Sunday, March 12, 2017
A Life for A Life?
Popular support for the death penalty is in decline in the U.S. According to a Pew Research poll conducted last year, support is now below 50% and the lowest in 45 years. Furthermore, 19 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Yet, Ohio and several other states still execute prisoners: in fact, Ohio has six scheduled executions for this year. Is Ohio justified in killing these prisoners? Is the death penalty justified under any theory of punishment? Under what circumstances? Should we keep or abolish the death penalty?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kant’s theory on punishment is akin to the “eye for an eye” principle. Specifically, he believes that capital punishment is justified following murder because the severity of the punishment should parallel the severity of the crime committed, and there is no equal punishment for death in life. He believes that any life, no matter how horrible, is still better than death so no form of justice besides capital punishment will make up for a murder. Kant would say that if you grant someone clemency or a reprieve of punishment in such a case then you are undermining the justice system and essentially become an accomplice to murder. With respect to the six scheduled Ohio executions, Kant would support the punishment given they all involve committing murder.
ReplyDeleteAs an American ashamed that capital punishment is still practiced in the U.S., I would disagree with Kant and say that the death penalty must be abolished. It violates the Constitution in that it is applied arbitrarily, is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, and there is no way of correcting a wrongful execution. Pro-death penalty advocates argue that since the 1976 Gregg v. Georgia ruling, death sentences are only given out according to specific types of offenses on race-neutral guidelines; however, it is clear that race plays a significant role in sentences. The death penalty disproportionately affects African American defendants, as well as defendants convicted of killing white victims. In fact, the Death Penalty Information Center reports that, “African American defendants in Philadelphia are nearly four times as likely to receive a death sentence as are white defendants in similar cases.” A significant number of African Americans were sentenced for crimes akin to those of white defendants who were not sentenced. Studies have found that the key decision makers in death cases around the U.S. are almost exclusively white men. Perhaps this is why a Pew Research Center study found that the percentage of whites who support capital punishment for those convicted of murder (63%) is much higher than that of African Americans (40%) and Hispanics (36%). It appears that the group who the death penalty affects the least is the group with the highest percentage of support for the system. Moreover, while proponents of capital punishment say that the manner in which executions are conducted has evolved from inhumane, torturous hangings to civil methods in accordance with the law, there are recent, documented cases of executions being too slow and capricious. Some stories include jolts of electrocution producing the odor and sound of sizzling, burning flesh, and the inmates head and legs catching on fire. In fact, the reason why Ohio death row inmate Alva Campebll Jr. has not been executed yet is because the state can’t get the drugs needed to do the job because in 2014 an execution was botched using lethal injection. Finally, there are numerous documentations of wrongful executions. The death penalty, as a method of punishment for murder and capital crimes, allows for no way of correcting a mistaken conviction and execution. For these reasons, among others, capital punishment should be abolished.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUnder Emmanuel Kant’s framework for punishment a death penalty would always be justified. For Kant, balancing the scales of justice is the utmost priority, as he writes, “But what is the mode and measure of punishment which public justice takes as its principle and standard? It is just the principle of equality, by which the pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to the one side than the other.” Kant explains that any other standard for distributing punishment, outside of retribution, would inevitably fall out of the bonds of strict, equal justice because it would lead to varying interpretations. Two judges may assign different penalties for the same crime based on their different perceptions of the situation causing an unfair injustice to the individual that receives a higher penalty; yet using a retributive framework allows for equality for both victims. Upholding this standard, additionally leads to respect for the rule of law because it is consistent rather than scattered. Yet Kant’s theory does not necessarily call for an eye for an eye, instead it only calls for the punishment to proportional to the crime, except in one situation: the death penalty. Kant writes, “There is no similarity between life, however wretched it may be, and death, hence no likeness between the crime and the retribution unless death is judicially carried out upon the wrongdoer." Because there is literally nothing that compensate for losing one’s life other than losing your own life, in the case of the death penalty the punishment must exactly mirror the crime according to Kant.
ReplyDeleteYet, I believe Kant is mistaken in his assessment for a few reasons. The first is that his philosophy is too based in the abstract rather than the real world. Under Kant’s framework, there is no motivation to rehabilitate or deter the criminal. As long as the criminal has received his proportional punishment, the bill has been paid. Yet, when you look to the impacts that would have on society as a whole, it’s meaningless. If these individuals aren’t better off from the experience, it is not worth it, and killing them strips them of any future usefulness they could give to society. Furthermore, when presented with an opportunity to help criminals right their wrongs, it doesn’t make sense to just punish them. As Gandhi said, “Fighting fire with fire, just creates a bigger fire.” Instead of upholding an esoteric value of consistency within the scales of justices, it makes more sense to have criminals be helped so that they don’t violate those scales again. When turning to this utilitarian framework of evaluating the consequences of punishment, Jeremy Bentham argues, “Where it is needless: where the mischief may be prevented, or cease of itself, without it: that is, at a cheaper rate.” Through this lens, the death penalty is needless because there is definitely a cheaper, more effective way to prevent the punishment rather than just killing the individual. While rehabilitation and incapacitation may be more monetarily expensive, they cost significantly less from a social aspect because you aren’t taking a way a person’s life and stripping them of their entire autonomy. Furthermore, through rehabilitation, you may actually be able to squeeze some good out of the individual allowing for society to be benefitted, instead of just giving up on them. When you evaluate the utility that Kant’s argument has on the real world, it’s non-existent, and that’s why I believe the death penalty should be abolished.
I believe Ammar’s argument for a utilitarianism form of punishment has some flaws. First, the death penalty would be completely justified under utilitarianism. Second, and more importantly, we as a society we should instead prefer Kant’s theory of retribution, which he admits will lead to the death penalty.
DeleteUtilitarianism stems from Jeremy Bentham’s idea that we should attempt to achieve the greatest amount of happiness (or pleasure) for the greatest amount of people in society. For any decision, then, we must consider whether or not the ends produce beneficial results. The death penalty meets this criterion for a couple of reasons. First, it acts as a deterrent against future crime. By having such a punishment, people would think twice before committing a crime that could land them death row. The utilitarian would agree that if capital punishment is able to prevent murder and other heinous crimes from happening in the future, then we as society are achieving the goal of maximizing happiness. Second, taking the life of someone who has committed murder will provide the most utility for society as a whole. Even though the criminal himself will experience pain, happiness is still maximized for society. By removing a murderer from society, we are preventing future lives from being taken away and increasing the sense of security for all. These benefits stretch to such a great amount of people that it outweighs the harms to the criminal. Some might argue that life imprisonment is better. However, through pure utility, life imprisonment takes far more resources than the death penalty, thus causing pain to society as a whole, and is far more torturous and less humane for the prisoner. Thus, under utilitarianism, the death penalty would be justified, although it still should be analyzed for every different trial, since the end results will never be the same every time.
I believe that Kant’s argument for the retributive theory of justice is far more morally sound than utilitarianism, and should be used as the primary way of evaluating punishment. The first issue with utilitarianism, as Kant argues, is that an individual should never be treated as a means to achieve the goals of other individuals. Punishing someone else just to create happiness for other is completely immoral. This belief would justify the punishment of innocent individuals, for example, if it created a deterrence effect. However, most of us would agree that the innocent individuals should never be punished under the rule of law, as they have done nothing wrong. The theory of retribution solves this issue, since the only reason we would punish individuals is to give criminals just desert. We are no longer using the criminal as a means to an end. Instead, the entire reason why someone should be punished is due to committing a crime in the first place. Kant argues every single crime that is committed tips the balances of justice in the favor of the criminal. To provide real justice, we must restore the balance by punishing the individual proportionally to the crime. But under a utilitarian framework, the concept of the balance of justice means absolutely nothing, since it doesn’t matter if the person is punished proportionally. This is problematic as it creates glaring inconsistencies in our justice system. If all that matters are the effects of punishment on society, this means that in some cases a murderer will deserve the death penalty, while in other cases a murderer could be let go. These inconsistencies are unjust since it does not make any sense that some people are punished more lightly for committing the exact same crime. This could result in more people realizing that they might be able to get away with crimes because the advantages they gain from committing the crime could outweigh the harms from punishment, resulting in a net advantage for the criminal. Even under a utilitarian framework, that would be a net negative. The only way to ensure that the balance of justice does not tilt in a certain direction is through Kant’s retributive theory.
The death penalty is not only justified but deemed as necessary by one certain theory of punishment. Immanuel Kant’s theory of punishment entails punishment exactly equal to any given crime. In other words, Kant believes that the magnitude of punishment faced by a criminal should be exactly equivalent to the magnitude of the crime committed by that criminal. Kant argues that when an individual infringes upon the rights of another, he or she is also granting permission for his or her own rights to be infringed upon. There are multiples ways to achieve equivalent punishment in the vast majority of crimes. In regards to murder, however, there is only one possible punishment that would be fair and equivalent in magnitude. The death penalty is the only option that would provide full retribution for a murderer. Kant explains how any life no matter how handicapped or damaged is still superior to death. Therefore, there is no punishment in which the criminal could stay alive that would still provide full retribution. Kant believes that the death penalty is the one and only fair punishment for murder because it provides a punishment equal in magnitude to the crime itself. The entirety of Kant’s theory is based upon punishment in regard to retribution. The whole theory involves fair and equal punishment after a crime has been committed. There is no mention of prevention or improvement, only a reaction to something that already occurred. I think punishment is much more effective when there is an element of deterrence to actively attempt to prevent a crime from happening before it happens rather than just reaction to a past event. At the least there should be an added piece involving education about proper decisions to attempt to ensure that a criminal will not end up back in punishment after being released.
ReplyDeleteI share a very similar belief to Kant when it comes to the death penalty. He says that sometimes giving someone the death penalty does not actually cause them to suffer. I share the same sentiment in that death is the easy way out. If someone commits a crime that is deserving of death I feel that they deserve to suffer. Rather than receiving the death penalty, an easy most of the time painless option, they should have to suffer and feel the pain that they caused to others. I think that we should abolish the death penalty but not because it is too cruel. I understand the argument for the death penalty and often it is the easiest form of retribution for something like murder. Like Kant's theory, i feel that causing a person to feel pain would do the best job of equaling the scales of justice.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Immanuel Kant, the death penalty is absolutely necessary to preserve fairness in a society. Kant believes that the severity of the crime should decide the severity of the punishment. Kant’s theory is very similar to the “an eye for an eye” idea in that whatever crime a person commits against another person, that crime, or at least the severity of it, should be done to that person. The punishment is most likely going to be a prison sentence of some length. However, in the case of murder, Kant says that a person who kills someone else must dies. He believes that there is no equivalent punishment in the form of a prison sentence that could be severe enough for this type of crime. Because Kant is such a strong believer in retributive punishment, he can see no other alternative. However, I disagree with Kant. I believe that if we kill every single person who has ever killed someone, we very well might be killing people that could still benefit society in some way. Also, many criminals, after serving a lengthy jail sentence, express remorse for their actions and come out of prison completely changed. I believe that if we deny murders the chance to change, we are possibly losing many future productive members of society. I also believe that we should punish criminals to prevent them from committing further crimes, rather than just punishing them because we think they deserve it. While killing criminals certainly prevents them from committing another crime, almost all criminals who serve lengthy prison sentences also do not commit another crime, either because they are too old or simply because they have changed. For all the reasons above, I believe that we should abolish the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteJustification for the death penalty mainly depends on the philosophy being used to determine how people are being punished. If the people are in favor of Kant’s idea of retribution, then the death penalty is justified. However, there are two problems with this. First, people generally oppose the death penalty, not because they don’t believe in retributive justice, but rather they believe killing others is immoral. The second problem is with retributive justice in general, which is that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Just because someone has done something illegal does not mean they deserve the same wrong to be done to them. Growing up, my parents always told me two wrongs do not make a right, and the same idea applies here. Under the utilitarian theory of justice, the death penalty would not be acceptable for the reason I just mentioned: two wrongs do not create a gain in net societal welfare. If the deterrence philosophy is applied, then the death penalty is still not appropriate because it has not been not proven successful at deterring crimes. If the goal of punishment is to be paternalistic, the death penalty is still immoral because the goal of this philosophy is to encourage people to change their ways. If society were to use the death penalty, there would not be an opportunity for someone to change their ways because they are no longer living. The only philosophy that would be in favor of using the death penalty would be Kant’s theory of retribution, however, even when it is applied people still tend be strongly against its usage.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to justify any action, slavery was justified in America under the idea that it gave Africans a home, a proper religion, and food. Abuse can be justified under the idea that it helps the abused learn from their mistakes and cement the negative repercussions that come from whatever action was done. The justification for the death penalty can be found under Kant’s theory of punishment, which is very closely related to the long lived idea of an eye for an eye, being that the only fitting punishment for murder is the death of the murderer. Under a specific lens the death penalty is easily justifiable as it balances the scales of justice in the mind of Kant, the state of Ohio, and slightly less than 50% of American citizens. However, the death penalty does more than simply equalize the scales. In my belief it deteriorates the morals of society much more than the criminal themselves is affected. Beyond the costs for the death penalty, the acceptance of the death penalty lowers a society’s morals to that of a criminal that would stoop to murder. The death penalty shows society that the killing of someone else can be justified, and it simply perpetrates a continuing loop of murder. Clearly the death penalty can be justified in the minds of those who support it, but if that support is morally correct is the real question. In my belief the death penalty is barbaric and does much more harm than good for society, and does not have the desired effect as an equalizer (in the broad view of things) that the supporters expect. Because of this (and because a majority of America agrees), I believe that the death penalty should be abolished.
ReplyDeleteKant would say that the death penalty is essentially the only way to serve justice in a situation where someone has been murdered. His philosophy is based on the idea that you have to pay back what you have unjustly taken from society, and because there is no other way to pay for a life than with a life he would strongly advocate for the death penalty to remain in the United States. Kant goes so far as saying that if punishment is not instituted justly those who allow it to happen are just as bad as the person who committed the crime in the first place. Kant would believe that the state of Ohio was just in killing any individuals on death row for murder.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can't help but disagree with this outlook because it doesn't account for the way that our legal system works today. There are so many appeals and court proceedings involved that more often than not Kant's intended purpose isn't achieved in a timely way. There are too many inconsistencies; a lot of court cases aren't black and white and it is impossible to know (unless you witnessed the murder) if the right man is going to be executed. It's also extremely expensive; more expensive than for a regular inmate to spend life in prison. It doesn't necessarily matter if the extreme punishment of death is used, especially when it places a larger burden on taxpayers.