Capital Punishmennt Essay

Merriam-Webster online dictionary (2011) defines corking penalization as penalty by expiration for a offense. thither are many another(prenominal) factors that go into the process of working capital letter penalisation and it essential start with a crime followed by an arrest, trial, conviction, appeals process and ultimately the feat of the individual(a). Through the many stages of the process there numerous individuals who are affected, including the crook and their family, the victim and their family, jury, judge, witnesses and administrators or physicians who perform the effectuation. In this authorship I give picture at the estimable rise up to the fores of capital penalisation development the pursual ethical theories utileism, Kantian ethics, and the objurgates and nicety possible action. In for each one of these theories I go out examine how advocates and opp mavinnts to capital penalty can use the theories to validate their put down on capital punishment. I will conclude my account with my maculation on capital punishment apply one of the theories I listed above. gibe to Boat business (2012) the article of faith of utilitarianism is the basic premise of entertainment each propose pain. Utilitarianism considers the impact an solution and outcome will founder on everyone and they use the fifty-percent possible action as the tipping point in decision making. If the pleasure of an event has more(prenominal) do good than the pain then a decision can be made. Utilitarianism yet considers the bene hold outs and consequences when taking into account whether the cobblers last penalty is ethical and disregards the natural castigates or self-worth of a someone when deciding if the remnant penalty is ethical (Bedau, 1980). The pleasure over pain principle in capital punishment must consider the impact it will have on everyone involved and concord to Boatright (2012), Utilitarianism requires that we calculate utility non except for ourselves but for only person affected by an action.When deciding whether or not capital punishment is effective an individual must look at the benefits and consequences of everyone involved and acquire if capital punishment is ethical. I do not think back that one person can make this decision as it would require them to think on behalf of individuals or conclaves who they whitethorn have a conflicting amuse with. An example of this would be a sibling of a make victim deciding if the get throughender should receive the oddment penalty. Their feelings on the stretch forth would discord from the offenders family and create a conflict of interest when using the fifty-one percent theory.I will now examine the utilitarian principle of consequentialism and how it relates to the ethical thing of capital punishment. A consequentialist argument uses determent as a benefit of how the termination penalty can supercharge their stance (Douglas and Wilkinson, 20 08) and executing a liquidator would take to heart as a possible consequence for the cleaning of some other human world. This whitethorn distribute as a deterrent to future killings but that is not constantly the slipperiness. Out of 238 paroled offenders who committed murder, less than 1% went back to prison house for committing another murder (White paper on, 2012). This statistic shows that the shoemakers last penalty does not serve as a deterrent to future killings and thus the theory of capital punishment serving as a deterrent holds no merit.Examining the ethical issue of capital punishment must in like manner look at a price-benefit depth psychology that uses a monetary value rather than the classic utilitarianism principle of pleasure over pain (Boatright, 2012). fit in to Boatright (2012) an application of a live-benefit analysis needs to place a value on human purport. The issue with using a cost-benefit analysis of capital punishment is that not everyone ma y value human breeding the very(prenominal). A person who commits a murder may not value human life the same as someone who does not kill. The family of a victim may find that the life of the killer has no value to them and in contrast the family of a receiver may value the life of the offender as more semiprecious to them. The cost of capital punishment in like manner needs to be examined when using a cost-benefit analysis.The total cost per feat was $216 million more than life imprisonment (White paper on, 2012). In addition to the cost to execute an individual in a capital offense case there is the cost of trials, the process of appeals and attorney fees that need to be examined. In California the cost of a final stage penalty prosecution is up to twenty dollar bill multiplication more high-ticket(prenominal) than the cost of a life in prison without parole case (Williams, 2011). Also according to Williams (2012), the least high-ticket(prenominal) death penalty case cost $1.1 million more than the most expensive life without parole case. The cost of the death penalty is more expensive than a life in prison without parole decry and twenty offenders could be wedded a life in prison sentence for the amount that it takes to execute one offender (Williams, 2011).I have come to the conclusion that the utilitarianism principle does not justify capital punishment. The pleasure over pain principle requires us to consider the impact on everyone and it does not require us to ignore our interest but we must place our interest no higher and no lower than anyone else (Boatright 2012). When I looked at the cost-benefit analysis I could not justify the use of capital punishment due to the massive costs that a capital punishment case incurs as opposed to the cost of a life imprisonment case.I will now look at the ethical issues of capital punishment using Kantian morals. According to Boatright (2012) the first principle of Kant is universalizability which is to, act only on rules that you would be willing to have everyone follow. The second principle of Kant is keep for persons which indicates one should look on other people and ourselves as human beings (Boatright, 2012). Kant was in favor of capital punishment for the crime of murder and based his intellection of the death penalty on the theory of retributivism (Potter, 2002). When an individual commits the crime of killing another individual they violate Kants first principle and do not follow the rules that everyone is following namely the right to life which I will cover later in this paper.The killing of an individual likewise violates the second principle of respect for persons. According to Kania (1999), each of us mark not to kill others in exchange for the security that others will not kill us or those dear to us. Kant subscribes to the term isu taloinis which flirt withs the vilify doing is punished by a similar punishment and also weighs that the death penalty is the onl y right way to punish a receiver because the punishment should be the end goal (White paper on, 2012). Kantian Ethics also involves autonomy which means self and law (Boatright, 2012). Autonomy relates to Kants principle of respect for persons and a society living autonomously involves creating their own rules and playing freely.This principle is seen in the laws that society has developed to prevent the killing of an necessitous person. In the United States it is illegal to commit the act of murder which is contrasting from the killing of a person. The killing of a person may happen during self-defense when an individual fears that their life is in danger. According to Potter (2002) Kant says in a general statement that every murderers should be executed and death is the punishment that must be carried out on the unseasonabledoer. Violating the principle of universalizability, respect for persons and autonomy all justify the use of capital punishment in Kants view.The third e thical theory I will look at is Rights and Justice. I will first examine the rights theory and how it relates to the ethical issue of capital punishment. Rights are part of many of the ethical issues in society and the term rights can be used in many different ways (Boatright, 2012).According to Bedau (2012), a human being has the right to life simply by being born and it is a misdemeanor of rights to murder another person. The violation of the right to life does not mean that we are authorized to violate anothers right to life. The resolve and juries take another persons life in their turn over during a capital punishment case and by sentencing an offender to execution violates their right to life. Bedau (2012) states, Even if a person has committed murder and has therewith intentionally profaned anothers right to life, the culpable salve has his or her own right to life. The legal rights are in cast to protect us from having our right of life taken away, and if our right is violated we do not have the rights to take someone elses right to life.In contrast to the paragraph above John Locke argued that a persons right to life can be forfeited if a person violates the right of life of another person. Locke goes onto say that the execution of a murderer does not violate their right to life (Bedau, 2012). Based on this argument Locke would be an advocate of the death penalty. Since the offender forfeited their right to life they no longer have their own right of life. Locke except states that a person forfeits their right to life when they commit a immoral act that deserves death (Bedau, 2012).The ethical issue of capital punishment and the arbiter theory coincide using the relatiative justice theory. Justice involves the righting of wrongs and retributive justice involves the punishment of wrongdoers (Boatright, 2012). The justice revenge theory indicates that a criminal must and deserve to be punished and that the punishment must fit the crime (Bedau , 2012). The punishment of the crime may be different in each state or country as not all states and countries have the right to sentence an offender to the death penalty. The issue with the theory that the punishment must fit the crime is that each person may have a different viewpoint on how to punish the same crime. For the act of murder one could argue for the death penalty temporary hookup another person may argue that death penalty is unethical based on their ethics. This leads to some confusion in the retribution theory as each person may have their own psyche of proper punishment and retribution.According to Roberts-Cady (2010), A retributivist would argue for the death penalty based on the claim that death is what a murderer deserves. The retribution theory also values that a punishment should be barely the same as the crime committed which is known as the center of attention for an centre principle (Roberts-Cady, 2010). Using the eye for an eye principle, a murderer w ould be subject to the same act they committed and subject to death themselves. It does not involve a judge or jury sentencing them to the death penalty and I interpret it as an automatic sentence for the murderer. The eye for an eye principle supports that murderers ought to be put to death (Bedau, 2012). An advocate of the death penalty using the retribution theory would find that capital punishment is just in cases involving murder.The issue with the above reasoning is that it is sometimes not possible to apply the eye for an eye principle in every situation. It would not be possible to punish an individual or group of individuals who commit mass murder that has more victims than offenders. An example of this would be the execution of the hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center killing thousands of individuals. The number of victims of this act far-off outweighs the number of hijackers that were aboard the planes. According to Bedau (2012) the execution of a mass m urderer is morally inadequate as retribution cannot be served upon the offender given their inhumane and heinous acts. Another counter-argument for the eye for an eye principle is the eq to the crime is not always morally acceptable (Roberts-Cady, 2010). For example if a person were to be sexually assaulted, the retribution to the offender would entail being sexually assaulted in return.This would force the victim to decide if their offender should be subject to the same offense they endured and the victim may not be willing to make that decision and prefer to leave the punishment up to the justice system. The legal system in the United States takes this decision off of the victim and places it on a judge and jury. Although the victim will have to testify and recount the crime they would not deciding the fate of the offender. According to Robert-Cady (2010), For certain heinous crimes, either the punishment would be roughly homogeneous and immoral, or it would not be roughly equiv alent. The justice and rights theory seeks justice for those whose rights are violated but it is not applicable in all situations. If we are looking at capital punishment strictly from a rights perspective the right to life is violated when a person is slay but what right do we have to take someone elses right to life?Retribution and justice involve the righting of a wrong and uses the eye for an eye principle which is not always applicable to the crime committed. Using the rights and justice theory I came to the position that capital punishment is not ethical as I do not believe that I have the ethical grounds to take someone elses right to life. The retribution theory is not clear enough for as I believe life in prison without parole would be just as effective as the death penalty. In this paper I have examined how utilitarian, Kantian ethics, and the rights and justice theory apply to the issue of capital punishment. I presented both an advocate and opponent view to the death pe nalty and whether capital punishment is ethically just according to each theory. Prior to researching this topic I considered myself as an advocate of capital punishment as I felt it was the most effective way to serve as a deterrent to murder and also a just punishment.I also consider myself a subscriber to the utilitarianism theory and learn to look at the big picture of an issue and how it affects everyone. I also look at situations using the cost-benefit analysis which allows me to make an informed decision. afterward researching the ethical issue of capital punishment and applying the information to my beliefs I cognize that my stance on the death penalty conflicted with my utilitarianism view. In the utilitarianism section of the paper I came to the conclusion that capital punishment was not ethical. I also presented the cost-benefit analysis of capital punishment and the cost of an individual is much more expensive than sentencing a person to life in prison without parole. I have come to the conclusion that based on my utilitarianism view that capital punishment is not ethical.References(2012). White paper on ethical issues concerning capital punishment. Ferney-Voltaire, FranceWorld Medical Journal.Bedau, H. A. (1980). Capital punishment. Matters of life and death, 1033-66.Boatright, J. R. (2012). Ethics and the conduct of business. (7 ed.). pep pill Saddle River, NewJersey Pearson Education Inc.Capital Punishment. 2011. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved may 8, 2011, fromhttp//www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalpunishmentHouse, R. (2009). The death penalty and the Principle of Goodness. International Journal Of human beings Rights, 13(5), 680-688.Kania, R. E. (1999). The Ethics of the Death Penalty. Justice Professional, 12(2), 145. Potter, N. T. (2002). Kant and capital punishment today. The Journal of foster Inquiry, 36(2),267-282.RobertsCady, S. (2010). Against Retributive Justifications of the Death Penalty. Journal ofSocial Philosophy, 41(2), 185-193.Wilkinson, D. J., & Douglas, T. (2008). Consequentialism and the death penalty. The AmericanJournal of Bioethics, 8(10), 56-58.Williams, C. J. (2011, June 20). Death Penalty Cost California $184 Million a Year, Study Says. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http//articles.latimes.com