The Taking of Human Life by Capital Punishment
Regenia Faggard
Professor Maurice Martin
June 17, 2018
HUM-2230-WAW-Ethics
Regenia Faggard
Professor Martin
HUM-2230-WAW-Ethics
June 17, 2018
The Taking of Human Life by Capital Punishment
"Capital punishment means "the infliction of death for certain crimes"", according to the textbook, Ethics Theory and Practice by Thiroux and Krasemann. Capital punishment is usually held in reserve for murder, but there are other capital crimes such as stealing, kidnapping with intention to hurt or murder someone, and treason that could endanger others living in another country that utilize capital punishment. (Thiroux and Krasemann).
There are arguments both in favor for and against capital punishment. Thiroux and Krasemann claim, the arguments are as follows: Effect on the criminal's victims or on society, Ineffectiveness as a deterrent, Execution and rehabilitation, The economic argument, The effect upon society's laws, The forfeiture of killers' rights, The uselessness of rehabilitation argument, and revenge.
The first argument is the effect on the criminal's victims or on society, and this also includes the argument of revenge, which is the viewpoint of consequentialist. As stated by Hugo Adam Bedau, ACLU, "Many murder victims do not support state-sponsored violence to avenge the death of their loved one." He also expresses about capital punishment that it is "the worst possible example to set for the citizenry, and especially children." So, the question remains, does capital punishment help the friends and family members of a murder victim, get some closure?
The next argument is the ineffectiveness as a deterrent, which basically says that capital punishment does not keep people from committing capital crimes, this also should be considered the viewpoint of consequentialist. "A punishment can be an effective deterrent only if it is consistently and promptly employed. Capital punishment cannot be administered to meet these conditions." (Bedau). In many cases, there can be anywhere from ten to twenty plus years between the crime, the case, and the execution. With this in mind, is capital punishment effective, or ineffective as a deterrent?
Moving on to execution and rehabilitation, including the argument of the uselessness of rehabilitation, there have been times where people that were convicted on circumstantial evidence have been executed. (Thiroux and Krasemann). This stance should be considered as virtue ethics. In the United States alone, since 1900, "there have been on average more than four cases each year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder". (Bedau). Considering this one statistic alone, capital punishment, is it unjust in the society we live in today?
The economic argument is the next one we will consider, which is the position of consequentialism. According to Kelly Phillips Erb, "Fox reported that studies have "uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial cost one million dollars more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole."" With cost like this, we must consider this economic argument, is it less expensive to use capital punishment than life in prison?
The effects on society's laws, is the next argument we will discuss. If criminals know that they will get the death penalty if they kill someone, the thought should be that there are teeth in the law. (Thiroux and Krasemann). Do criminals really consider this, especially when the crime is being committed in the "heat of the moment", or when emotions are running full throttle? This perspective is definitely consequentialism.
The forfeiture of the killer's rights is also an argument that arises. This perspective should be considered as virtue ethics. According to Thiroux and Krasemann, "killers, having violated both morality and the law, have forfeited their right to be treated ethically". Does a murderer give up their rights, or are there other reasons, truths, facts, that need to be considered to constitute capital punishment?
There are many arguments for and against capital punishment. Capital punishment is an issue that when you are looking at the moral aspect, or the ethical side of, there are many variables that need to be addressed. For capital punishment to be enforced, there should be one hundred percent fact-based evidence that supports the guilty verdict that is being handed down. The cost of capital punishment should not be one of the decision makers when it comes to the life of the person that is on trial. If the facts and evidence are there, it should not take ten plus years to carry out the capital punishment. Capital punishment can't be rescinded once it has transpired.
Another concern that needs to be considered in cases of capital punishment is the mental capacity of the person that is on trial. "In 2002, the Supreme Court said executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution." (Bedau). Mentally retarded or mental un-stability, can cause someone to act in a manner that is out of their control when they are being pushed or pressured by a person or situation that has triggered this hostile or erratic behavior. These crimes are usually not premeditated.
Also, we need to discuss the moral issue of is capital punishment barbaric? There are five ways in which capital punishment is carried out, hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, and lethal injection. The only one that is currently not being used is the gas chamber. Ethical issues to be considered for hanging is the person could suffer, or they could be decapitated. The firing squad involves five marksmen who take aim and fire, of which one of the shells is a blank. Electrocution can cause prolonged agony. The gas chamber causes distress on the body as a whole. Lethal injection was thought to be fast and with no pain, but now they have realized that this may not be true. There are cases of prolonged suffering, and other issues involved with lethal injection such as possibly paralyzing the patient and they die a slow agonizing death.
There is the well-known capital murder case of Clayton Lockett, who murdered a nineteen-year-old girl because she would not remain silent about the crimes he had committed. Clayton's story involves an abundance of ethical dilemmas. It took the people who were performing the execution over an hour to get an IV started, plus they used the wrong size needle for the location they placed the IV. This caused the medicine that is used for the execution to go into the tissue instead of his veins. It took over an hour for the execution to be completed. He raised up on the gurney after the second time they checked to see if he was dead. Medical professionals are not normally involved in executions. A medical professional takes an oath to help people, not to harm them. In this case though, there was a medical professional involved. The medicine that was used was not known for sure if it would work correctly, even if it was administered correctly, because drug manufacturers do not want to sell drugs for capital punishment. "The animal welfare act has banned the use of paralytics without anesthesia in the euthanasia of animals." (Bedau). So, why would we use this on humans? "Clayton Lockett died in apparent agony." (Stern).
Previously, I would have said that I one hundred percent support the death penalty. But, after researching and studying, I can't say that I completely support it any longer. There are reasons that are obvious that I would still support it. But, until there is a quick painless death for the person, I can no longer support the death penalty. Do I believe that someone should set for years on death row? No, but, I do believe that if the evidence is there, and they are still trying to find a quick painless way to complete the capital punishment, then yes, criminals convicted of capital crimes deserve to sit on death row for years.
Anytime there are issues involving humans, we should always consider the ethical and moral dilemmas that are involved. We are all human, and God made us all in him image, but there is not one of us who is perfect. Each person, along with each situation has to be evaluated when it comes to the ethical choices that have to be made. Yes, there are laws to help guide us, but even sometimes the law is not ethical.
Works Cited
Bedau, Adam. "The case against the death penalty" (1973): https://www.aclu.org/other/case against-death-penalty Accessed 6/17/18
Erb, Kelly Phillips. "Death and Taxes: The real cost of the death penalty" (Sept 22, 2011):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/#41fd2dcc673e Accessed 6/17/18
Stern, Jeffrey. "The cruel and unusual execution of Clayton Lockett" (June 2015):
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/06/execution-clayton-lockett Accessed 6/17/18
Thiroux, Jacques & Krasemann, Keith. Ethics Theory and Practice (2017)
your essay in here…