Against the Death Penalty: the Ethical and Practical Arguments

Introduction

The concept of the death penalty is probably as old as the human race, evolving from a classic system of "an eye for an eye." In recent history, arguments against the death penalty have encompassed all aspects from retribution and deterrence to the morality and constitutionality of the death penalty. Deterrence theory, which dominated discussions for much of recent history supporting the death penalty, argues for its merit as crime prevention. The moral basis for the death penalty has shifted many times throughout history as well, and refocusing on the efficacy of the system will help further illustrate points for abolition just as avoidance of the actual issues endures.

Without an understanding of current purposes and history, viewpoints expressed during further discussions can lead to meaningless rhetoric.

The rationale for the death penalty begins with the classic assumption that if punishment was swift enough, sure enough, and severe enough, it would much more effectively deter homicide than a punishment of, say, one year in prison. However, proponents of deterrence have never been able to back up their assertions with factual statistics; countries with the death penalty have consistently higher murder rates than those without. This is not a universal law, but statistics in recent years indicate a positive correlation between the prevalence of the death penalty and a country’s rate of violent crime, such as murder, assault, and rape. Currently, a significant portion of the world allows the execution of criminals for serious crimes, while many countries have abolished the death penalty, either by law or by practice. Half of the abolitionist countries currently protect this with written laws, and others have a de facto halt on the death penalty in practice or in law. The remaining countries represent retentionist countries with very mixed records in regard to executing criminals with a death penalty conviction.

Ethical Arguments

The ultimate punishment – putting someone to death for committing a crime – is considered by many to be the most severe punishment available to criminal justice systems. Yet, the death penalty continues to be a source of argument for both its supporters and detractors. Arguments against the punishment aim to identify the core ethical values of right and wrong, good and evil that should guide society in its response to those who transgress. Often, mainstream ethical points argue against the philosophical justifications for the death penalty. These mainstream arguments present core questions regarding an individual's worldview and the moral dilemmas involving respect for human rights, protection of communities, and how societies should treat those who would seek to do them harm. This essay looks to present the main conversations against the death penalty and suggests its possible abolition.

A widely subscribed argument against the death penalty concerns the ethics involved in taking the life of a criminal. This deontological argument rests on the core principle of the 'sanctity of life,' which we can see in the judiciary’s growing reluctance to pass the death penalty. This reluctance is driven by the belief that 'violence is always morally wrong and that it degrades anyone connected with it, no matter what the circumstances.' It is the philosophy that for one to do a wrong in response to a wrong would only make the matter worse and has no practical, moral, or ethical justification. Arguing from a principled and moral values position will afford you the articulation of the core social values of society that this act violates. Values around human rights, which are not contingent on the merits of conduct, say that irrespective of the conduct in question, an offender’s right to life remains inviolate. This allows arguments around reform and rehabilitation to be extrapolated, where life can be given a monetary value, and people can move to argue reform as a more effective response.

Practical Concerns

When discussions of the death penalty arise, ethical concerns—like the morality of execution—often dominate. Ethical concerns do matter and traditionally have sat at the center of arguments over the death penalty. However, the bigger problem with the death penalty is not one of capital punishment's ultimate aims, but rather of its feasibility or practice. This practical argument against the death penalty focuses on three areas in addition to the question of deterrence: the financial costs of capital punishment, the risk of executing innocent people, and potential unfairness regarding the type of people who receive the death penalty. Empirical research has thoroughly discredited the notion that the death penalty prevents crime. Research has shown that capital punishment isn't an effective deterrent to crime, that the legal process for trying capital cases is more expensive than regular murder trials, and that there is a possibility of executing an innocent person.

Research has shown that the death penalty doesn't prevent future crime. Although the idea is that fear of execution can stop people from committing crimes, it is difficult to conclude the death penalty deters murder when states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states without it. Furthermore, several recent disgraces have shown the risk of releasing innocent people from death row. As of September 1998, 79 inmates have been freed from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. Since scientific systems proved that the executed were wrongfully convicted, 27 cases of innocence have been uncovered. In addition, several recent studies have shown that the death penalty is disproportionately applied against African American defendants. Far from being equally distributed, the strongest support of the death penalty comes from the 'new South,' the original Confederate states. More than half of all death sentences were, in fact, given in these areas. As such, it is felt that most of the people who received the death penalty were more accepted going into that trial. It is unacceptable for a justice system to send out the message that some lives are worth more than others. Given the failure, the death penalty is not a fair and proper form of punishment. This injustice occurs mainly because the living conditions have not been the real offender. It is a much better method of focusing on fixing the issues that pushed someone to commit the crimes they committed, to help them transform and to avoid potential wrongdoings. You may correct the errors you created by having a second chance.

Alternatives to the Death Penalty

There are already many alternatives to the death penalty in our criminal justice system. On the punitive side, imprisonment is already a very serious form of punishment that can be accompanied by restrictive conditions and psychological suffering. A form of imprisonment that has gained international acceptance as a humane alternative to the death penalty is life imprisonment without parole. Life without parole can provide a sentence that is serious enough to serve justice, is pragmatic in that it keeps society safe from danger, and can be accompanied by a genuine penal policy aimed at reintegration and reform. Restorative justice is another alternative that should be considered. Classic restorative justice is an informal process where victims and sometimes their communities meet with those who have caused harm, to try non-coercively to heal the harm, to confront the negative action, and to agree to voluntary restitution. Some countries are also developing diversion programs and improved mental health interventions. It would be useful to study the crime statistics of U.S. states before and after the abolition of the death penalty to gain an idea of whether it leads to a higher level of criminality. There is also the wider question of criminal rehabilitation: some countries with high levels of restorative and prisoner retraining facilities and rehabilitative programs have low crime rates. An important question is to consider whether we want a society that accommodates those who break the law or discards such people by executing them. The originality of this text is a focus on alternatives and deterrent crime prevention. This text is of particular interest to all those who study ethics and the law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, capital punishment is not only inconsistent with ethical and moral standards established within secular societies, but also demonstrates practical shortcomings in terms of deterrence and application. Throughout the course of this discussion, it has become clear that concerns exist regarding the consistent application of the death penalty, the role systemic inequalities play in seeking and applying such sentences, the alternative methods and philosophies of managing crime as an alternative to an execution paradigm, the need for reform within various criminal systems across the world and, perhaps most importantly, the capacity for positive change toward the development of alternative and more humane punishments. If a criminal justice system is to be considered fair and just, it should be built upon principles that do not create exceptions and rarely make room for the possibility of exceptionalism. At this point in history, therefore, it is now time to review the evidence available to us and work toward the abolition of capital punishment. Scrutiny is building, and abuse is becoming more difficult to hide. Actors within the criminal justice system, from the grassroots up, are pushing through challenging times as professional bodies recognize the need for action. The general public already raise more questions relating to their concerns than merely proposing measures to protect the public from risk. It is thus for policymakers and the public to guide practice and propose solutions which, on evidence, have a strong chance of protecting human rights, maintaining safety, and inflicting justice on the widespread issues caused by crime.

Did you like this example?

239

10