Since the beginning of civilizations, there has been debate as to whether or not capital punishment is right, fair or just plain wrong. This argument is for the use of capital punishment and its necessity in civilizations for a variety of reasons. Capital punishment is the death penalty, when an imprisoned individual is sentenced and then killed at the behest of the government. We will also look at opposing views on the matter to discount them from the debate. Philosophical views such as utilitarianism and retribution help explain why this punishment is necessary in society.
To be sentenced to death in any nation that enforces the law, a person must be found guilty of a heinous crime. Exactly when capital punishment is invoked changes from where the crime takes place. In the U.S.A., crimes available to the death penalty include: murder with the intent to kill, treason, kidnapping (where the victim dies), capital drug trafficking and sexual battery (DPIC). Not every country is the same although, any person tried under the possibility of being put to death will have committed a crime. When a person makes the knowledgeable decision to commit a crime, they are calling out to society as a whole. In some rare cases, you will have the people who are living their lives and for some reason or another, snap and commit a crime. Obviously, with no malice intended or no history of such crimes, a person needs medical attention. However, a man who brutally murders/tortures a person or multiple people, what are they telling society? People who commit such heinous crimes simply do not care about anyone else, themselves or the law, for that matter. As Ernest van den Haag once said, “Guilt is personal. The only relevant question is: Does the person to be executed deserve the punishment?” Martin Perlmutter gives a logical answer to the question when he argues, “the criminal has a right to be punished-that to fail to do so treats him or her as less than a person.” When that person knowingly commits that crime, they expect to be punished in such a way. If we as a society fail to comply with the punishment, we are doing the person, even though a criminal, a disservice. A person that knows the consequences of their actions, but doesn’t allow it to affect them, does not care about society. They complete their actions without any guilt or reason but only for their own selfish desires.
The utilitarian approach to this debate proves in favor of capital punishment when one must evaluate whether or not it produces the greatest amount of happiness in all parties involved. Utilitarian belief only cares that the happiness of the public is at a high level and capital punishment sees to it. After a crime is committed, the criminal doesn’t care at all about the happiness of society. In fact, that criminal did what they could to make sure it is as low as possible. Utilitarianism is based on that public happiness level, without it, society is ruined. Instead of people looking to help each other, they look out for themselves. A criminal who is executed is no longer apart of the society that he/she did not care for. If there were no death penalty, that individual would sit in a prison sell, presumably for the rest of their life. The family of the victim(s) in this case may not be able to move on with their lives, knowing that such a brute is still living and breathing. When such a criminal is put to death, it gives a sense of calm or security to the general public. Otherwise, one may never know for sure that an inmate may or may not serve their full and intended sentence. A loophole could come up in a legal case and allow a convicted killer to go free. In that case, the public and society as a whole is given a great injustice.
Capital punishment puts human value on the highest of pedestals. In living ways, each human is great and equal with none better than another. When one commits murder to even a single innocent person, their own value falls drastically and they need to be punished. The need for that person to be punished comes so as to show that the victim’s life wasn’t simply forgettable but in fact, worthy of punishing the person who took it away.
Immanuel Kant, although a believer in punishment, believed in something different. His belief was more in the field of retribution, or “a justly deserved penalty; vengeance.” Kant was against utilitarian belief because he felt people’s actions should be done because they wanted to be good, not for the perceived results from being good. In reference to punishment, he believed it only should be served because of guilt and to uphold the justice and equality of civilization (Maryland University). Kant was a supporter of the old ideology of “an eye for an eye” in that the inflictor of pain should suffer an equal amount of pain that he/she deals out. Kant’s categorical imperative stated, “Act only on a maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” In other words, people who commit crimes project that anarchy should or is a universal belief. Obviously, that could never happen or else the rules or laws of society would become extinct. In punishing these criminals, we are proving that their beliefs are wrong and order is restored. Kant said, “For as morality serves as a law for us only because we are rational beings, it must also hold for all rational beings.” Morality is not intended for irrational beings, which is what people become once they commit serious crimes that may cause them to be tried under capital punishment.
As everyone knows, the prison system in the United States of America is very over-crowded. If capital punishment were ruled unconstitutional and ended immediately, that would put over 3,000 deadly inmates into the regular prison population. From 1976 to 2000, the amount of inmates on death row in the United States increased every year (DPIC). That’s 24 years without a sign of capital punishment having an effect on criminals. However, since the turn of the century, the amount of death row inmates has fallen by over one hundred people.
According to a June article in USA Today, polls have shown results that public opinion for the death penalty has stayed steady between 65-70% over the last five years. Reporter Michael Rushford also states that there have been roughly 30,000 less murders during the period and “this may explain why Americans are not ready to abandon the death penalty for our worst murderers.” The drop in the murder rate can be attributed to a number of facts but one of them has to be the punishment involved. People know that when they are caught, they will face the death penalty. Some people may be willing to sacrifice their own life but the majority of people don’t feel the same way.
Without capital punishment, the number of vigilante cases would surge. Right now, people understand murder victims aren’t dishonored because criminals must endure the consequences of their actions. Without punishment, people would go into service for themselves in seeking revenge or what they perceive has justice.
One of the most widely publicized capital punishment cases today is regarding co-founder of the Crips street gang, Stanley “Tookie” Williams (Kasindorf USA Today). He was convicted over 20 years ago for murdering four people during robberies. Over the years in prison, he has written a number of books telling children the evils of gangs. His supporters are attempting to get California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to change his sentence from death to life in prison. Williams’ detractors cite his failure to admit to his role in the shootings and refusal to discuss the Crips gang. Some feel that Williams can do well if he’s still alive however, he has never owned up and to this day has had difficulties in cooperating with the government. For that reason, expect the death sentence to remain.
Today, capital punishment has not been as highly supported as it has in the past. Although earlier this month, the United States executed it’s 1,000th prisoner under the death penalty, Stanford Law School professor Lawrence C. Marshall said, “We’re reaching the milestone at a time when its clear there’s been a drop in public support for the death penalty” (Bloomberg). In a recent Yahoo! News article, Cynthia Tucker wrote:
“Violent crime is no longer the hot-button issue it was back then [the 1980s]. Murders have fallen sharply around the country as the crack cocaine trade has dropped off, and the population of young men, who commit most violent crimes, has aged. In addition, tougher sentencing laws have filled prisons with men — and women — predisposed to violence, taking many repeat offenders off the streets. Safer streets have reduced public demand for harsh justice.”
Although Tucker doesn’t specifically mention capital punishment, it is a factor in the lessening of serious crime in the United States. Some anti-capital punishment enthusiasts would take this quote as a reason why the death penalty is no longer needed today. The truth is that society is benefiting from the fact that violent crimes are rare today. Capital punishment is important to have to maintain a sense of decency. It may sound strange but yes, the death penalty promotes decency. It may be revenge but a person who takes another’s life with intent, should be dealt with to show others in society that that behavior will not be tolerated.
In March of 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled, to a 5-4 vote, that the execution of juveniles (18 years or younger) was cruel and unusual punishment and therefore barred by the Constitution (Supreme Court). Juveniles or minors may not understand the details of the legal system depending on their own background. Obviously, killing is wrong and unless you have a mentally disabling illness, you should understand it does bring about consequences. Either way, the Supreme Court has the belief that capital punishment for adults to be a necessary part of law.
People who argue against the use of capital punishment always go back to a certain set of arguments. There have been cases in history of criminals who were executed and then their innocence was proven thanks to the use of new technology such as D.N.A. evidence. Obviously, there will be some mistakes in any system. Nothing in this world is perfect, 100%, without a doubt effective. This perfectionist belief to the point where you accept not an ounce of failure is nice to dream about but in reality, it could never happen. Everything in life will bring about mishaps and things gone wrong, you can’t avoid it. Some people want to abandon this punishment system because there are some mistakes, we should work harder to correct them instead of getting rid of the entire system.
One intended factor of maintaining capital punishment is the use of deterrence. Deterrence occurs when someone who has an idea of committing a crime, realizes the consequences may involve the death penalty so they change their mind and follow the law. Some argue that capital punishment does not offer enough of a deterrent to potential criminals. However, statistics are a very tricky facet of the argument. People can get statistics to say or prove whatever they want. Obviously, there will be a certain amount of people who will have thoughts of crime in their mind forever and no punishment can stop them. Some people are just prone to crime and know no different. But, there is going to be a kid somewhere who may find a life of crime enticing, but the potential consequences sway him/her against it. If you nix the current penalty system, perhaps one day, some child or adult in the future knows the penalty is not as severe and has no qualms about going through with committing a crime.
A major argument against capital punishment is that the cost of legal fees of the convicted person who’s sentenced to death. However, there are hundreds of law firms that work pro bono, which means, free of charge. Thinking larger than domestically, executions that take place in countries other than the United States will not cost as much. In fact, small countries that use the death penalty don’t have such an extensive legal system as the United States so appeals are rarely used and don’t carry such a financial burden.
Applied ethics will determine that capital punishment is in fact justified. When someone disregards the law and their fellow civilians in such a brutal act as murdering someone, their life is not honorable. In today’s world of increased and growing technology, we are able to determine whether or not a death row inmate has been convicted via mistake. Yes, there will be mistakes, there always are but why throw away the entire system because of it? If we nixed an entire system because it didn’t perform perfectly, nothing would ever be accomplished. Without such a serious punishment, the solution would be life in prison without an opportunity of parole. Should this ever happen, numbers of serious crimes would increase as people would understand they would simply sit in a cell for the rest of their lives. Depending on the circumstances of the specific cases, a life in a low-security prison may not be as terrible as expected.
Capital punishment is a necessary part of civilizations to make ensure the law is respected and followed. It allows for a sense of justification in a harsh world where criminals otherwise would feel very little reason to change their ways. It is as large a controversial issue as any other and will be debated for as long as people can communicate. The death penalty has existed in the world for as long as people have enforced any type of law. The reason being, it helps in keeping some serious crime down in numbers and is there to make sure people understand there will be consequences for their actions.
