Assignment II Moral Reasoning

1

5

Is Capital Punishment for First Degree Murder Morally Justified?

Student’s name

Institutional Affiliation

Course name

Professor’s name

Date due

Is Capital Punishment for First Degree Murder Morally Justified?

Introduction

Capital punishment is the act of committing a person to a death sentence and carrying out the sentence on the person after a due process of the law has been carried out. It is also called the death penalty and is mostly issued to persons who have committed murder, aggravated rape, mass murder, or child abuse cases. There are also numerous offenses that attract this penalty, such as treason, war crimes, genocide, attempting to overthrow the government, and crimes against humanity. These crimes are also called capital crimes, offenses, or felonies, and a person who has received this sentence is commonly referred to be on death row. There are numerous methods used to carry out the actual execution, including lethal injection, hanging, the use of poisonous gas, and shooting.

Position statement

It is justified to punish offenders for their crimes and ensure that they receive the appropriate punishment for their crime; however capital punishment is more of vengeance than punishment. Punishment for a crime should neither be too lenient nor too severe. The main aim of meting out punishment is to punish an offender and reflect the public's hatred of the crime.

Reasons for not Supporting Capital punishment

Right to life: Capital punishment violates the constitutional right to life (Lee, 2018). All people have a right to life, even those that commit murder, and issuing a death sentence violates that right. Value of Life: Human life is valuable, and even those who have committed murder should not be deprived of the value of their life, and their act of murder cannot destroy the value of an offender's life. Flawed justice system: Execution of innocent people has happened due to a flawed justice system as jurors, witnesses, and even prosecutors make mistakes. When this occurs, it is permanent and cannot be reversed and viewed as a violent crime committed by the state.

Opposing Position Statement

Retribution: The reason behind capital punishment is for offenders’ retribution which has not worked overtime as the suffering of an offender put on death row for many years is much more than depriving them of life. Deterrence: Is another idea of administering capital punishment to deter would-be offenders and has not been successful (Udoudom & Idagu et al., 2018). Some of the offenders may not have been deterred due to mental defects or illnesses. It is evident that some crimes happen during highly charged emotional states that the offender is not even thinking about the probable consequences. Deterrence could work if the punishment took place immediately after the crime as the court process creates distance between the crime and the punishment. Since executions are done privately, they are unlikely to deter since would-be offenders do not witness them. Closure for the victims’ families: Many argue that capital punishment provides closure for the victims' families; however, not all families find that the death of an offender provides them with closure.

Reasons in Support of opposing statement

Retribution: Retribution is a strong argument for administering capital punishment (Brooks, 2019) as it would work if would-be offenders were in a position to witness it being done. It is truer if the punishment was public, painful, and humiliating for the offender. Prevention of reoffending: Some offenders may never reform, and carrying out death penalties removes them permanently from society and eliminates their chances of reoffending (Brecthel, 2019).

References

Brecthel, D. (2019). The Death Penalty. https://shsu-ir.tdl.org/handle/20.500.11875/2639

Brooks, T. (2019). Retribution and capital punishment. In Retribution (pp. 237-250). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315244259-10/retribution-capital-punishment-thom-brooks

Lee, Y. (Ed.). (2018). International human rights. Australian Year Book of International Law, 35, 427-452. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.910194770561613

Udoudom, M. D., Idagu, U. A., & Nwoye, L. (2018). Kantian and Utilitarian Ethics on Capital Punishment. Journal of Sustainable Society, 7(1), 5-11. https://scholar.archive.org/work/3g2caifesrg6bgdjojgwtdm56y/access/wayback/http://bircu-journal.com/index.php/birci/article/download/234/pdf