Order 6286204

docx

School

University of Nairobi *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

Subject

Arts Humanities

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by elishamacharia

1 The Death Penalty and Ethical Issue Name Institution Affiliation Professor Course Date of Submission

2 The Death Penalty and Ethical Issue The death penalty is a contentious issue because it presents major ethical issues when someone found guilty of a capital offense is allowed to be executed by the state. The death penalty is a topic of discussion and scrutiny for people all around the world since it is often used for non-murderous offenses. Many nations have made murder, terrorism, drug-related offenses, and other capital crimes capital crimes. To demonstrate the death penalty's global reach, Amnesty International (2023) reports that 2,016 people received death sentences in 52 different countries in 2022. By the end of 2022, 28,282 persons were serving death sentences worldwide, a slight decrease from the 2,052 in 2021 but evidence of the death penalty's continued widespread usage. Additionally, the execution figures for 2022 show a significant jump. Amnesty International recorded 883 deaths in 20 countries during 2021 and 2022, a 53% rise from the 579 executions recorded in 2021 (Amnesty International, 2023). These data indicate that the death penalty has been used more often, even if the overall number of executions may have varied. A complete analysis of the arguments put out by proponents of retention and proponents of abolition is required to analyze this moral conundrum fully. The death sentence is particularly successful, according to proponents, in deterring violent offenders when the threat of jail is insufficient to discourage them. However, its opponents cite research that demonstrates that sentences of life in prison or extended incarceration serve as equally potent deterrents as the death penalty. Whether a position is grounded on utilitarianism or deontological principles is determined by carefully weighing all pertinent ethical factors. The morality and efficacy of the death sentence as a deterrent to criminal activity have been hotly debated for a while. Scholars debating the morality of punishment often cite Kant as the prototypical retributivist. In Kant's imperative, the need for capital punishment is questioned.

3 Regarding Kant's imperative, it is ethically wrong to execute someone. Kant emphasized that it is essential to evaluate our actions in light of our aims continually. The idea that moral issues are unimportant is much more concerning. Kant supported the death penalty as an appropriate measure. According to Kant, the severity of the penalty should match the crime committed, as it should only be applied to the act of committing the crime (Udoudom et al., 2018). This is made possible by the retributivism hypothesis, which draws justification for the death penalty from Kant's thinking. Abolitionists contend that the death sentence confers legitimacy to the act of murder, which the law seeks to forbid. They base this claim on the writings of Cesare Beccaria, particularly "On Crimes and Punishments" (1764) (Hood, 2019). The argument is that the death penalty fails to convey a moral message since it involves the state-approved killing of a human life. Critics claim that since the death penalty is overly severe in comparison to the harm committed, it is ethically repugnant to apply it to minor infractions (Hood, 2019). Moreover, abolitionists of the death sentence contend that it violates the guilty person's fundamental right to life and is inherently harsh and dehumanizing. Further, abolitionists of capital punishment contend that, due to its lack of need and effectiveness, it fails to serve as a credible deterrence against further criminal behavior. This is because it is neither essential nor probable to stop further crimes from happening. Human might have the same result by paying them back or putting them in prison without endangering their lives. The death penalty is not necessary if we desire an effective punishment. Conviction under the death penalty, which is a kind of capital punishment, results in execution. Kant believed that it would be unethical to keep a convicted criminal alive if he agreed to participate in dangerous experiments and survived them, as doing so would enable medical professionals to discover

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 information that would be advantageous to society as a whole (Steffen, 2020). Kant argues that if justice is attainable at any cost, it is no longer justice; hence, this is undesirable. Instead of being used as a tool for vengeance, punishment ought to act as a deterrence to similar actions in the future (Steffen, 2020). Thus, the death sentence is harsh and ineffectual since it does not accomplish any of these goals (Howard, 2018). When preventing inappropriate behavior, consistency in the imposition consequences is more crucial than strictness. On the other hand, although they are a minority, utilitarians support the death penalty. It is morally argued by proponents of the death penalty that criminals forfeit their own lives when they take another's (Hood, 2019). They believe that putting someone to death helps to both express and reinforce moral indignation and is a just punishment for lawbreakers as well as the victim's family. From this retentionist perspective viewpoint, the death penalty is a morally acceptable response to the enormity of the crime (Hood, 2019). Ideally, the researchers who support the utilitarian theory of value, physically punishing offenders is the most appropriate response to serious offenses. Moreover, the central thesis of utilitarianism is that the only measure by which an action can be judged right or wrong is its consequences. My stance is consistent with virtue ethics regarding the moral implications of the death sentence. I oppose the practice since it disregards the whole life of the guilty person. As a moral framework, virtue ethics specializes in virtues and the formation of moral character. Considering a person's life as a whole rather than only concentrating on whether or not a particular conduct is improper is encouraged by virtue ethics when discussing capital punishment. It recognizes that a single transgression shouldn't define the value of a person's whole life and promotes a comprehensive assessment of the person's character. In support, Dr. Robert T. Muller and colleagues' psychological study has shown that the co-victims, or the murder victim's friends and

5 family, do not feel better after the criminal's execution; rather, it typically has a negative impact on them (Mbah et al., 2019). According to a University of Minnesota study, just 2.5 percent of co-victims of the death penalty said that it helped them achieve closure, while 20.1% claimed it had no impact on their healing (Mbah et al., 2019). One of the other victims said that they realized rehabilitation is more of a journey than a one-time event, which might explain the discrepancy. Furthermore, Mbah et al. (2019) demonstrate that co-victims benefit significantly psychologically and physiologically from a life sentence for the criminal rather than the death penalty, in violation of legal criteria. This demonstrates how co-victims may heal faster if they receive a life sentence or alternative legal punishment. The idea that morality should be connected to virtue, compassion, and an understanding of the complexity of human life is the basis for virtue ethics' rejection of the death sentence. Conversely, ethical egoism, which maintains that people behave in their best interests, might support the death sentence by arguing that criminals do so to benefit themselves. However, it ignores the more comprehensive ethical issues surrounding the death sentence; hence, my position deviates from ethical egoism. My ethical framework challenges the morality of the death penalty and emphasizes a more compassionate and restorative approach to justice, unlike ethical egoists who argue that people should bear the consequences of their acts. I think the ethical egoist viewpoint ignores the possibility of atonement and rehabilitation in favor of oversimplifying the complex causes of criminal activity. The natural law theory, which I agree with, contends that the death penalty is unethical because it defies people's innate tendency to abstain from murder. The natural law argument contends that the death penalty is ethically wrong because it is against human nature to murder other people. Natural law theory's central concept is that morality is inferred from the

6 environment. Furthermore, morality is predicated on the characteristics of individuals that have existed historically. This is why proponents of natural law theory argue that individuals should have faith in what nature permits and upholds rather than feeling pressured to establish their own laws. Natural law theorists contend that the death penalty cannot be logically justified since killing goes against people's fundamental desire to live in peace. The natural law theory advocates lessening the frequency of murder and other violent crimes by encouraging peaceful cooperation as a complement to the death sentence. Concerning personal ethics, I agree with proponents of natural law theory that individuals need to defy societal norms and behave morally in a way compatible with their inherent nature. My opposition to the death penalty stems from my conviction that there must be alternatives that honor humanity's innate need for peace. My moral stance against the death penalty stems from Natural Law Theory's accord with innate human impulses and morality inherited from nature and Virtue Ethics' focus on a comprehensive moral character evaluation. Since virtue ethics stresses seeing a person's life as a whole and not judging their value based on a single deed, it is consistent with my stance. Opposing the death sentence is consistent with compassion and a recognition of the complexity of human existence. The Natural Law Theory is also evident in my ethical stance, which holds that the death sentence is immoral since it goes against people's innate desire to refrain from killing. I believe in the natural law theory, which holds that morality should come from nature and that the death sentence is against the natural order of fostering peace since it is a human choice. Accepting alternatives to capital punishment, such as fostering peaceful cohabitation, is in line with the natural law strategy for reducing violent crimes. Humans should live in harmony with one another; however, theories that support this view cast doubt on its inherent morality.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 Thus, as a firm believer in natural law theory, the death sentence is fundamentally immoral and ought never to be upheld.

8 References Amnesty International. (2023). Death Penalty . Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/ Hood, R. (2019). Capital punishment - Arguments for and against capital punishment. In Encyclopædia Britannica . https://www.britannica.com/topic/capital- punishment/Arguments-for-and-against-capital-punishment Howard, J. (2018). The public role of ethics and public policy. In The Routledge Handbook of Ethics and Public Policy (pp. 25-36). Routledge. Mbah, R. E., Pruitt, T., & Wasum, F. (2019). Cruel Choice: The Ethics and Morality of the Death Penalty. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences . https://doi.org/10.7176/rhss/9-24- 03 Steffen, J. R. (2020). Moral Cognition in Criminal Punishment. British Journal of American Legal Studies, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2020-0002 Udoudom, M. D., Idagu, U. A., & Nwoye, L. (2018). Kantian and Utilitarian Ethics on Capital Punishment. Journal of Sustainable Society, 7(1), 5-11

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Order 6286204

Related Documents