Project

7

The Death Penalty: Annotated Bibliography

Principles of Ethics

Ethics 445 Professor Kristi Wilson February 7, 2021

The Death Penalty: Annotated Bibliography

           The death penalty debate has been ongoing for a while, with different parties holding varying points-of-view about the morality of the death penalty. The personal and communal ethical factors that may help determine the moral position of the different perspectives on the debate include whether the argument can be supported by good reasons, the deterrence effect of the death penalty and whether it serves justice to the victims. Proponents of the death penalty have to justify the moral significance of the death penalty by offering good reasons as to why the practice is moral. The reasons would define the moral worth of the practice. The moral position of those supporting the death penalty is that it serves justice to the victims by killing a murderer. Those opposed to the use of the death penalty argue from the perspective of the respect for human dignity, the absolute value of life, and suffering of innocent people who are executed. The moral position of those opposed to the practice is that it does not respect the dignity of humans as well as the absolute value of life. From a moral perspective, the party that is able to defend and justify its position with reasonably would be morally right. Rachels and Rachels (2019) shared Elizabeth Anscombe’s non-consequentialist position that moral actions should be judged by the factors that inform the action rather than the consequences.

Kant’s categorical imperative holds the principle of morality which states that individuals should act only if their actions can be universalized (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). According to Kant, an action is moral if it is supported by absolute rules that are not determined by the consequences of an action. Kant requires individuals to engage in actions that they are willing to be applied universally regardless of individuals’ self-interests. Categorical imperatives imply that the reasons supporting a moral action must bind all agents. The imperative defines what individuals should do. In the context of the death penalty debate, categorical imperative requires individuals to approach the debate by focusing on the universality of the practice. Therefore, the practice would be moral if it can be applied universally and consistently regardless of what the individual agents desire. The death penalty should not be used to take advantage of others, rather apply to all agents. Kant’s morality assumes that the courts would be able to accurately establish whether a person is guilty or not, and those found guilty of murder should be executed.

Annotated Bibliography

Cholbi, M., & Madva, A. (2018). Black lives matter and the call for death penalty abolition. Ethics, 128(3), 517-544. https://doi.org/10.1086/695988

Cholbi and Madva (2018) discussed the call by the Black Lives Matter movement for capital punishment to be abolished. The authors defended the two contentions that support the movement’s stance for capital punishment to be abolished: first, the use of capital punishment against the black communities in the United States, and second, the abolition of the practice is a defensible remedy for the wrong. The movement holds that capital punishment “devalues black lives” and is a “racist practice” (p. 517). The controversies that are raised by the article are, first, whether there is enough evidence showing that there is the unequal application of the capital punishment, where black defendants are most likely to be executed than those of other races; and second, whether abolishing the most defensible remedy. It is difficult to disagree with the argument given the effect of implicit racial bias from racial stereotypes that might influence court decisions. Black defendants feel less protected by the law than their white counterparts. The article is important to this debate because it raises questions about the unequal application of the death penalty, and as a law, it should be applied universally. 

Mann, W. (2015). The death penalty debate: A critical examination of the moral justifications for capital punishment. The University of Central Florida Stars, HIM 1990-2015 (Dissertation). https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015/1722

In the article, Mann (2015) examined the “moral justifications” of the death penalty and applied the “Kantian retributivism” when attempting to address the political and ethical issues surrounding the death penalty. The author discusses several concepts including “restitution,” “deterrence,” and “retribution” in the discussion. The controversy raised by the author includes the application of capital punishment to individuals with “mental disorders and brain damage.” The author tries to justify the use of the death penalty with its retributive effect, where “punishment levied against someone because they have done something wrong” (p. 17). Mann (2015) argues that “for every crime, there must be a punishment of equal effect” but cites the execution of innocent people that prevents the achievement of a “perfect equilibrium” (p. 18). I disagree with the author on the justification of the death penalty because he ignores the moral limitations of the application of the practice by supporting the death penalty. The article is useful to the discussion as it attempts to solve the contradictions that exist in the moral framework through some reasoned explanations.

Mbah, R. E., Pruitt, T., & Wasum, D. F. (2019). Cruel choice: the ethics and morality of the death penalty. Research On Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(24), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.7176/RHSS/9-24-03 

The primary objective of the article was to determine how the death penalty impacts the person executed, the family of the executed, and the family of the victim. The evidence provided indicates that the death penalty significantly affects all parties. the authors noted that sometimes, the practice does not give the victim’s family the “healing” that was expected; thus, making it difficult to say that justice was served. The controversy raised in the article is the cases where “persons were wrongly murdered” (p. 14). The authors describe the death penalty as “cruel,” immoral, and unethical. Given the concerns raised by the authors, I agree with them as it appears that the death penalty does not bring justice to the victim, and also “creates more victims-families of the executed” (p. 21). The article is important because it highlights some critical shortcomings of the death penalty that makes it more harmful than beneficial, since it cannot be reversed is a person is wrongly executed.

Steffen, L. (2010). The moral and spiritual challenge of capital punishment. Sacred Heart University Review, 19(1), 15-33. https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/shureview/vol19/iss1/2

In this article, Steffen (2010) examines the “moral and spiritual challenge” of the death penalty. The author provided a reasoned explanation of why the death penalty has huge support in the United States, including the lack of trust of the criminal justice system to offer justice and the retributive effect of execution. Steffen (2010) maintains that the death penalty is morally justified on the grounds of “retribution” but faults the “ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system” (p. 31). From a religious perspective, the author argues that although Jewish teachings seemed to approve the death penalty, “Jesus asked to forgive his executioners” because he believed “execution was ultimately against God” (p. 19). The controversy raised in the article is the religious perspective of the death penalty where the author argues that “God commands it” and at the same time “the Gospel tells of Jesus interfering to prevent a legal execution against adultery” (p. 18). Although the divine command states that what God commands is morally right, it is not clear what the will of God is in the issue of execution. The article is important to this discussion as it describes the illusion of the death penalty that is used as a “symbol of justice,” and “symbol of power” but does not conform to the requirements of fairness and justice.

Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2005). Is capital punishment morally required” Acts, omissions, and life-life tradeoffs. Stanford Law Review, 58, 703. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/

Sunstein and Vermeule (2005) examined whether capital punishment is “morally required” including both arguments for and arguments against the practice. The authors termed the practice as “cruel” and “barbaric” and supported it using Emmanuel Kant’s “retributivism.” The controversies raised in the article include whether capital punishment on crimes such as rape should be morally relevant as does the life-life tradeoffs applied to murders. Also, the Supreme Court ruled that juvenile offenders should not be executed, stating that it is difficult to deter such offenders. This complicates the matter because it would mean that the death penalty could only be applied to murders that can be deterred by the practice. Deontologists maintain “that the unjustified execution cannot be supported even if the state is secure in its knowledge of the execution’s beneficial effects,” which means regardless of the deterrence effect of capital punishment, “moral wrongdoing by the state cannot be justified” (p. 718). The article is important as the authors do not necessarily support or defend the death penalty but give an objective explanation of the arguments that can be used to justify either side of the debate.  

References

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.