Death Penalty is wrong, it should be banned

The issue of death penalty is one that has brought up a lot of debate in the justice system over the years with arguments for and others against the penalty. The debate over whether human life is much important than the perception of justice or if the ending on an individual’s life is a verdict that should be exercised by the legal system is one that need to be critically analysed. Death penalty is an exercise that has been prevalent since the beginning of History and it was perceived to play a great role in shaping the criminal punishment system of the society as an effort to deter crime. Nevertheless the effect that this kind of penalty has on the society at large is not one that can be viewed to be positive and there are many arguments as to why this form of penalty is wrong. Death penalty is something that is unjust and should be banned; human beings have the right to life.

Utilitarianism and retribution

The central philosophic question that should always be applied in the justice system is that of moral justification. On what ground should the state’s deliberate killing of the identified offenders be morally justified to voluntary criminal conduct. With this question in mind, there are two broad categories that can be used to try and understand the morality of death punishment and they include; retribution and utilitarianism. There are those that argue that death penalty aids in deterring serious crimes such as murder, which is wrong. The pro-death penalty uses the utilitarian justification to argue that it is right with the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ which they claim provides a clear formula for punishments that fit the crime (Dutoit, 112). These people argue that death penalty satisfies the criterion of reciprocal action that such a principal demands.

The implementation of death penalty within the United States is evidenced by that idea that social responsibility that envisioned by such a robust civilization is reliant on the eye for an eye principle which is wrong. The principle of seeking the greatest good for the larger society is persuasive and compelling but wrong (Dutoit, 114). If the deaths from homicidal related crimes are deterred by executing those guilty of that crime, then it is only logic for far greater punishments of executing those that are closest to or related to the guilty criminal. This is a far more powerful deterrent than only executing the criminal that is guilty, however while such a practice of arbitrary killing may empirically be the best deterrent, it does not necessarily means that its moral reputation is particularly without imperfections.

The biased justice system

The criminal justice legitimacy is based upon its effectiveness and fairness and for this to happen, it is important that the system detects crime thoroughly and ensures that swift and appropriate punishment is enforced. As illustrated by Tirado (24), the concept of fairness comes about with the ability of this justice system being able to ensure impartiality and effective legal representation for all people within the society. The current justice system cannot be said to be just and this is demonstrated by the shocking numbers of wrongful convictions that are normally reported every year where innocent people fight for fairness in their trials and in worst case scenarios their own lives (Greenberg, 1668). Families of the innocent victims always feel that the system has cheated them by causing their loved ones’ lives stripped unfairly. The criminal justice administers the death penalties in the context of the society that is not just.

The procedures that are applied in the cases are imperfect in the regard of the external social factors that affect its outcomes (Stevenson, 128). This is not only because of the features that are internal to the structure but also the legal system. Various data have illustrated that the criminal justice system tend to have increasingly higher rates of capital convictions for the African Americans and the poor (Johnson, Jeffery & Colleen, 518). The institution of capital punishments is both imperfect and capricious in various ways starting with the fact that it discriminates on the grounds of race and economic status of the offenders. As illustrated by Tirado (chapter 6)‘Being poor is isolating’,  at the various points in the process of determining if capital sentence should be inflicted, lack of funds affects the way that the whole process proceeds for the poor individuals that are charged with capital sentences.  'Those without the capital get punishment.' (Stevenson 6), given the high correlation that is there between poverty and race, the African Americans find themselves with the highest risk of getting sentenced with death which is very unfair.

As illustrated by Stevenson(46), ‘ You've got to keep beating the drum for justice’,  all people have the right to life and it is the duty of the justice system to protect from any form of murder and this includes even capital punishments which is an act of killing intentionally. It is absurd to think that the laws that are meant to be the expressions of the public’s will and those ones that detest the act of homicide are the same ones that are committing murder through death penalty. The act of capital punishment devalues human life as regarded by the society, death penalty offers the tragic illusion that life can be defended by taking another and this is wrong  Human life is the most important and precious entity in the universe and should always be viewed as such regardless of the actions or crimes committed (Stevenson, 48).

Death penalty is not only an isolated morality issue; it is a pressing institutional problem. Delivering a death penalty sentence is a complicated process that requires filtering those that are guilty and those that are not according to the justice system. In administering the penalty and desert, the system has to ensure that it filters the individuals that deserve the maximum sentence or a lesser punishment and this requires social responsibility. Stevenson (68) illustrates that the justice system is unreliable in regard to the arbitrary factors that are employed to determine the probability of a criminal to receive penalty regardless of the justice proceedings. These aspects of unreliability expand on the way that race, socio-economic status and quality of legal representation are all deciding factors in administering the death penalty regardless of culpability and crime. As Stevenson indicates ‘The true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavoured, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned’, the considerations of death penalty in regard to social responsibility describe a society that is dedicated to protecting the innocent civilians and administering punishments in accordance to the crime that is committed. It is sad and problematic that death penalty makes usage of arbitrary factors in order to deliver an irreconcilable punishment.

Kantian ethics

As illustrated in the Kantian ethics, every entity within a social society is a rational, self-conscious being and in committing crimes such as murder, this individual forfeits their right to life (Dutoit, 112). An argument may be made in regard to retribution that every guilty individual deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime. This notion of retribution in regard to death penalty is fallacious because it is similar to revenge. Revenge is not a method of justice that is compatible with retribution; this is not justice but rather an erratic infliction of harm that is accelerated by anger. In the arguments of retribution, the criminal forfeits their rights to life and deserves the capital sentence (Johnson, Jeffery & Colleen, 516). There is the societal theory of justice in the fact that the criminal should be considered as the primary actor in the crime but is ultimately considered as a rational agent prior to committing the criminal act (Stevenson, 47). The society’s response to these kinds of crimes is characteristics of vengeance and it is not ethical.

Citizens have a duty and obligation to their surroundings and this includes their peers and the environment, the failure to do this duty should not however be penalised through capital punishments. The society and social responsibility are things that need a more refined argumentation other than just the simple utilitarian concepts of the greater good for the largest amount of people (Dutoit, 123).

Capital sentences do not really serve the purpose teaching these criminals that what they did is wrong. The whole point of having punishments is to teach the criminals and the other people in the society the consequences of committing crimes with the purpose of ensuring that criminal activities are not repeated (Stevenson, 184). Capital sentences just inflict pain on the criminal causing him to die; this means that this individual does not have the chance to learn from his punishment.  Inflicting pain on an individual if it has to be justified has to ensure that it brings a long a forward looking purpose like that of one learning a lesson. Punishments are meant to help communicate to the criminals to allow them to understand that what they have done is wrong and thus give them an opportunity to apologize and even reform (Stevenson, 185). There are many diverse variants of this views and this include; educative, communicative and rehabilitative. All this elements can be applied to help the wrong doer to understand their mistake and change their ways and educate the larger community of the importance of following the law.

Conclusion

Every human being has a right to life as the law defines; it is however sad to think that this same law is the one that commits murder through death penalty. It is true that wrong doing should be punished in order to help these criminals understand their mistakes and reform.  Capital punishment does not give the criminals a chance to reform, it deprives them the chance of living a fulfilling life without giving them a second chance. Capital sentences should be abolished especially in the argument that the legal system is biased given that the poor and the African Americans make up the largest population of the offenders that are normally convicted of capital sentences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works cited

Dutoit, Thomas. “Kant’s Retreat, Hugo’s Advance, Freud’s Erection; Or, Derrida’s

Displacements in His Death Penalty Lectures.” Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 50, Sept. 2012, pp. 107–135. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00117.x

Greenberg, Jack. “Against the American System of Capital Punishment.” Harvard Law

Review, vol. 99, no. 7, May 1986, p. 1670. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=8615397&site=ehost-live.

 Johnson, Jeffery L., and Colleen F. Johnson. “Poverty and the Death Penalty.” Journal of

Economic Issues (Association for Evolutionary Economics), vol. 35, no. 2, June 2001, p. 517. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4765846&site=ehost-live.

Stevenson, Bryan. Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. , 2015. Print.

Tirado, Linda. Hand to Mouth: Living in Bootstrap America. Penguin Publishing Group,