Ethical Perspectives On The Death Penalty

ethical Perspectives On The Death Penalty

The morality of the death penalty remains one of the most divisive ethical topics in the world today. Those in favor of the death penalty, otherwise termed as capital punishment, consider it as a form of retributive justice. The idea of retribution encourages that punishment be given because it is deserved and should be such that it matches in severity to the crime committed (Lemons, 2020). Therefore, in the case of murderers and those who commit other heinous crimes, the death penalty is what they deserve given the nature of their crimes. In addition to the death penalty being a form of retributive justice, proponents of the death penalty also argue that it is a perfect deterrent.

Sentencing those who commit heinous crimes to death acts to deter other people who would have committed the same crime. The fear of punishment by death makes people avoid committing the crimes. While proponents of the death penalty consider it justifiable and even moral, some people disagree with the death penalty. One of the major arguments against the death penalty is that human beings have no right to kill other human beings no matter the reason. Those who hold this view believe that no matter the nature of the crime committed by a person, the death penalty is not justifiable since human beings have no right to kill other people for whatever reason (Bedau, 2019).

In addition to the argument that human beings have no right to kill other human beings, those against the death penalty also argue that the death penalty has no rehabilitative effect (Ward et al., 2022). The reason for punishment is usually to rehabilitate the person so that they do not engage in the same crime or another related crime. However, in the case of the death penalty, the offender is killed therefore leaving no chance for rehabilitation. The Ethical Egoists view on the death penalty

The ethical egoist view is that people take actions, including committing crimes so as to serve their own self-interest (Rajaneththi, 2019). Even with the knowledge of an impending capital punishment, a person might still commit a heinous crime if it serves their self-interest. Therefore, according to ethical egoists, punishments that benefit a person are considered ethical and justifiable while those that do not are considered unethical. Considering the case of the death penalty, it is therefore considered unethical by ethical egoists because it does not benefit the person’s interest.

In the argument put forth by ethical egoists, there is no case of conflict between loyalty to self and the community. The ethical egoists' view focuses solely on the perpetuation of one’s self-interest. The Social Contract ethicists’ view on the death penalty

The social contract ethicists' view on morality is that one's moral obligations are dependent on their contract with the society in which one lives (Friend, n.d). Therefore, on the morality of the death penalty, it is justified if that is what the society deems to be a befitting punishment for the crime committed. One of the most popular applications of the social contract theory to justify moral punishment is in the case of Socrates and Citro. Socrates himself, one of the originators of the social contract theory, used it to explain to Citro why he ought to remain in prison and accept the death penalty (Friend, n.d). In the case of a social contract theorist, unlike as was the case with the ethical egoist, there seems to be a conflict between the interests of the self and those of the society.

In the ethical egoist theory, the major determining factor of what is moral is whether it perpetuates self-interest, the theory is, therefore, more focused on the self rather than the society. However, in the case of the social contract theorist, a person is viewed as a part of society. In this case, the societal obligations can be considered as one's national obligations. A person, therefore, has a contracted moral obligation to the society in which one lives. Best course of action

The arguments pro and against the death penalty are all sound, however, in looking at the death penalty, one should always consider its effectiveness as both a punishment and a deterrent. The death penalty has failed to be both an effective punishment and has also failed as a deterrent. It fails a punishment since it does not rehabilitate the offender. It fails as a deterrent since data shows that despite the presence of the death penalty as a punishment for some heinous crimes, the rate at which those crimes are committed keeps does not decline. Considering other punishments such as long-term imprisonment, there is a lack of evidence to show that it is a more effective deterrent compared to them (American Civil Liberties Union, 2023).

The American Medical Association’s (AMA) View on the death penalty and resulting issues

The AMA considers the members' view on capital punishment to be their moral decision to make. It does not make a blanket decision on the morality or immorality of the death penalty. However, its policy states that physicians have the responsibility of preserving life and ought therefore not to participate in any activities that may result in the taking of a life (Capital Punishment | American Medical Association, n.d). AMA’s code of ethics clearly states that a physician ought not to be involved in any actions even legal that may result in the loss of life. These actions range from directly causing death to taking actions that may result in someone's execution i.e., for the case of a prisoner. The view taken by the AMA does result in conflict between the society and those in the health care profession. It offers guidance to its members on how to navigate the ethical dilemma and what entails participation in executing the death penalty while not considering the doctor’s personal view on the matter.

Those in the medical profession are allowed to hold differing views on the morality of the death penalty, however as physicians, they are reminded of their foremost responsibility which is the preservation of life.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical debate surrounding the death penalty remains a complex intersection of moral philosophy, legal justice, and societal norms. The arguments in favor of capital punishment often emphasize retributive justice and deterrence, while opponents highlight human rights concerns and the lack of rehabilitative benefits.

Proponents of the death penalty argue that it serves as a moral form of retribution, aligning punishment with the severity of the crime. This perspective is rooted in the classical philosophy of justice, which posits that punishments should be proportionate to crimes—a principle famously defended by philosophers like Immanuel Kant. According to Lemons (2020), retribution ensures that justice is achieved by giving wrongdoers what they deserve, and for heinous crimes such as murder, the death penalty is seen as the appropriate response. Furthermore, advocates claim that it functions effectively as a deterrent, discouraging potential offenders from committing grave offenses due to the fear of facing death (Lemons, 2020). Nonetheless, empirical evidence supporting the deterrent effect remains inconclusive; many criminologists argue that long-term imprisonment may be equally or more effective without the ethical dilemmas associated with capital punishment.

On the other hand, opponents of the death penalty raise profound ethical objections. They contend that human beings inherently possess the right to life, which cannot be forfeited even in cases of severe crimes. Bedau (2019) emphasizes that the right to life is fundamental, and no justice system should override this basic human right through state-sanctioned killing. Moreover, opponents argue that the death penalty lacks rehabilitative value. Unlike other forms of punishment such as life imprisonment, capital punishment irrevocably ends the possibility of reform or redemption for the offender (Ward et al., 2022). This perspective underscores the importance of restorative justice approaches that focus on correcting wrongs without resorting to irreversible measures.

The ethical egoist viewpoint offers a distinct lens, emphasizing individual self-interest as the guiding principle for moral actions (Rajaneththi, 2019). From this perspective, individuals are motivated primarily by personal gain or benefit. If executing the death penalty does not serve one's own interests, ethical egoism would consider the practice unethical. For example, if a person perceives that supporting or opposing capital punishment aligns with their self-interest, their stance might vary accordingly. In this context, capital punishment holds less moral weight because it does not necessarily benefit the individual, and thus, ethical egoists would likely view it as immoral.

In contrast, social contract theory advocates for a morality based on mutual agreement and societal obligations. Friend (n.d) explains that moral duties derive from an implicit or explicit contract between individuals and society. Under this framework, the death penalty can be justified if society collectively agrees it is an appropriate punishment—highlighted historically through cases like Socrates, who accepted his death sentence as part of his civic duty. Social contract theorists see individuals as members of a society with responsibilities and obligations that may include accepting certain sacrifices for the collective good. Accordingly, capital punishment becomes morally permissible if it aligns with societal agreement and promotes social order.

Nevertheless, when considering the efficacy and ethics of the death penalty, evidence suggests it fails both as a punishment and as a deterrent. Data indicate that its deterrent effect is minimal; rates of serious crimes such as murder have not significantly declined in jurisdictions with capital punishment (American Civil Liberties Union, 2023). Additionally, since the death penalty precludes rehabilitation, it lacks restorative potential. This raises ethical questions about the justification of irreversible punishment, especially given the risk of executing innocent individuals due to flawed judicial processes.

From a medical ethical perspective, the American Medical Association (AMA) maintains that physicians should not participate in executions, as their primary obligation is to preserve life (Capital Punishment, n.d). The AMA’s stance underscores a conflict between the societal desire for justice and the medical ethic to do no harm. Physicians are advised to abstain from activities directly resulting in death, leaving this moral dilemma to the legal system and societal conscience. This position reflects the broader ethical tension between societal punishment and individual professional responsibilities, emphasizing the importance of human life and dignity.

In conclusion, the morality of the death penalty remains contentious, resting on divergent philosophical and ethical foundations. Retributive and deterrent arguments favor its use, yet these are undermined by concerns over human rights, potential errors in justice, and lack of rehabilitative capacity. Ethical egoism and social contract theory offer contrasting justifications for or against capital punishment, highlighting the centrality of individual interests versus societal obligations. Ultimately, societal policymakers and ethical thinkers must weigh these moral considerations alongside empirical evidence to determine the most just and humane approach to criminal justice.

References

• American Civil Liberties Union (2023). The Death Penalty. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment
• Bedau, H. (2019). The Case Against the Death Penalty. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
• Capital Punishment | American Medical Association. (n.d.). Code of Medical Ethics. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/capital-punishment
• Friend, C. (n.d.). Social Contract Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/social-contract-theory/
• Lemons, K. R. (2020). Death Penalty Restorative vs. Retributive Justice. Journal of Justice Studies.
• Rajaneththi, S. (2019). Arguments on Death Penalty: Theoretical Base of Classical School of Criminology. Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
• Ward, T., Arrigo, B., Barnao, M., Beech, A., Brown, D. A., Cording, J., & Taxman, F. (2022). Urgent issues and prospects in correctional rehabilitation practice and research. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 27(2).