Death penalty means sentencing the convicted to execution as carried out by the state and the judicial system. Set it in stone that the definition of death penalty is much more deeper than this. The argument of the death penalty is something that might not see an end anytime soon. It is deemed controversial because at stake is the life of an individual,his values, his morals, and dignity. Whether he still obtains morals and dignity is in the eye of the beholder but nonetheless should be taken into account. Ideals of utilitarian as well as retributivism are taken into account when discussing the death penalty and whether it is morally just, or immoral as well as ethical. Retribution along with the key words previously stated are just as important if not the most important word with respect to the death penalty. We will be looking at Kant’s ethics and his placed values on individuals as well as Kant’s theory of punishment and death penalty. Kant published Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals in 1793 which is heavy on the philosophy of morality. Alongside Kant, we will be looking at Bedau and Marshal suggestion that Kant’s two ideals is at odds with each other. These two, being his ethics idea versus his theory of punishment. Marshall’s use of the 8th amendment with regards to the death penalty being legal versus ethical is also well played. In the midst of these oppositions Pojman’s Kantian argument will be mentioned as well in which it depicts what some believe a huge exception to the death penalty or severe punishment in general.
According to Marshall as humans we all have values and rights. After all we are humans and not animals. The term intrinsic value should be highlighted in any text regarding death penalty. The death p...
... middle of paper ...
...ication I have is the length of a trial in order to convict the murderer. The form of rehabilitation although according to Kant is not to be used, I believe it should but to a degree. If convicted the sentence the murderer for a very lengthy time of incarceration. The amount of time spent trying to decide on the death penalty or not for their case if applicable has the defendant in solitary confinement which only allows for psychological damage. As a Forensic Psychology major, I understand the effects that solitary confinement can have on an individual. The brain is what holds us together in being sane. Brain impairment psychologically is at the highest if not the highest form of damage. It is an entirely different degree of isolating a person from society versus isolating a person from humanity. The person is stripped of its autonomy, intrinsic value, and dignity.
Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.
In the argument for abolishing or retention of the death penalty, Igor Primoratz took the Pro-retributivism stand for the retention of the death penalty. In Primoratz’s “A Life for A Life,” he argues against the abolitionists utilitarianism stand on the issue of the death penalty. Primoratz argues on the premises that- (a) “Punishment is morally Justified insofar as it is meted out as retribution for offense committed” (Primoratz 356.) (b) Death is the only proportional punishment for murder; (c) Death is the only effective deterrence measure for murder. In response to Primoratz choice to use Kant’s Retributivism argument as the basis for his pro-retention argument for the death penalty, similarly Kant’s Categorical Imperative will be used as a measuring stick to validate or refute Primoratz’s argument for the retention of the death penalty.
The death penalty in American society using the deontological and teleological argument is in the deontological perspective, believes that the death penalty is a morally appropriate punishment and also views capital punishment as being immoral. In deontological argument, it will place moral emphasis on the intentions of his or her actions. The deontological ethics does not focus on the actual consequences. A deontological defense of punishment is likely to be a retributive justification. According to Kant, he believes in the retributive punishment, which is known as the idea of “an eye for an eye”, meaning the law says that we should punish someone not because what they did was wrong, but to just punish them for the sake of punishing.
Capital punishment is not an effective punishment or deterrent for murder or any crime for various reasons. To many prisoners, being detained in a prison is much more of a punishment than death as is it a constant, conscious deprivation of liberty and rights. This idea is represented though US Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh who claimed after dropping his appeals against his death sentence that he would rather die than...
Capital punishment has been a hot topic debate the past years, especially now that it is slowly dying out throughout the states. In this paper I have brought out four people’s opinion on their views about capital punishment. With these people ideals, I wanted to bring forth a small sample of people’s ideals to leave the you, the reader, with some perspective on others
The Death Penalty practice has always been a topic of major debate and ethical concern among citizens in society. The death penalty can be defined as the authorization to legally kill a person as punishment for committing a crime, this practice is also known as Capital Punishment. The purpose of creating a harsher punishment for criminals was to deter other people from committing atrocious crimes and it was also intended to serve as a way of incapacitation and retribution. In fact, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are some of the basic concepts in the justice system, which explain the intentions of creating punishments as a consequence for illegal conduct. In the United States, the Congress approved the federal death penalty on June 25, 1790 and according to the Death Penalty Focus (DPF, 2011) organization website “there have been 343 executions, two of which were women”.
When viewing capital punishment in light of retributive justice, Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics can be applied in order to uphold the retentionist argument. Capital punishment continues to be a growing controversial topic in society and is an important ethical dilemma to discuss. It can most prominently be supported by Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics which when applied to the practice of capital punishment implies that it is morally acceptable in the sense that it gives people what they deserve. Additionally, despite consistent arguments by those who oppose capital punishment, the death penalty appears to be the most practical practice of punishment granted certain conditions.
In this paper I will argue for the moral permissibility of the death penalty and I am fairly confident that when the case for capital punishment is made properly, its appeal to logic and morality is compelling. The practice of the death penalty is no longer as wide-spread as it used to be throughout the world; in fact, though the death penalty was nearly universal in past societies, only 71 countries world-wide still officially permit the death penalty (www.infoplease.com); the U.S. being among them. Since colonial times, executions have taken place in America, making them a part of its history and tradition. Given the pervasiveness of the death penalty in the past, why do so few countries use the death penalty, and why are there American states that no longer sanction its use? Is there a moral wrong involved in the taking of a criminal’s life? Of course the usual arguments will be brought up, but beyond the primary discourse most people do not go deeper than their “gut feeling” or personal convictions. When you hear about how a family was ruthlessly slaughtered by a psychopathic serial killer most minds instantly feel that this man should be punished, but to what extent? Would it be just to put this person to death?
Mappes, Thomas A., Jane S. Zembaty, and David DeGrazia. "The Death Penalty." Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 105-53. Print.
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...
Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
Capital punishment has been a controversial topic in association to any person condemned to a serious committed crime. Capital punishment has been a historical punishment for any cruel crime. Issues associated to things such as the different methods used for execution in most states, waste of taxpayers’ money by performing execution, and how it does not serve as any form of justice have been a big argument that raise many eyebrows. Capital punishment is still an active form of deterrence in the United States. The history of the death penalty explains the different statistics about capital punishment and provides credible information as to why the form of punishment should be abolished by every state. It is believed
Proponents of the death penalty are right to argue that capital punishment does provide a sense of “closure” to those who are faced with the tragedy of losing a loved one due to homicide, but they exaggerate when they claim that this is the only means by which murderers receive just punishment for their crimes. Advocates of the death penalty fail to recognize that there are alternative methods – such as psychotherapy – that are able to replace the barbaric method of the death penalty.
Capital punishment is a kind of killing. Killing is morally unjustifiable except when necessary for protecting others. Capital punishment has some cause and effect. As I indicated before, capital punishment occurs when a person suffers the death sentence by the state as a punishment for crime. Capital punishment is helpful for society. It is helps to prevent crime and cut violations. Capital punishment is often defended on the grounds that society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. We can see that Kant provides a clear and logical justification for death penalty. In light of the above causes and effects it is clear that we need some alterations for the death penalty. I think we should not punish a person by the death penalty even though it is really helping society to decrease crime. Death penalty is against the law and morality because it involves taking away the life of the person, which is against the natural rights. So we can find some solution to save our society from crime instead of the death penalty. We can follow the following steps below to abolish death penalty. Firstly, we should figure out the main cause of capital offences, which need to be addressed. This means that the issue of poverty, education, and others causes increase cases of capital offenses. This must be addressed. Secondly, we should improve our community’s policy. Community policing would help authorities to move fast and prevent the death penalty even before it has occurred. It has positive and negative effect also. It has deterrent