The Use of the Death Penalty

Capital Punishment

An Ethical Analysis & Position Statement

Against the Practice of Capital Punishment

Talia Villella

Ethics Final

An Historical Overview

Issues and Relevant Facts

Application of Ethical Theories

Support for Capital Punishment

Arguments Against Capital Punishment

An Historical Overview

The practice of capital punishment is often known by other names such as the death penalty or an execution, but the basic concept is that someone convicted of a crime that is worthy of their life (capital crime) is put to death after their conviction by some form an authority figure taking the life of the convicted. There are many different methods that have been employed to take a convicted person's life and history and it is striking to read about the creativity in which brutal forms of executions have been designed over the millennia. Even the Old Testament is riddled with a plethora of different crimes that are considered worthy of capital punishment and there are millions of people around the world who undoubtedly believe that the practice of capital punishment is somehow divinely inspired and acceptable (if not required). Furthermore, followers of the Christian religion believe that Jesus Christ himself was subjected to the death penalty. Throughout the entire duration of human history, people have been put to death in many different ways such as being burned at the stake, beheaded, impaled, drawn and quarter, shot, given a lethal injection, etc., etc. But these could actually be conceived of as relatively boring compared to some of the practices that arguably twisted minds created in antiquity.

For example, one practice in China was to place a pottery bowl filled with rats upside down on a convicted persons bare chest, heating the top of the pottery with red-hot charcoal with would heat the air inside and panic the rats, and then rats would claw their way out the only way in which they could; in Ancient Athens they would use a large hollow bull that was entirely made of bronze in which they would place the convicted, then build a fire under the bull until the person burned to death, and then their bones were sold in the marketplace for souvenirs; or probably one of the cruelest methods of capital punishment ever practiced was to place and individual into a floating wooden tub (head and extremities protruding out) after feeding them large amounts of food that is known to cause diarrhea, set the tub afloat on a pond, and let them slowly rot while flies and insects attracted to the feces would begin to breed inside the tub, and then begin to breed inside the body of the individual until they died (some people would even continue feeding the person to extend the process) (Vargic).

Part II: Issues and Relevant Facts

As time has passed, humanity and civilizations have done away with many of the creative, albeit horrific, gory, gruesome, and violent practices that were used in capital punishment in virtually all the societies known to history. Furthermore, the present generation of practices used for the execution of capital crimes are comparatively mild relative to those used in the past. In fact, most of the more civilized countries in the world have done away with the practice of capital punishment conviction entirely and only a handful of the more violently predisposed countries still retain this form of punishment at all. The forms of capital punishments have slowly evolved to be less brutish over the years and the contemporary forms typically have the objective of being relatively humane in the process.

The countries that have resisted banning capital punishment in their justice system include countries such as the U.S., Sudan, China, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan who all still execute prisoners regularly to a greater or lesser extent. Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia have led the world recently respectively with the United States retaining the next position. Within the United States itself there is also mixed usage of the practice and many individual states have also banned the death penalty through some form of legislative measure. Some states have done so because of ethical or moral reasons, while other justifications are more pragmatic.

For example, the death penalty can actually be more expensive compared to a life in prison sentence due to the legal fees involved. Some have argued that many people are wrongly convicted for a variety of reasons and point to a number of exonerations that have emerged in the legal system in recent years as evidence. Many people who were convicted of crimes before the science developed DNA testing procedures, have later been freed because they have been able to use modern tests on the original evidence to verify a wrongful conviction. Still other states have had some difficulty in actually carrying out capital punishment in practice because Europe has banned the sale of the drugs that are used in lethal injections for moral reasons and they are one of the world's only producers (Preston).

Yet, despite the capital punishment defectors, many states continue to regularly sentence people convicted of serious crimes to death. For example, the state of Texas has become the leading advocate and practitioner of the death penalty in regards to it being a legitimate form of punishment. Between 1976 (when the Supreme Court lifted its prohibition on the death penalty) and 1998 Texas executed 167 people in total; many legal and cultural arguments have been presented as to why Texans execute far more people than any other state and is doing so at a pace that has no parallel in the modern era of the death penalty in the U.S. (Walpin). Texas commonly sites evidence that capital punishment works as a deterrent to prevent individuals from committing future crimes. However, this legitimacy of this evidence is often challenged and there are many other sources who argue that there is no measurable deterrent effects that are produced from the administration of the death penalty.

Part III: Application of Ethical Theories

One of the more common ethical frameworks in which public policies and elements of different legal systems have been designed is the principle of utilitarianism. This principle argues that the most ethical actions are the ones that either do the most benefit for the entire population and eliminate the most harm. This can be contrasted to the view that an individual should seek their own self-interest as an ethical course of action which is referred to as ethical egoism. However, it is difficult to apply either of these principles to the practice of capital punishment because there is a wide range of different opinions regarding the benefits and harms (either collectively or individually) that are attributed to this type of sentencing. Without being able to attribute some value to an outcome with some level of certainty, arguments based on the value or costs can be difficult to substantiate.

For example, there is disagreement about the expenses that are related to a state carrying out a capital punishment sentencing as opposed to housing a person in jail for the rest of their lives. Some sources indicate that capital punishment saves the public money while other sources have argued that it is actually more expensive. Other sources of disagreement about the evidence include the deterrent effects. Again, some sources say that capital punishment works as a deterrent for crime while others actually say it has the opposite effects; i.e. some argue that capital punishment is essentially a violent act that further promotes other forms of violence in society.

Other ethical frameworks take different tracks for argumentation regarding capital punishment. For example, the deontological perspective can be used to justify this form of punishment as a necessary form of retribution of any intended or purposeful actions that harm others. Immanuel Kant himself argued for the ethical use of capital punishment because it is the appropriate response to guilt and that the guilty must be punished so that justice and equality, the proper foundations of law, can exist (Binghamton University). This theory focuses more on the individual's intentions for committing a capital crime than necessarily the outcome, although the outcome would be the criteria for which capital punishment was selected as opposed to another form of punishment.

Part IV: Support for Capital Punishment

Since the state of Texas has become the leading advocate for the death penalty and executes far more people than any other state it seems reasonable to use their justifications for the defense of capital punishment. The death penalty was instituted into the Texas justice system in 1835 and has been an adamant practitioner of this form of punishment and the motto "Don't Mess with Texas" embodies an attitude in which Texas seems to maintain in many aspects of its culture. The most common argument given by those that defend capital punishment in this state is the deterrent factor. Although there are several other arguments that are used as well, the deterrent argument basically states that the enforcement of capital punishment will provide an incentive for individuals to not to commit some heinous because they might fear for their own life. Furthermore, some of the research that has been conducted seems to support this position.

For example, economists began to study the capital punishment in 70's using the regression model to analyze U.S. aggregate data for 1933-69 and state-level data for 1940 and 1950 and found significant deterrent effect (Dezhadbksh, Rubin and Shepherd). Another study, conducted at the University of Colorado at Denver in 2003, looked at not only the impact of the capital punishment by using commutations and their removals from the death row on the homicide rate during periods of moratoriums and the ensuing time periods afterwards (Mocain and Gittings). This study concluded that that there were in fact a significant deterrent effect of the death penalty on the execution, removal, and commutation rates on the rate of homicide; it was estimated based on the results that roughly each additional execution decreases will subsequently decrease the total number of homicides by roughly five.

Part V: Arguments Against Capital Punishment

Although there have been some peer-reviewed studies that seem to suggest that capital punishment has deterrent benefits, it is not only the results of these studies that have been challenged, but more specifically the statistical methods that were used to compute the findings. The statistical models that have been used are complex and have to make some major assumptions about human behaviors. One recent study presented a persuasive argument that the underlying behavioral model that was used to build panel data regressions in previous studies were limited and discusses the current norms regarding the "best practices" that have recently emerged in the use of panel data and other methodological problems (Chalfin, Haviland and Raphael).