A major dilemma facing the society is whether or how to deal with the Death Penalty. Death penalty is given for crimes that are deemed worthy of it by the government and society. Murder, for example, can earn this punishment. The death sentence is a subject that has caused controversy among a wide range of ideologies, cultures, and religions. In this essay, Immanuel kant and utilitarianism will explain why the death sentence is ethical. Immanuel KANT believed the death penalty could be justified morally in certain situations. He insisted that murderers should be executed, saying “whoever has murdered, must die.” He was of the opinion that a community that doesn’t execute a murderer is committing an act of criminality. Kant critiques the notion of no one having a legitimate right to take someone’s life. Death penalty is therefore unjust. He thought that the state should be able to execute a murderer.
Kant held that the death penalty is only appropriate for crimes that are serious, like murder or those that cause a great deal of harm to society. He did not believe that a killer should have any legal rights to defend his actions. He was also of the opinion that the capital penalty could not be substituted and he didn’t even know what to do if this were to happen. Kant believed that society would be weakened if criminals were not punished. Kant believed that it is better to punish an unintentional criminal than not to punish a person who has committed a real crime. Kant thought that a man sentenced for death could not appeal to a lesser punishment or pardon. If the authorities allow this situation to continue, they are in contradiction with themselves.
Arbitrariness in justice is not allowed. Justice is expressed when a legal system strictly adheres to the law. The United States only executes those who commit the most horrific crimes. The state does not run a lottery to randomly select people from all the murderers convicted. This system is designed to select the worst criminals. It would be unfair to punish killers such as those described above with a lesser punishment, like a lengthy prison sentence. Kant was adamant about the death penalty for murderers. Kant insisted that murderers must die. In a sense, a society that doesn’t execute murderers is complicit. The utilitarian views death as morally acceptable if the punishment benefits society at large or promotes overall happiness.
If someone commits a crime as heinous as murder or rape, then the punishment of death would be a good thing for the public. Although the punishment of criminals is likely to cause the victim and their family pain, they will still be happy as a society. Utilitarianisms can support the death penalty since breaking the law is painful to most of society.
Nevertheless, they do not agree that punishing criminals is the right thing to do in order to get back at them or exact revenge. Retribution causes more suffering for utilitarians than it does happiness. Utilitarians are also of the opinion that capital penalties deter murderers. It is hoped that the severity of death will cause people to fear crime. It is better to have the death penalty than life in prison because it stops a criminal from committing such horrendous crimes again after being released. According to this view, the death of a criminal prevents the killing of innocents. In the event that a criminal’s life could lead to more horrific crimes, capital punishment may be the best alternative. These views indicate that capital punishment is a moral solution for terrible crimes.
All of these points of view agree that only the most horrific crimes should result in the death penalty. This includes murder. Kant says a murderer forfeits their rights to be a human and that the punishment for such a crime should match it. By executing murderers, they are prevented from committing another crime and protecting innocent victims. Morally, the executioner has a right to take the life of the murderer. It’s actually worse to just lock up a criminal in a television and air-conditioning equipped prison, with three meals free a day.
A person who kills another can only pay for his or her actions by giving up their rights and their own life to replace the victim. Losing freedom is not comparable to losing a person’s life. As the punishment is jail time for lesser crimes like theft, the punishment should be much harsher for murder because human lives are more valuable. If, for example, a criminal killed a young child and was given only a sentence of life, the victim’s family would be forced to pay tax on the murderer’s meals and television. If he wanted to attend college, his family would have to pay for that too. This is in direct opposition to Kant and utilitarianism as it does not deprive the criminal of his rights nor punish him, but also it does nothing for the victim’s family.
Some people say that the death sentence is merely a form of revenge. The truth is that the murderer does not get off easy by being sentenced to death. A lethal injection is usually all that’s needed to kill a murderer. The lethal shot is followed by potassium chloride to stop the heart. Insanity and overdose lead to the death of the criminal. The criminal’s pain is nothing compared to that of the victims or their families. The death penalty does not deter violent crimes. No one is arguing that the death sentence deters crime. It is not the issue whether capital punishment deters crime.
The death sentence is an effective punishment. Each time the penalty is applied, the prisoner is killed. In addition, the death punishment is 100% effective at deterring criminal activity: the murderer won’t commit a new crime after being executed. There is no proof of innocents being executed this century. However, there are many examples where prisoners who escaped prison or were released earlier have murdered innocent victims. Paul Cassell (a professor and former federal judge of Utah) points out in a study of 164 Georgian murderers on parole that eight had committed another murder within 7 years. In a study of 20 Oregon murderers on parole released in 1979, one (5%) had committed a homicide after release. A study revealed that 34 of the 11,404 people who were convicted and then released for “willful murder” between 1965 and 1974 committed a criminal homicide within their first year of release. Even those serving life sentences who are not yet released can commit another crime.
Cassell states that innocent lives could have be saved had these prisoners been put to death. There is no doubt that the death sentence deters murder. It is not cruel or unusual to punish someone with the death penalty. The death penalty is not cruel and uncommon punishment. In fact, the framers of our Constitution supported it and even created laws that would allow it to be carried out. Therefore, it’s absurd to claim it. Justice Antonin Scalia remarked, “The Fifth Amendment clearly allows for the death penality to be applied, and establishes without doubt that it is not a cruel and unjust punishment as the Eighth Amendment prohibits.
The American draftsmen’s primary concern was to prohibit “tortures”, “barbarous” punishments, and other forms of torture. In Gregg v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that in the first cases where Eighth Amendment claims were raised, the Court looked at specific methods of execution and determined whether or not they would pass constitutional muster. In Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court did not question whether or not the death penalty was constitutional. The nature of the punishment must also be different. It must recognize the dignity and inviolability of innocent human lives.
It is not possible to be cruel, but still punish a murderer for killing an unintentional victim.
