spiritual rehabilitation. This indicates that capital punishment can bring about some kind of rehabilitation. Moreover, reverting to other forms of punishment such as a life sentence with no parole can in extreme case provide a chance for the person to escape and commit similar crimes, and this could have been prevented if the person had been executed. In addition, even if the person is no longer dangerous to the public, he may harm other inmates and the prison staff (BBC, 1).
However, capital punishment has been argued to be based on vengeance but not retribution and thus, does not have moral backing. In this case, the expected suffering by a convicted criminal who may be held in death row for a long time increases the severity of his life. Moreover, it is argued that it is wrong to morally wrong to take a life in defense of another life. The opponent of the punishment holds that the crime may have been committed in an emotional state where the perpetrator was not thinking about the consequences of his actions (Sunstein, 703). It has also been observed in statistics that capital punishment does not deter people from committing crime.
Conclusion
The use of capital punishment is justifiable if the guilty person but not innocent person is executed. The punishment can act as a deterrence to would be crime perpetrators and thus, saves life. It helps by acting to outline the seriousness of the crime and thus, upholding rights of victims.
Works cited
Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. "Is capital punishment morally required? Acts, omissions, and life-life tradeoffs." Stanford Law Review (2005): 703-750.
Muhlhausen, David B. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives." Testifying on June 27 (2007): 2007.
BBC.Arguments in favour of capital punishment. (n.d). Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml
