Article for Sunday 8/5

Topic:Capital punishment


The question as to whether or not it is morally acceptable for the state to execute people, and if so under what circumstances, has been debated for centuries.The ethical problems involved include the general moral issues of punishment with the added problem of whether it is ever morally right to deprive a human being of life.


Introduction


Capital punishment is the practice of executing someone as punishment for a specific crime after a proper legal trial. It can only be used by a state, so when non-state organisations speak of having 'executed' a person they have actually committed a murder. It is usually only used as a punishment for particularly serious types of murder, but in some countries treason, types of fraud, adultery and rape are capital crimes. The phrase 'capital punishment' comes from the Latin word for the head. A 'corporal' punishment, such as flogging, takes its name from the Latin word for the body. Capital punishment is used in many countries around the world. According to Amnesty International figures as at May 2007, 68 countries and territories retain the death penalty, although many never actually use it. China executes the most people per year overall, with an estimated figure of 1,010 in 2006. Amnesty International also states that in 2006, Iran executed 177 people, Pakistan 82, Iraq and Sudan both at least 65 and that there were 53 executions in the USA. Based on public reports available, Amnesty International estimated that at least 1,010 people were executed in China during the year [2006], although these figures are only the tip of the iceberg. Credible sources suggest that between 7,500 to 8,000 people were executed in 2006. The official statistics remain a state secret, making monitoring and analysis problematic. Amnesty International, May 2007 In March 2004 a delegate at the National People's Congress said that "nearly 10,000" people are executed per year in China. Amnesty International, 2006 There is now steadily increasing support for abolishing capital punishment. In April 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Commission passed the Resolution Supporting Worldwide Moratorium on Executions. The first World Congress against the death penalty was held in Strasbourg in June 2001. The World Coalition against the Death Penalty was created in Rome in 2002, and 10th October 2006 is World Day against the Death Penalty. Details of which countries are abolitionist and which are retentionist can be found on the Amnesty website.




In favor of the death penalty as follow:


Retribution or justice


First a reminder of the basics of retribution and punishment:
1. all guilty people deserve to be punished
2. only guilty people deserve to be punished
3. guilty people deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime


This argument states that real justice requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing, and to suffer in a way appropriate for the crime. Each criminal should get what their crime deserves and in the case of a murderer what their crime deserves is death. The measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime, the conduct of the criminal and the defenseless and unprotected state of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. Justices A.S. Anand and N.P. Singh, Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee (see related links) Many people find that this argument fits with their inherent sense of justice. It's often supported with the argument "An eye for an eye". But to argue like that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what that Old Testament phrase actually means. In fact the Old Testament meaning of "an eye for an eye" is that only the guilty should be punished, and they should punished neither too leniently or too severely.




Deterrence


Capital punishment is justified because by executing convicted murderers we will deter would-be murderers from killing people.


The arguments against deterrence:


1. The statistical evidence doesn't confirm that deterrence works (but it doesn't show that deterrence doesn't work either)
2. Some of those executed may not have been capable of being deterred because of mental illness or defect
3. Some capital crimes are committed in such an emotional state that the perpetrator did not think about the possible consequences
4. No-one knows whether the death penalty deters more than life imprisonment


Deterrence is most effective when the punishment happens soon after the crime - to make an analogy, a child learns not to put their finger in the fire, because the consequence is instant pain.
The more the legal process distances the punishment from the crime - either in time, or certainty - the less effective a deterrent the punishment will probably be. Cardinal Avery Dulles has pointed out another problem with the deterrence argument. Executions, especially where they are painful, humiliating, and public, may create a sense of horror that would prevent others from being tempted to commit similar crimes......In our day death is usually administered in private by relatively painless means, such as injections of drugs, and to that extent it may be less effective as a deterrent. Sociological evidence on the deterrent effect of the death penalty as currently practiced is ambiguous, conflicting, and far from probative. Avery Cardinal Dulles, Catholicism and Capital Punishment, First Things 2001.Some proponents of capital punishment argue that capital punishment is beneficial even if it has no deterrent effect. If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call. John McAdams: Marquette University, Department of Political Science.


Rehabilitation

Of course capital punishment doesn't rehabilitate the prisoner and return them to society. But there are many examples of persons condemned to death taking the opportunity of the time before execution to repent, express remorse, and very often experience profound spiritual rehabilitation. Thomas Aquinas noted that by accepting the punishment of death, the offender was able to expiate his evil deeds and so escape punishment in the next life. This is not an argument in favour of capital punishment, but it demonstrates that the death penalty can lead to some forms of rehabilitation.

Closure and vindication？

Prevention of re-offending？

Incentive for helping the police？



Against the death penalty as follow:

The value of human life

Everyone thinks human life is valuable. Some of those against capital punishment believe that human life is so valuable that even the worst murderers should not be deprived of the value of their lives. They believe that the value of the offender's life cannot be destroyed by the offender's bad conduct - even if they have killed someone. Some abolitionists don't go that far. They say that life should be preserved unless there is a very good reason not to, and that the those who are in favour of capital punishment are the ones who have to justify their position.


Capital punishment brutalises society

Brutalising individuals
Statistics show that the death penalty leads to a brutalisation of society and an increase in murder rate. In the USA, more murders take place in states where capital punishment is allowed. In 2003, the murder rate in states where the death penalty has been abolished was 4.10 per cent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was 5.91 per cent. These calculations are based on figures from the FBI. The gap between death penalty states and non-death penalty states has risen considerably from 4 per cent difference in 1990 to 44 per cent in 2003. Disturbed individuals may be angered and thus more likely to commit murder. It is also linked to increased number of police officers murdered.

Brutalising the state
Capital punishment may brutalise society in a different and even more fundamental way, one that has implications for the state's relationship with all citizens....the state's power deliberately to destroy innocuous (though guilty) life is a manifestation of the hidden wish that the state be allowed to do anything it pleases with life.George Kateb, The Inner Ocean 1992


Brutalising the law
Capital punishment is said to produce an unacceptable link between the law and violence. But in many ways the law is inevitably linked with violence - it punishes violent crimes, and it uses punishments that 'violently' restrict human freedoms. And philosophically the law is always involved with violence in that its function includes preserving an ordered society from violent events. Nonetheless a strong case can be made that legal violence is clearly different from criminal violence, and that when it is used it is used in a way that everyone can see is fair and logical.


Capital punishment 'lowers the tone' of society？
Capital punishment is cruel, inhumane, or degrading？

Lethal injection？

Capital punishment is too expensive？

Capital punishment is used on people not responsible for their acts？

Capital punishment is applied unfairly？

Capital punishment and free will？



Notes: resources from bbc news about ethics

SORRY I AM SO LATE!(BECAUSE SOME PROBLEMS)