Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment

There are many controversial debates that have occurred throughout our history, and have been at the core of moral, ethical and legal discussions. One issue that is currently being debated is that of capital punishment, because each side exposes various arguments for and against it that then faces counterarguments. This leaves society with an endless struggle to reach what seems to be a just conclusion. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offenses (wikipedia.com). The word Capital is derived from the Latin word capitalis, which means "of the head" (answers.com). This word was used to form the word capital punishment, because throughout history the most frequent form of punishment was beheading a person for committing a serious crime

(answers.com). Eventually, alternative forms of punishment were introduced replacing the beheading, or hanging a person who has committed a capital offense, such as a pre-meditated murder, espionage, treason, or as a mean for military justice.

A supporter of capital punishment usually uses both the utilitarian and retributive argument to back their beliefs. From the utilitarian perspective, punishment is justified only if it creates a greater balance of happiness vs. unhappiness (utm.edu). In other words, they feel that capital punishment is justified if and only if it prevents a criminal from repeating the crime, or deters and or discourage a potential offender. They feel that one and or both can be used as valid reasons to apply capital punishment. In addition, they feel that punishment is needed to protect our society. The retributive argument states that a criminal deserves punishment and that the punishment should be equal to the harm done (utm.edu). To determine what should count as punishment or equal harm, many believe or support the belief through lex telionis which means "an eye for an eye" (White).

A famous defender of capital punishment is Van Haag, who argues from a utilitarian point of view. He feels that it's not necessarily the proof that one should deal with, but the fact that it deters crime. They also believe that execution of 100 guilty outweighs the possibility of a few innocent (White).

Personally, I disagree with the death penalty. Both the utilitarian and retributive arguments are not enough to justify taking a person's life. The utilitarian view lacks proof that they could not deter others with a less severe form of punishment, such as life imprisonment (utm.edu). Another problem with the utilitarian defense is that they make a claim in regards to the social benefit of capital punishment, but they would need very reliable evidence to use in order to back up their opinions that deterrence actually works when the death penalty is enforced. I think they would have a difficult time since "Expert after expert and study after study have emphasized and emphasized the lack of correlation between the threat of the death penalty and the occurrence of violent crimes (Meador, 69). Furthermore, I don't believe that the lex talionis can consistently be applied towards certain harms that have been committed. For example, if a construction worker is working on your home and accidentally drops a piece of equipment which kills your son, then would that justify him killing your son enforcing an eye for an eye. This is not practical, and proves that people for the death penalty feel that the life of the victim should be given more consideration then the life of the offender. In other words a value is placed on each person's life and in this case the value of the victim's life supersedes the value of the convicted.

I morally