An Argument Against the Death Penalty Essay

An tendernesswitness to the execution of John Evans in Alabama describes this scene from the final moments of a ending penalisation sentence being carried out The first jolt of 1900 volts of electricity passed through Mr. Evans body. It lasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flame erupted from the electrode tied to his leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in the electric pass and his fist clenched permanently. A large puff of grayish smoke and sparks poured out from under the hood that covered his face. An overpowering stench of burnt get rid of and clothing began pervading the witness room. Two doctors examined Mr. Evans and decl bed that he was non dead. It took three jolts of electricity and 14 minutes before John Evans was declared dead (Radelet, veneer the Death Penalty).Throughout history, various forms of executions such as this one have interpreted place as a penalisation for crime. In 1976, the get together States reinstated the ending punishment after ha ving revoked it in 1972 on the grounds that it violated the Constitutions ban on cruel and unusual punishment (MacKinnon, ethical motive 289). Since its reinstatement, the morality of such punishment has been extensively debated. I argue that the cobblers last penalty gagenot be morally justified on the basic grounds that putting to cobblers last a human race being as a form of punishment is wrong.A major argument supporting capital punishment is that it serves as a deterrent to crimes specifically, murder. However, this argument withdraws that the would be killer would take at least a moment to consider what the consequences of murder within our legal system are. This assumes that the killer is capable of such reasoning, and that the crime would be considered before it occurred. In fact, those who commit violent crimes practically do so in moments of passion, rage and fear quantify when irrationality reigns ( randomness, working capital Punishment 107). Whether or not a mu rder or crime is premeditated, there are statistics existing that cause us to perplexity how supportive an argument of deterrence shadow be.In 1989, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee said that if we look at other Western democracies, non one of those countries has capital punishment for peace duration crimes, and yet every one of them has a murder valuate less than half that of the United States (Information, Capital Punishment 110). The Information Series on capital punishment in addition secerns that states that FBI statistics from 1976-1987 lay out that In the twelve states where executions take place, the murder rate isexactly twice the murder rate of the thirteen states without the death penalty (111). The deterrent value of capital punishment is certainly in question. violent death a human being as a deterrent to crime is, in essence, using a human being as a means rather than an ends. Kantian ethics state that we are to treat pe ople as having constitutional value and not simply instrumental value. People are valuable in themselves regardless of whether they are helpful or loved or valued by others (MacKinnon, Ethics 56). Also, as MacKinnon states, using the concern for life that usually promotes it to make a case for shutting life is inherently contradictory and a violation of the categorical imperative (133). If we hold that killing is wrong (except in self-defence) and therefore a killer take to be punished, to follow with the conclusion that the killers punishment is to be killed is completely contradictory. Some would argue that the execution of a murderer is in the self-defense of society itself.This is a distortion of the definition of self-defense. Self-defense is when your life is in immediate danger and a replyion is necessary in order to proceed your injury or death. I believe that self-defense could also apply to situations where the lives of children or others who could not defend themsel ves were in immediate danger and someone else had to react in order to protect them. The key phrase in each of these definitions is immediate danger and, in the trial of a murderer, there is no singularity or guarantee that the person is going to kill again, and there is no immediate danger or threat that requires reaction. This is not self-defense and does not resign killing. Simply because a faulty verdict requires that the murderer be punished, it does not follow that the punishment should be death on the grounds of self-defense.The determination of guilt within our legal system is also in question. Legally, criminals are to be innocent until proven guilty, but in reality they are a lot guilty until proven innocent. Unfortunately, our legal system is not always just or accurate. Innocent people are convicted. This whoremaster happen imputable to inconclusive evidence, the socioeconomic status of the accused, or jury/judge bias and prejudice, among other factors. A criminal who is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and then later proven to be innocent can be released. Such is not the case once the irrevocable death penalty has been carried out.The Information Series on capital punishment cites the work of Michael Radelet of the University of Florida who counted since the turn of the century 343 cases in which a defendant facing a possible death penalty was wrongfully convicted. Of these, 137 were sentenced to death, and 25 were actually executed. cardinal served more than 10 years in jail and seven died while in prison (77). If even one innocent person is wrongfully killed, how can we claim that this is justice? Racial and socioeconomic factors also come into play in the trial and conviction of the accused. The Information Series states that since the death penalty was reinstated, sestet White defendants have been executed for murdering a Black person, while 112 Black people have been executed for the murder of a White person (105).Samuel Jordan of forbearance International also points out that in 1998, although African-Americans count for 50 percent of homicide victims in the nation, 82 percent of death row offenders have been convicted for the murder of Whites (Information, Capital Punishment 104). In the 1970s the Baldus Study found that defendants charged with killing White persons received the death penalty in 11 percent of cases, but defendants charged with killing Blacks received the death penalty in only 1 percent of the cases (Information, 46). The Baldus Study also found that prosecutors sought the death penalty more in cases where a Black defendant was charged with killing a White.Samuel Jordan pointed out that poverty as well as race often determines the allocation of the death sentence. Inadequate, inexperienced representation for indigent defendants characterizes most legal litigation (Information, 104). While the un fair(a)ness and inequality of our legal system does not show that the death penalty itself i s wrong, I would argue that because of the judicial disparities shown in the statistics above, we know can never be 100 percent certain of the guilt of an individual. imputable to this measure of uncertainty, it is morally wrong to determine a punishment that is as irreversible as death. We cannot put ourselves into a position of God.Some will enounce that the killers actions are irreversible and that such a crime deserves an equal punishment. These same people would cite the biblical passage that exhorts an center field for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. However, if a crime deserves equal punishment, then why do we not rape the rapist or burn the arsonist? A civilized society must be based on values and principles that are higher than those it condemns. As I stated previously, to punish killing with death is inherently contradictory. Biblically we are called to live by higher values. In the advanced Testament, Jesus said that we may have heard it said an eye for an eye and a to oth for a tooth but he instructed us to turn the other cheek (Matthew 538-41) to love even our enemies (Matthew 543-45), to obey the Ten Commandments which enjoin us not to kill (Exodus 2013) and not to put ourselves into the position of God by judging whether others live or die (John 87). retribution and retribution are to be left to God, who is the only one with the perfect capabilities of judgment. If the argument is that serious crimes deserve equal punishments, it is interesting to note, as MacKinnon states in her text, that the death penalty is also assigned as punishment for treason and rape. Capital Punishment is obviously extreme and unequal to such crimes. There are also certain times when the death penalty is not sought for murder cases (297). The inconsistencies in application seem morally problematic in themselves. Burton Wolfe quotes Albert Camus as adageWhat is capital punishment if not the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal act, no matter how calcul ated, can be compared? If there were to be real equivalence, the death penalty would have to be pronounced upon a criminal who had forewarned his victim of the very moment he would be put to a horrible death, and who, from that time on, had kept him confined at his own discretion for a period of months. It is not in private life that one meets such monsters. (Pileup 419)Camus goes on to say that the devastating, degrading fear imposed on the condemned man for months or even years is a punishment more terrible than death itself, and one that has not been imposed on his victim (Pileup 419).A Utilitarian might argue in support of the death penalty based on the moral antecede that the goal is to increase the greatest amount of bliss for the greatest amount of people. Often the victims family and others in society will claim that the death penalty is justice and that therefore they are happier when it is applied. I would argue that this happiness is often more of an appeasement a ver y shallow form of happiness that is actually wrapped up in anger and revenge, and not what Utilitarians would classify as true happiness. John Stuart Mill would classify this as a start pleasure or happiness as described in MacKinnons text (37).I would also argue that such happiness would be of short-change duration. The killing of the murderer does not bring back the life of the victim, and the sorrow from that death is not eliminated by adding the death of another. It would also need to be taken into account that the murderer may also have friends and family who would be caused pain and suffering by the death of the person they care for. It also seems morally suicidal to apply The Greatest Happiness Principle to the determination of whether or not another human being lives or dies. Using this type of reasoning a killer could be able to justify his actions if he were able to prove that greater happiness was produced through the killing of one individual than if they would have l ived. The intrinsic value of life itself does not allow for this kind of reasoning for ending it.Killing a human being hinders them from reaching their goal of mature potential. As MacKinnon states when discussing Natural Law Theory, the innate drive toward living is a good in itself (133). Other human beings should not choose the time of another human beings death this is not natural. To argue that the killer has done this does not make it morally justifiable for us to do the same to the killer. Killing an individual robs them of the opportunity to rehabilitate and to live a good life.Whatever the reasons might be that would determine that a person should be sentenced to death, there can be no argument that we are prematurely ending the life of another with no foreknowledge of what their future may have held. We have no means beyond mere hypothesis to determine what the future actions of an individual will be. This is not to argue that certain actions do not morally require punis hment, but simply to argue that the death penalty itself is an inappropriate form of punishment because of the way that it devalues life itself.As members of a civilized society make up of morally responsible individuals, I feel that we are required to consistently value human life. There can be no fair judgment of which lives have more worth than others and we cannot, as a society of moral beings, be saying that it is wrong to take a life and at the same time threaten that if you do, we will take yours. The existence of the threat itself within our legal system contradicts the value we are trying to uphold. Gandhi was a infrangible proponent for peace and nonviolence within society and throughout the world. Eknath Easwaran quotes Gandhi as saying, Violence can never bring an end to violence all it can do is provoke more violence (Gandhi 49). He also said that Nonviolence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he know s no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law (Gandhi 152). No arguments can outmatch the intrinsic value of other human beings and of life itself. Capital punishment cannot be morally justified.Works CitedEaswaran, Eknath. Gandhi The Man The Story of His Transformation. Tomales Nilgiri Press, 1997. Holy Bible New International Version. Nashville Broadman & Hloman Publishers, 1995. MacKinnon, Barbara. Ethics theory and Contemporary Issues Second Edition. New York Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998. Radelet, Michael. Facing the Death Penalty Essays on a Cruel and unaccustomed Punishment. New York, 1989. The Information Series on Current topics. Capital Punishment. Cruel & Unusual? Wylie Information Plus, 1998. Wolfe, Burton H. Pileup on Death Row. New York Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1973.