Why the Death Penalty is Infallibly Superfluous
Many philosophers endorse the death penalty since it “serves as justice” when a serious crime is committed. Many retributivist and consequentialist believe that wrongdoers should be subjected to the death penalty if they commit crimes of the highest degree such as murder, terrorism, etc. Many Philosophers also believe that the death penalty can deter and prevent However, this belief is deeply flawed, as the death penalty fails not only philosophically, but also statistically. The death penalty is not only unnecessary, but also immoral being that it de-humanizes people with an extreme degree, does not generate enough intrinsic value to succeed that of life imprisonment, and does not deter, or prevent horrendous crimes.
The death penalty fails philosophically in the sense that it breaks the paramount human right; the right to live. One could argue that murderers deserve the death penalty seeing that they rob other people of their right to live, however, this contention places this argument in Lex Talionis territory which creates a slippery slope since the belief of lex talionis can endorse immoral activities. For instance, the government torturing or raping someone on the account of the convict torturing or raping someone. In support of this claim, philosopher Stephen Nathanson stated: Kant’s view recommends punishments that not acceptable. Applied strictly, it would require that we rape rapists, torture torturers, and burn arsonists whose acts have led to deaths. In general, where a particular crime involves barbaric and inhuman treatment, Kant’s principle tells us to act barbarically and inhumanly in return. (Nathanson, 539) One could construct the case that several crimes that are committed would not be buttressed by society if the government was to do the same to the criminal. In addition, the belief of lex talionis is also flawed, so, to use one flawed belief to reinforce another flawed belief is nonsensical. Consequentialists who consider deterrence, incapacitation, and prevention when discussing the death penalty tend to believe that it is justifiable for governments to possess this horrific rule. Yet, the masses fail to realize that the death penalty does not produce as much intrinsic value as the harm done. At the same time, it is arguable that life in prison could suit as the better option for deterrence, incapacitation, and prevention. First, the death penalty does not deter people from committing crimes in the sense that, if someone already contemplates carrying out of a high degree crime, that person does not mind the consequences, hence, why murders still happen in states where capital punishment is legal. In support of this, Jefferey H. Reiman explained: From the fact that one penalty is more feared than the other another, it does not follow that the more feared penalty will deter more than the less feared, unless we know that the less feared penalty is not fearful enough to deter everyone who can be deterred – and this is just what we don’t know with regard to the death penalty. (Reiman, 549 – 550) For these reasons, life in prison, due to murder and crimes alike, is the best option given that it preserves the human, and gives a punishment equally as awful to the culpable person. …show more content…
Second, incapacitation is a quite niggardly argument to promote support of the death penalty considering that life in prison also incapacitates the criminal, and still manages to preserve the life of the human. Third, prevention is also a weak argument in support of capital punishment, seeing that a person who has enough reasoning capacity to determine that death as a punishment is unwanted, could also determine that life imprisonment as a punishment is also unwanted. For instance, professor Zaibert of Union College states that “if speeding was punishable by death, no one would break the speed limit” (Zaibert, Union College) This same example can be used for life imprisonment. If speeding was punishable by life imprisonment, no one would break the speed limit. In addition, various philosophers believe that the death penalty has an incitement effect, which completely refutes the claim of support for prevention. The death penalty abolishes the value of humans and treats humans as mere objects. Capital punishment breaks deontological philosophy by regarding
Many philosophers endorse the death penalty since it “serves as justice” when a serious crime is committed. Many retributivist and consequentialist believe that wrongdoers should be subjected to the death penalty if they commit crimes of the highest degree such as murder, terrorism, etc. Many Philosophers also believe that the death penalty can deter and prevent However, this belief is deeply flawed, as the death penalty fails not only philosophically, but also statistically. The death penalty is not only unnecessary, but also immoral being that it de-humanizes people with an extreme degree, does not generate enough intrinsic value to succeed that of life imprisonment, and does not deter, or prevent horrendous crimes.
The death penalty fails philosophically in the sense that it breaks the paramount human right; the right to live. One could argue that murderers deserve the death penalty seeing that they rob other people of their right to live, however, this contention places this argument in Lex Talionis territory which creates a slippery slope since the belief of lex talionis can endorse immoral activities. For instance, the government torturing or raping someone on the account of the convict torturing or raping someone. In support of this claim, philosopher Stephen Nathanson stated: Kant’s view recommends punishments that not acceptable. Applied strictly, it would require that we rape rapists, torture torturers, and burn arsonists whose acts have led to deaths. In general, where a particular crime involves barbaric and inhuman treatment, Kant’s principle tells us to act barbarically and inhumanly in return. (Nathanson, 539) One could construct the case that several crimes that are committed would not be buttressed by society if the government was to do the same to the criminal. In addition, the belief of lex talionis is also flawed, so, to use one flawed belief to reinforce another flawed belief is nonsensical. Consequentialists who consider deterrence, incapacitation, and prevention when discussing the death penalty tend to believe that it is justifiable for governments to possess this horrific rule. Yet, the masses fail to realize that the death penalty does not produce as much intrinsic value as the harm done. At the same time, it is arguable that life in prison could suit as the better option for deterrence, incapacitation, and prevention. First, the death penalty does not deter people from committing crimes in the sense that, if someone already contemplates carrying out of a high degree crime, that person does not mind the consequences, hence, why murders still happen in states where capital punishment is legal. In support of this, Jefferey H. Reiman explained: From the fact that one penalty is more feared than the other another, it does not follow that the more feared penalty will deter more than the less feared, unless we know that the less feared penalty is not fearful enough to deter everyone who can be deterred – and this is just what we don’t know with regard to the death penalty. (Reiman, 549 – 550) For these reasons, life in prison, due to murder and crimes alike, is the best option given that it preserves the human, and gives a punishment equally as awful to the culpable person. …show more content…
Second, incapacitation is a quite niggardly argument to promote support of the death penalty considering that life in prison also incapacitates the criminal, and still manages to preserve the life of the human. Third, prevention is also a weak argument in support of capital punishment, seeing that a person who has enough reasoning capacity to determine that death as a punishment is unwanted, could also determine that life imprisonment as a punishment is also unwanted. For instance, professor Zaibert of Union College states that “if speeding was punishable by death, no one would break the speed limit” (Zaibert, Union College) This same example can be used for life imprisonment. If speeding was punishable by life imprisonment, no one would break the speed limit. In addition, various philosophers believe that the death penalty has an incitement effect, which completely refutes the claim of support for prevention. The death penalty abolishes the value of humans and treats humans as mere objects. Capital punishment breaks deontological philosophy by regarding