Capital punishment: policy and ethics

Death Penalty

Capital punishment has not always been controversial - the killing of criminals by the state is a practice that has existed in many forms and for many purposes throughout human history. Every society and political system has, at one time, used capital punishment as a preventive, as justice, and as a political tool. It has been used by religious states to purge non-believers, it has been used by totalitarian regimes to purge dissidents, and it has been used by dictatorships to commit genocide. State-sponsored killing against it's own citizens is capital punishment. but, so is exacting justice against the person who has raped and murdered a child. In the modern form, capital punishment has strong proponents and equally strong opponents - entire societies have eschewed this practice while others practice it indiscriminately. Philosophically, it stands on no clear ground - the argument, however, has very solid bases for the taking of sides. The utilitarian justification for capital punishment comes down to the same basis of all utilitarian arguments - that if it benefits the community by both punishing a crime and preventing future incidences through the example set. We can also see capital punishment as analogous to a state-level self-defense. The retributive argument also supports capital punishment because, simply, those who commit crimes deserve to be punished. The problem, however, for all philosophical bases for supporting capital punishment is the issue of context - does the person who kills always deserve to be killed? Are there times in which the state is not justified in killing but does so anyway? We have to understand that a state cannot take capital punishment lightly, that, like nuclear weapons, it must be used sparingly and, hopefully not at all. but, as a deterrent and a message it has no peer and, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the state to use.

The Death Penalty, as it is commonly known in the United States, is sanctioned by both the Federal and the majority of state governments. The laws that allow for capital punishment, however, enjoy their tenure only at the behest of the citizens of the individual states. Where communities have determined that capital punishment is not in their interests, the Death Penalty has either been removed from their "books" or is simply not used.

But popular support through voting, thus making capital punishment a democratic choice, is perhaps not the best justification for state-sanctioned murder; majority rule has a rough history in terms of justice, equality, and foresight.

The truth is that enough regimes and governments have misused and misapplied capital punishment to such an extent as to make it distasteful ("Hangman's Knot," 5). Indeed, the greatest argument against capital punishment is in relation to the crimes to which it is applied. If the penalty is not used in relation to a specific crime that morally justifies the ending of the perpetrator's life, then it cannot itself be justified. Rape, kidnapping, assault, espionage / treason, and murder have all been listed as crimes that can receive the Death Penalty. We have to ask if the criminal has taken from the victim, the victim's family and the community so much that the only just punishment is death.

The utilitarian argument looks at this position and says that when a person has taken a life, the potential for life, or the spirit of a person or community, that cannot be reversed. Our society does not truly condone or express interest in the Old Testament eye for an eye type of justice - we do not support the removal of limbs or torture, we do not force the criminal to forfeit their property (other than money) as direct restitution (criminal law does not generally include a commitment to the victim other than jail time - money is doled out in civil court), nor do we support the killing of the perpetrator's family in the case of murder. Rather, our support for capital punishment comes from something less direct and more limited in scope - the idea that there is a point at which a criminal act goes too far, crosses a line that there is no returning from. Some crimes, to a particular society, are so heinous, so unforgivable, that allowing the perpetrator to live, even in jail, is an affront to the victim(s) and to society (Cohen, 19). Our communal outrage will not let us suffer the criminal to live. When that point is reached, the death penalty is the only response we can give.

No one is foolish enough to believe that killing a killer will bring back the victims of murder. But the need for revenge, the need for justice, is exceptionally strong. In other times, in other countries, personal revenge would have taken the form of what we would now refer to as vigilantism. Without knowing that the death penalty is there, that it can be applied to the killer of your children, how would you act? The truth is that we can't adequately answer that question. For many, though, the answer would be direct and equal retribution - kill the killer. but, that would simply make the victim the victimizer, that person would then be responsible for the taking of a life. No, it is better, then, for the state to take that burden away from the victim and the victim's family and community (Coope, 21). The Death Penalty allows for the punishment of particular crimes to be handled on an impersonal nature - institutionalizing death, in the very limited number of cases in which it is used - creates a context that takes the decision to take revenge, to become a murderer yourself away from you and relieves you of it.