Capital Punishment According To Ethical Theories

Capital Punishment According To Ethical Theories

The Ethical Theories of Punishment:

Following are different approaches of capital punishment:
• Vengeance
• Retribution
• Deterrence
• Incapacitation

Vengeance :

Vengeance is a raw, human emotion that is normal in family members of murder victims, but it can never be used to justify a public policy given that policies are supposed to be based on reason and empirical science.  Additionally, the state is technically/legally the victim when a crime occurs and is incapable of feeling vengeance.  A careful analysis of the entire Bible, taking the whole Bible in its historical context, does not provide a mandate for capital punishment, even for murderers.

Retribution :

Retribution is a state sponsored rational response to criminality that is justified given that the state is the victim when a crime occurs.  The government is justified in pursuing justice when it is harmed in order to re-balance the scales of justice that were tilted to the benefit of the offender when he or she broke the law.  In reality, however, the death penalty does not generally achieve retribution because it is so rarely applied to murderers.

Deterrence:

Deterrence is the notion that by administering punishment to offenders, the state can cause fear in both the offender and in others (general deterrence) so that they will not want to commit crimes in the future.  Obviously, capital punishment cannot achieve special or specific deterrence because once the offender is dead, he or she cannot be afraid of future punishment.  The available scientific evidence with regard to general deterrence suggests that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder and cannot be for the simple reason that the most important element of punishment is missing -- certainty.  Punishment must be certain in order to deter, whereas the administration of the death penalty is so rarely applied and so unlikely to be applied to any individual that to even suggest that the death penalty is a general deterrent is a very weak claim.

Incapacitation: 

Incapacitation means taking away a person's freedom so that he or she cannot commit another crime.  The typical form of incapacitation is incarceration (in a jail, prison, etc.).  The ultimate form of incarceration is death.  As with retribution, this is a legitimate justification for the administration of punishment because the primary responsibility of government is to protect its citizens from harm, and one of the goals of our justice systems is to reduce criminality.  Unless you believe in reincarnation, you will agree that the death penalty achieves these objectives, but only for those few that we execute.  Like with retribution, we generally do not meet this objective simply for the fact that the death penalty is so rarely applied (less than 2% of aggravated murderers are sentenced to death and FAR LESS than 1% of all killers are sentenced to death).

Right or wrong:

The Death Penalty is a controversial issue because there are people that state the Death Penalty is wrong and good in some way.

According to first school of thought:

Capital punishment is favourable according to one side of the mirror. Some perspective factors are given as:

Human Rights

It is wrong as it spoils human rights. A unique facet of the modern debate about capital punishment is the characterization of the death penalty as a human rights issue, rather than a debate about the proper punishment of criminals. Modern opposition to the death penalty is seen as a reaction to the political history of the 20th century.

Execution of the innocent

The most common and most cogent argument against capital punishment is that sooner or later, innocent people will get killed, because of mistakes or flaws in the justice system.

According to Ethics:

Right Theory

Rights of one person implies the duties of another person, it is called correlativity of rights and duties. British Philosopher John Locke argued that the law of nature mandate that we should not harm any one’s life, health, liberty because these are our natural rights given to us by God.

Everyone has an inalienable human right to life, even those who commit murder; sentencing a person to death and executing them violates that right. As capital punishment is against human rights. Everyone has a right to live and it is our duty to prevent the rights of other. Moreover, moral values also restrict capital punishment. We could not practice the power of controlling one’s time of death. Survival of an individual is his prior right. We have to save our cardinal values by giving the right of life.

Second school of thought:

Capital punishment is due and right as it is a controversial issue and shows both phases of morality. 

Consequentialist theory:

An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable.

 Consequentialist theory is a general normative theory that bases the moral evaluation of acts, rules, institutions, etc. Solely on the goodness of their consequences, where the standard of goodness employed is a standard of non-moral goodness.Capital punishment is significant and that it justifies the infliction of the ultimate penalty. Consequentialist defences of capital punishment, however, tend to assume that capital punishment is (merely) morally permissible. The good effects that are considered to derive from punishing the offender vary but have included (a) reducing the amount of crime by removing criminals from public circulation; (b) deterring others from committing crime through example and threat; and (c) reforming and rehabilitating the criminal.

Utilitarian Theory:

Finally looking at it from a utilitarianism view which believes in just desserts and an eye for an eye, the death penalty would be permitted. It would be an action that the outcome would be for the greater good. It is under the utilitarianism view that many would say would be a good form of retribution as well as a deterrent. It would prevent future murders and cost less than life imprisonment. Ultimately it would help determine the balance between pain and pleasure and find the ultimate good which is the utilitarian way. Rehabilitation would not be an option because it would not fall into “an eye for an eye” and it would not balance the pain and pleasure aspect to the victim and the victim's family and friends.

Virtue Ethics Theory:

Looking at the death penalty in virtue ethics theory its purpose is to provide peace to the community while protecting civilians from those that would not uphold justice. Under this theory it looks at the person’s motivation and not necessarily the act committed. Therefore virtue ethics may look at the death penalty and permit it based on self-protection for certain circumstances. It contributes to civil peace and gives the offender what he or she deserves equally, neither more nor less than that.

Impacts on society

• capital punishment decreases crime rate in the society. if we stop capital punishment, it would increase the crime rate to an extent

• Capital punishment demotivates the criminals from committing crimes. 

• It is a source of satisfaction to the victim family. 

Conclusion:

It is a highly effective way to deter crime.

Solution:

Best way to stop injustice of putting an end to capital punishment is to go out and vote for legislatures that keep running capital punishment.

Capital Punishment In the Light of Islam