Punishment And Death Penalty Vocabulary

Punishment And The Death Penalty Vocabulary Vocabulary crimepunishmentde

Punishment and the Death Penalty Vocabulary Vocabulary Crime Punishment Deterrence General deterrence Specific deterrence Rehabilitation Retribution Abolitionism Retentionism Crime Behavior that a society has judged to be intolerable and against which it has devised codified sanction. Moral Turpitude Punishment From the Latin word for (poena) penalty The intended infliction of non-pleasurable feelings or activity upon a person by an appropriate authority, sometimes including acts of pain, denial of liberty, or the taking of life (capital punishment) as a result of an act that violated a law, code, or other set of standards Goals of Punishment Deterrence (Consequential) -General Deterrence -Specific Deterrence Rehabilitation (Consequential) Retribution (Nonconsequential) -Strong Retribution -Proportional Retribution Deterrence Punishment aimed at preventing future crimes. So, what needs to happen to prevent future crimes? For Deterrence, whether General or Specific, to work will require the following three components: Requires- Certainty of getting caught (Most important Deterrence.) Swiftness of punishment (How soon after committing a crime does the perpetrator receive punishment) Severity of punishment Some believe the death penalty or the “three strikes- get life†policy deters crime. Example: Sending a child to a time out chair every time they hit a sibling. The idea is that they will come to think they’ll end up in time out if they want to hit a sibling. The idea of time out will then prevent them from hitting a sibling.

General deterrence Punishment aimed at preventing future crimes by persons other than the individual being punished This is punishing one person to prevent future crimes by others. The goal is to scare others into compliance. This can be unjust as it may be disproportional to the crime. Example: Making an example of someone to prevent others from committing a crime. A high school teacher will write up a recommendation for suspension for the first student to disrespect him or her. The hope is that the teacher sets a firm limit early and it will prevent other students from acting up for fear of suspension.

Specific deterrence Punishment aimed at preventing future crimes by the person being punished by making him or her associate punishment with law breaking. Example, Dr. Odutola’s car license plate. Punishment should be strong enough to remind the criminal not to commit the crime just by thinking about the punishment. The punishment is only on the criminal and no one else. Example: One child eats all the fresh baked cookies before anyone else gets one. Mom/Dad continues to bake cookies for the kids every day. The punishment for the child (who ate all the cookies) is that for a full month, that one child gets no fresh baked cookies although the rest of the family can eat them. The hope is that by the end of the month, when the child smells fresh baked cookies, he/she will ask permission and leave enough for other family members.

Rehabilitation Punishment aimed at preventing future crimes by the person being punished by attempting to change that person so he or she will be less likely to commit crimes in the future Programs meant to restore the perpetrator to a state where they can have a useful life and be a productive member of society. Rehab programs are available for all types of addiction but programs have varying quality, costs, and recidivism rates. Programs may be very limited by age, location, and health care insurance. Can prison time actually rehabilitate a criminal?

Retribution View of punishment that states that people who do evil deserve to be punished, independent of whether the punishment will produce good consequences or prevent future crimes If someone kills another person, society should kill the criminal. Problems- What if it’s an accidental death? Does killing bring the dead back? What if someone steals something of great value from you but they own nothing of value? Retribution Strong Retribution: Retributive punishment must be equal to the crime committed (i.e., “an eye for an eyeâ€) Proportional Retribution: States that wrongdoers deserve to be punished in proportion to what they did wrong.

Death Penalty The death penalty is a highly contested issue in the United States. There are two camps to this issue: Retentionism: Argue for death penalty. Abolitionism: Argue against the death penalty.

Retentionism Point of view that the death penalty is morally justifiable and is an acceptable form of punishment. Why should we keep the death penalty? Gives closure to the family of the victim Makes certain that the offender will not re-offend. Sends a message to the larger social contract.

Abolitionism The point of view that the death penalty is NOT morally justifiable and is not an acceptable form of punishment. Why should we discard the death penalty? The death penalty does not deter future crimes. The cost of having people on death penalty is too high Jury selection takes longer and final jury is larger -Regular jury consists of Six people, Capital Punishment Jury is 12 people More minorities are on death row Wrongful conviction

States With and Without Death Penalty - 2021 States with Death Penalty: 27 State and U.S. Government and U.S. Military States without Death Penalty: 23 States and the District of Columbia States with Governor Imposed Moratorium: 3 California (2019) Oregon (2011) Pennsylvania (2015) U. S. Government (2021)

States With AND WITHOUT the Death Penalty – 2021 Number of Executions by State, * U.S. government - - - - - 10 3 Texas Georgia Missouri Alabama Tennessee - - California - - - - - 1 0 South Dakota Florida Ohio Arkansas - Virginia Nebraska - - - Compensating Wrongful Conviction States with Compensation: The federal government, the District of Columbia, and 35 states have compensation statutes of some form. States without Compensation: The following 15 states do not: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Video on Wrongful conviction Life after Wrongful Conviction for 3 Men: The Ultimate Application: Capital Punishment Moral Theories and Goals of Punishment Egoism Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism Virtue Ethics Natural Law Natural Rights Deontology Contractarianism Egoism We must choose what is in our own long-term best interest based on our thoughtful consideration of most likely consequences. Considering that any decision must be made with all known facts and using rational thought for a long term solution… The death penalty has not been shown to be a deterrent and studies actually show that states without the death penalty actually have lower rates of capital offenses Act Utilitarianism We need to take the action that provides the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people. The greatest number of people would be satisfied/happy if society is safer. As we know the death penalty is not a deterrent, the best action for the greatest satisfaction for all may be… Rule Utilitarianism What moral rule has the highest net utility and can be universalized? Perhaps it’s The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The death penalty does not follow The Golden Rule. If I somehow caused the death of another, I would hope to be forgiven and have the opportunity to improve myself and give back to my community if you agree with Deterrence and Rehabilitation. How about Retribution? Can this be universalized? What course of action might you choose? Virtue Ethics We must always strive for excellence in all we do by living a life of intention and balance and avoiding extremes of any virtues needed in the situation. Even if we only consider a virtue of justice, the death penalty would be an extreme action of justice. In this theory, extremes cannot lead to a moral life. Natural Law We must uphold (and not interfere with) the universal human goods (Primary Precepts) - life, health, procreation, welfare of children, knowledge and the avoidance of ignorance, relationships and the consideration of other people’s interests. The death penalty would interfere with all the human goods. They went against Natural Law when they committed the crime. This does not allow us to take their life. What option can you come up with that respects life, health, procreation, welfare of children, knowledge and the avoidance of ignorance, and relationships and consideration of other people’s interests? With this theory, something that would improve health and education of young people and helping the family to become stronger would be ethical. Natural Rights We cannot impose on the rights of others, Equal Liberties Principle. We must consider Negative Rights and Positive Rights. The Death Penalty will violate our basic human rights to Life, Liberty and Property. One of the interesting things with criminals is that once they are arrested and in police custody, they now have positive rights to food, clothing, shelter and with Miranda Rights they have a right to legal counsel and due process rights. Deontology Kant prohibits killing in his Perfect Duties. Categorical Imperatives of “Universality†and “Respect for Personâ€. We must respect all people. We use disinterested rationality- we cannot take any particular side in an issue, we must be rational in our decision. We cannot use people. We must also consider universality and reversibility. If it’s morally wrong to kill a person [also codified in the statutes] then, under reversibility, we cannot kill the criminal. If it is morally right to NOT take a life, then it’s always right in all circumstances NOT to take a life. Contractarianism We must be fair. We need to consider that our decision will be good for future generations. We must be fair and protect the rights of others but not to a point that it puts undo burden on maintaining the social contract. We also must put ourselves in the place of all stakeholders as we consider our actions. Under the veil of ignorance, we don’t know who we are in the social contract. We could be killed or we could be the criminal or a family member. If this Topic Interests You, Please review the links. Think about this: Should free high-quality rehabilitation programs be available to all who are willing to go?

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over punishment and the death penalty encompasses a complex array of moral, legal, and societal considerations. Central to this discussion are the various types of punishment—deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution—and the morality underpinning them. Society’s approach to justice reflects underlying values, whether they emphasize preventing future crimes, restoring offenders, or exacting punishment based on moral retribution. The death penalty, in particular, embodies these varied principles and remains one of the most contentious issues in criminal justice.

Deterrence as a goal of punishment posits that the threat or application of punishment can prevent future offences. General deterrence aims to discourage others from criminal acts through examples set by punishing offenders, while specific deterrence seeks to prevent recidivism by punishing individual offenders. For deterrence to be effective, three components must align: certainty of apprehension, swiftness of punishment, and severity. Research indicates that the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrent, challenging one of its primary justifications (Nagin, 2013). In contrast, some argue that harsh laws, like the “three strikes” policy, serve as effective deterrents, though their fairness and proportionality are often debated.

Rehabilitation as a goal emphasizes transforming offenders into law-abiding, productive members of society. Programs for rehabilitation vary widely in quality and success, with recidivism rates highlighting the ongoing challenge. Critics question whether incarceration truly reforms offenders or merely confines them. From a moral perspective, rehabilitation underscores the potential for change and growth, aligning with principles of restorative justice. It contrasts with retribution, which holds that punishment should be morally deserved regardless of its consequences.

Retribution, rooted in moral desert, advocates for punishment proportionate to the crime committed. This principle, often summarized as “an eye for an eye,” raises significant moral questions—particularly whether revenge or moral justice should guide punishment. Proponents argue that retribution provides moral closure to victims’ families and reinforces societal norms. However, critics contend that retribution can lead to disproportionate and inhumane punishments, especially when applied as the basis for the death penalty (Kant, 1785).

The death penalty exemplifies the contentious interface between these philosophies. Supporters maintain it provides closure and serves as a strong moral statement against heinous crimes, while opponents highlight issues of wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and high costs. Empirical evidence shows that the death penalty does not effectively deter crime, and wrongful convictions have led to executions of innocent individuals in the past (Gross et al., 2014). Several states in the U.S. have abolished or moratoriumed its use, reflecting evolving societal values and legal challenges.

Ethical theories offer frameworks to evaluate the morality of the death penalty. Egoism suggests that decisions should favor one’s long-term self-interest; since the death penalty does not necessarily serve individual interests, it can be questioned under this lens (Rachels, 2003). Act utilitarianism advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness, but given the evidence, the death penalty fails to produce the greatest aggregate benefit. Rule utilitarianism emphasizes adherence to moral rules that promote utility universally; the Golden Rule, for instance, conflicts with capital punishment’s potential cruelty.

Virtue ethics encourages the cultivation of moral excellences like justice and temperance. The extremes involved in executing justice, especially through a harsh penalty like death, raise concerns about moral virtue’s cultivation. Natural law emphasizes protecting fundamental human goods such as life and health, suggesting that the intentional taking of life by the state may violate natural law principles. Similarly, natural rights theories, grounded in individual rights to life and liberty, oppose state-sanctioned killing as a violation of these fundamental rights (Nozick, 1974).

Deontology, especially Kantian ethics, prohibits killing, emphasizing actions that respect persons as ends rather than means. According to Kant, the categorical imperative forbids killing, considering it inherently immoral regardless of the crime committed. Contractarian perspectives also argue that social contracts and fairness principles oppose capital punishment, particularly under the veil of ignorance, where individuals would choose fairness and the avoidance of potential wrongful execution.

In conclusion, while the death penalty persists in many jurisdictions, the ethical, legal, and social arguments against it are substantial. Evidence questions its efficacy as a deterrent, and moral frameworks largely oppose state-sanctioned killing. The ongoing debate reflects fundamental values about justice, human rights, and societal progress. Increasingly, nations and states are reevaluating the morality and practicality of capital punishment, leaning toward abolition as societies prioritize human dignity and error prevention.

References

• Gross, S. R., O'Brien, B., Hu, C., & Shirley, R. (2014). Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(20), 7230–7235.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence of crime and future criminal behavior: Implications for policy. Crime & Delinquency, 59(2), 163–179.
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
• Williams, N. (2012). The morality of capital punishment. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(4), 210–215.
• Death Penalty Information Center. (2021). The Death Penalty in 2021: Facts and Figures.
• Amnesty International. (2022). Death Sentences and Executions 2021.
• Bedau, H. A., & Radelet, M. L. (1987). Miscarriage of justice in potentially capital cases. Stanford Law Review, 40(5), 21–204.
• Fischer, B., & Tschirhart, J. (2002). The ethics of capital punishment. Ethics & International Affairs, 16(2), 105–119.