Death Penalty
1. Introduction
1.1 Death Penalty
Death Penalty, or Capital Punishment, is the process in which a person is executed through judicial orders as punishment for a crime. Over the years, this issue has evolved to become an extremely controversial subject. There are strong points in support, as well as, against capital punishment.
The people who support the policy of capital punishment say that the criminals deserve it. It keeps the society clean of dangerous criminals and the threat of death penalty keeps the felons from getting involved in such criminal activities (Montaldo).
On the other hand, those against the policy argue that death penalty does not bring back the victim. Also, the murderer is usually unaware or is not thinking about the consequences of his actions when he commits the crime. Morever, the punishment assumes that the criminal is not going to improve himself which is unjust.
Therefore, the strong points, both, against and for the policy, are very strong and they must be analysed using ethical theories in order to understand the issue more clearly.
1.2 Existing State of Public Policy regarding Death Penalty
Death Penalty had been practiced in the United States from as early as 1608 (Montaldo). The policy implementation was only paused in 1967 but was resumed from 1976 and until December 2008, a total of 1,136 executions have taken place (Gill).
As of 2004, China, Iran, Vietnam and United States were responsible for 97 of the total exectutions in the world (Gill). However, European Union is against death penalty and has chalked out policy guidelines against it.
Most of the American people support the capital punishment policy. However, according to a survey, its support has dropped down from a peak of 80 percent in 1994, to 60 percent today.
1.3 Applicable theory of ethics
The theory of ethics that I would relate the death penalty issue to is Immanuel Kants Categorical Imperative Theory.
2. Statement of Objectives 2.1 Purpose of this paper.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the death penalty issue that has become one of the most controversial topics today. The paper would provide a detailed insight of the issue and would draw out a conclusion of the debate based on Kants ethical theory.
3. Review of Death Penalty
3.1 Historical perspective of the phenomenon
Judicial process of execution has been observed in the past in almost all societies. Death penalty had been used for punishment of crime, as well as for political gains. Different societies have had death penalty reserved for different kinds of criminal acts. For instance, most places had the policy implemented for murder, treason, military justice and so on. Even some religions, such as Islam, introduced more than 1400 years ago, orders death penalty for sexual acts such as rape and adultery.
Kathy Gill, in her article Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty discusses the history of the phenomenon in America. Capital punishments in America date back to as early as the 18th century BC when Captain George Kendall was accused of being a secret spy for Spain and was executed. By 1612, the phenomenon was observed to be practiced very widely when people were being executed for minor crimes such as stealing, killing chickens, and even trading with Indians (Gill).
The author then discusses how the capital punishment phenomenon changed and increased during the 1800s and the early 1900s. In the 1800s, abolitionism became the cause of capital punishment and in the early 1900s, its popularity was only seen to grow. In the 1930s, executions were at their maximum.
It was not until the middle of the 20th century when the public sentiment rose. People started discussing the ethical issues arising from the policy and developed dislike for it. So much so that according to Gallup, in 1966, the support for capital punishment had dropped down to 42 percent. In 1968, People experienced and observed the hint of injustice in the U.S. v. Jackson and the Witherspoon v. Illinois cases and caused them to think about the policy from other angles. (Gill)
The twist in the policy of death penalty happened in the year 1972 when Supreme Court annulled the death penalty ruling in 40 states and 629 criminals awaiting death penalty were commuted. The Supreme Court said that the death sentence ruling was very cruel for the modern society and was in violation with the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (Gill)
The court ruled in 1976 that capital punishment was, indeed, constitutional, and new penalty laws in Florida Georgia and Texas were introduced. Thus, in 1977, the ten-year pause on the policy was ended when Gary Gilmore was executed in Utah by a firing squad.
3.2 A survey of the relevant literature that includes a balanced presentation of the classical and modern studies in the field, establishing what is known, what types of studies (if any) have been undertaken, and the conceptualization of key concepts.
Since the social justice issue of death penalty is a big one and one that is a reason for concern for many people, many relevant studies have been undertaken. Many studies depict death penalty as a deterrent, while others oppose this. Some studies show how death penalty is costly while others bring up the issue of racial bias in death penalty.
Numerous modern studies have been carried out on the financial facts of death penalty. These include Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, Report to Washington State Bar Association regarding cost and many others (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). Studies have been carried out in a number of states such as California where reports suggest that for 670 death rows, it costs California 63.3 million annually (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). Moreover, studies in Maryland reveal that it takes 37 million for one execution. A study in Kansas shows that death penalty cases are 70 more expensive than non-capital penalty cases (DPIC, 2010). Many other such studies suggest that death penalty is costly.
Furthermore, a comprehensive study carried out by Sharp (1997) indicates that the anti-death penalty movement is a way of removing truth from the society. He focuses on issues such as the risk of executing the innocent, the effects of deterrence in regard to death penalty, racial bias and death penalty sentences, the cost of paroling in life imprisonment versus the death of cost penalty, the death penalty procedures and death penalty ad the Christianity.
Finally, a book Determinants of the Death Penalty explains death penalty in the light of those factors that countries have that give capital punishment against those countries that do not. This widespread study employs statistical analysis to link capital punishment to physical, socio cultural and economical, institutional and actor oriented and past factors.
4. Review of Kants Categorical Imperative
4.1 Historical Perspective
The categorical imperative is Immanuel Kants most renowned work in moral philosophy.
Kant was not pleased with the moral philosophy of his time. For a utilitarian, the act of murder is wrong because it is not beneficial for the maximum number of people. This concept was wrong because it does not take into consideration those people who are only concerned with maximizing their own positive gains. The argument that Kant gave was that moral actions cannot be persuaded by hypothetical moral systems. Also, the hypothetical moral systems cannot be used to pass moral judgments because there is a great deal of subjective considerations that are involved. Therefore, Kant introduced his own moral system incorporating the categorical imperative.
4.2 Literature Review and Explanation of Kants theory
Author Lisa Keele in her article The Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant discusses Kants ethical theory. His theory revolves around Categorical Imperative. The first part of the theory suggests that one should fulfill his duty for the sake of duty itself instead of just acting in agreement with it (Keele, 2008). This means that consequences are not directly related to morality. Even if a good act is harmful for other people, it should be done. Its the intentions that are more important than the consequences.
The categorical imperative is the process through which an individual determines his or her duty. It states Act only on that maxim whereby though canst at the same time will it should become universal law (Keele, 2008), where a maxim is defined as the principle that governs the moral element of the action. This means that when a person is trying to figure out if he should or should not do something, he or she must imagine a world where that action is practiced as universal law. If he or she is able to picture such a world and would want to be a part of it, then it is moral to act on that principle.
Lisa Keele further explains that Kants Categorical Imperative says that one should not treat himself as an exception. Therefore, if you want people around you to do act and behave in a particular way, it is important to come down on the same level and standards first.
5. Hypothesis
Death Penalty is not a deterrent.
6. Argument
Death Penalty is believed to serve as a deterrent for the criminals for indulging into criminal activities. It is human nature to refrain from doing something that has negative effects tied to it. When a criminal sees death penalty at the other end of the crime, he is likely to refrain from doing it. But is that really how it works
There has been no study that has proven that death penalty has been any more effective than other punishments. If the argument to execute the murderer is that removing the murderer from the society will eliminate such criminal activities, then the same can be done through imprisonment for life. As long as the criminal is behind bars, he will not be able to commit crimes in the society. Moreover, if death penalties were to eradicate criminal activities, then the centuries in which this policy was freely practiced in America should have reaped some benefits. However, studies show that America is still one of the leading countries for criminal activities.
If you look at Kants Categorical Imperative from the point of view of the criminal, then it is easy to see why the criminals, even with the most harsh punishment as a consequence, commits the crime. Most of the criminals who commit crimes such as murders are not thinking about the consequences. They are blinded by passion and emotions. These emotions over shadow their cognition and get them to commit the crimes. Moreover, some murderers are mentally impaired. They could actually perceive the act of murder to be as a positive thing which, according to categorical imperative, is not immoral.
It could even be said, keeping categorical imperative in mind, that some murders are actually beneficial for the society. Consider the case of freedom fighters. The same group of fighters could be labeled as freedom fighters by one nation and terrorists by another. For the nation that considers the fighters as having moral principles, they are national heroes and would definitely not want capital punishment to be imposed on them for the killings that they do. On the other hand, the nation that considers them as terrorists perceives their killings as an immoral act and would consider capital punishment to be implemented for them.
Capital Punishment policy also has the potential to have opposite effects. If a criminal is aware of the consequences of his actions, that might provide him the motivation to kill the witnesses as well.
7. Conclusion and Discussion of Implications
It can be clearly seen that death penalty policy does not have the effects that were expected from it. Even though United States, as well as many other countries, have had the phenomenon implemented in the country for centuries, it still ranks in the countries with one of the highest criminal activities such as rapes, murders, and so on.
The idea, therefore, is not to increase the severity of the punishment, but to carry out a detailed analysis of the crime and find out the real motivation of the criminal behind the act as discussed by Kants categorical imperative. Increasing the severity of the punishment will only cause the criminal to commit more crimes in order to hide the original one. Instead, the judicial process should carefully examine the case and use categorical imperative to punish him or her morally.
The punisher should come on the same level and standards as the criminal. He should picture himself in his situation. If the punisher thinks that being in the criminals position, he would have done the same and, knowing the consequences, would have accept the punishment, only then he should carry out with the punishment. He should not treat himself as an exception and must be on the same level as the criminal.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment