Argument Essay – Death Penalty

Posted: December 22nd, 2022

Student’s Name:

Tutor’s Name:

Course Title:

Date:

Argument Essay – Death Penalty

Fact Claim

Death penalty, also referred to as capital punishment, happens when the state or the government kills (executes) an offender, often, but not in all instances, because they have engaged in serious crimes. An offense that is punishable by death penalty is known as a capital offense or capital crime. Nearly one third of the nations in the globe have laws that permit the death penalty. The PRC (People’s Republic of China), the U.S., Iran and Japan permit the capital punishment, whereas Council of Europe countries, Australia, Mexico, and Canada are some of the nations that do not allow it (Gupta 667). Most of the countries that have a death penalty use it on murder convicts, and for other severe crimes such as terrorism, treason, and rape. Some states with authoritarian leadership, however, also execute convicts for smaller offenses like smuggling drugs and theft. While America executed 44 people in 2012, China topped the list in the same year with more than 4120 killings, followed by Iran (329), Iraq (148), and Saudi Arabia (81) (Gupta 667). Executions in most nations have become scarcer in recent centuries because of the controversies and disputes surrounding the matter. Some people think capital punishment is appropriate in deterring adverse behaviors while others believe that form of punishment should be eradicated. Even though some states still adhere to legislations that permit the death penalty, it is vital to work towards doing away with executing criminals because the act is inhumane and contradicts the right to life.

Supporting Factors for the Fact Claim – Death Penalty Violates Ethical Values

First, it is necessary to hasten the process of forbidding the death penalty because the act contravenes ethical standards which guide how people should relate to each other. Focusing on the theoretical concepts by various scholars would provide much insight as to why it is important to ban state execution of culprits. Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, for example, may provide tangible awareness as to whether death penalty should take effect or be abolished. Utilitarianism, which continues to guide people’s ethical conduct since its development in the latter parts of the 19^th century, implies that behavior is only acceptable when it gives good or positive results that most people in a community or society regard as right (Zyl 136). Utility, according to Bentham, is an object or feature that results in goodness, satisfaction and happiness, and one that strives to prevent trouble, pain or misery to the people impacted by the matter in question (Zyl 136). Whereas Bentham’s utilitarianism could insinuate that executing murderers, for instance, would beef up safety, the theory could also mean that killing the suspect would cause sadness and gloom to the victim’s relatives who might perceive the punishment as unfair or too cruel, especially in situations where the case lacks concrete proof. Furthermore, using utilitarianism to evaluate the situation could also show how the emerging debates surrounding death penalty depict dissatisfaction from the majority on how the form of punishment works.

Virtue ethics may also help to understand why it is necessary to rub off the death penalty. It urges people to act in the same manner a virtuous person would. The behavior and actions of virtuous people are developed over some time, and usually originate from so much nurturing. Utilitarianism looks into the results of an action to rule whether it is right or wrong, as opposed to virtue ethics that considers the moral of the person doing the act (Zyl 138). Virtue ethics is essential because people normally focus on evaluating the moral nature of others while placing little emphasis on theirs. It is because of this perception why the state executors cannot see any inappropriateness in their taking away the lives of those found guilty of capital offenses. The theory of virtue ethics creates the impression that it is essential to create a society that moulds its people to be good, rather than to use strict legislations to deter crime as it happens with the death penalty. Depending on the provisions of virtue ethics, one might argue that passing the death penalty to a criminal shows high level of lack of virtuousness. Supporters of virtue ethics perceive the jury offering a death sentence as not only lacking morality, but also sense of humanity, which in normal and acceptable situations should contradict any proposals or attempts to take away the life of others. 

Death Penalty Employs Inhumane Forms of Execution

Secondly, the U.S. and other nations permitting the death penalty should work towards eradicating this form of punishment because executing offenders is inhumane and depicts high level of ruthlessness. An offender is, in some instances, put to sit on an electric chair that emanates strong electric forces from cables attached to the legs and head. That way, they undergo serious pain before succumbing to the electrocution (Warden 335). Using firing squads is an approach used mostly to execute war criminals. Sometimes, some officers use false bullets to cause confusion while the real bullets emanate. Usually, spies and traitors are killed using firing squads. The approach puts so much stress on the suspect, especially when they are on transit to the place of killing (Warden 335). Hanging was a rampant method used in the past, and it involves tying a rope around the violator’s neck, then letting it drop from an elevated height. Hanging was usually very traumatizing even to the viewers themselves, which elaborates why it is necessary to do away with such forms of killing (Warden 335). The person being hanged could die from asphyxiation (choking), a fracture in the neck or, if the drop was long enough and the offender quite heavy, their head could be torn apart. Capital punishment is wrong and should be abolished because using strangulation, either by garrote or hand to kill convicts, shows how human beings, who ought to be each other’s caregivers, can turn against each other and act in the most inhumane manner (Warden 335). The same happens with forms of execution such as stoning where a person is beaten with stones until they die, and decapitation where the victim’s head is chopped off with a sharp blade such as a guillotine, machete, or axe (Warden 335). Unfortunately, using such crude approaches to kill capital offenders may not have significant impact on the victim, but instead only harms those who commit the killing because of the scary ordeals they have to go through. It even becomes more problematic and stressful when a person has to take away the lives of others on a regular basis using such heartless ways. Unless the U.S. and other nations do away with death penalty, the approaches used to kill criminals will not harm the criminals themselves but rather those who remain behind them as executors and relatives.

Death Penalty Violates Human Right to Life

Article 2 of the Human Rights Act is clear on how it tries to protect the life of every citizen. The provisions of Article 2 imply that nobody, including the government, has the right to end a person’s life. The Act requires the state to take appropriate measures towards protecting all individuals. Public authorities should take suitable measures when making decisions that could put one in danger or that could impact one’s life expectancy. Article 2 gives citizens the right for investigation when a member of their family loses their life in situations involving the state (Kronenwetter 41). Furthermore, the state has the obligation to look into suspicious deaths even if they happen to people in custody, and give a comprehensive report as to what led to their death. Indeed, the provisions of Article 2 are referred to as absolute, meaning that the state can never interfere or alter them. Groups opposing capital punishment purport that the practice is an infringement of people’s right to life. They feel that the act is the worst breach of human rights, because this particular right is fundamental, and such inhumane forms of rectifying behavior violate it without essence, and inflict to the victim a mental torment (Kronenwetter 41). So far, several international organizations emerged to oppose the evident violation of the law, including Amnesty International, which perceives death penalty as a denial of the most important human right, and the UN General Assembly that continues to adopt resolutions advocating for a worldwide abolition of the death penalty.

Sometimes, however, the law deems it lawful when public authorities, such as the army and the police, use so much force to calm unrest or restore sanity. The police, for example, is sometimes compelled to take away lives to stop people from carrying out illegal violence that could disturb peace across the neighborhood (Sethuraju et.al.). Security officers could also take away lives when making lawful arrests of wanted suspects, and when stopping the escape of lawfully detained people. The law, however, fails to implicate officers who kill individuals when calming an uprising or riot. Of course, even in these situations, the force applied must be necessary and appropriate.

Counterargument

Proponents of the death penalty usually give some reasons to support their taking away of other people’s lives in case they commit serious crimes. The main argument that the supporters of the capital punishment give to back up their view is that it helps to deter future adverse behaviors because other people contemplating doing such crimes learn from the convictions (Sethuraju et.al.). Many states also employ the death penalty while viewing it as the appropriate form of punishment for those who commit serious crimes such as murder. Proponents of the approach argue it is the most suitable justice for victims of those crimes.

Rebuttal

Even though the supporters of the death penalty argue that enforcing it is going to help deter further crime, that is not usually the case, because no credible proof exists to affirm that this form of punishment actually prevents further incidences. Kronenwetter (59) writes that the states that enforce death penalty have not recorded lower rates of crime or incidences of murder than those that lack such legislations, nor have states that forbid capital punishment showed any significant changes. Kronenwetter (63) argues that the death penalty lacks deterrent effect, and the claims that each killing deters a number of criminals have vehemently been disapproved by social science studies. People in many instances carry out murders out of passion, due to mental problems, or under the influence of drugs and alcohol, leaving little or no thought to the probable effects of their behavior. The individuals who proceed to kill others after much planning and meditation, such as professional killers, for instance, take much care to avoid falling into the wrong arms of the law, while others even accept that they may get caught in the act, and are always willing to proceed with their mission despite the risk. Death penalty may be regarded as falsely convincing the public that the state has embraced appropriate measures to deal with homicide and other major crimes. Governments should understand the ineffectiveness related with the death penalty and enforce measures that would eradicate the practice.

Further Enlightenment

Now that death penalty is a pressing issue, and remains contentious among many stakeholders, it is vital to adopt some measures that would strive to eradicate the immoral act. Legislators should take a bold step to review the current policies in areas that still permit state executions, lest many people continue to lose their lives in this manner (Sethuraju et.al.). While developing the structures that would guide punishment of capital offenders, the policymakers need to take into account several guiding factors, including the ethical theories that are increasingly becoming influential. The legislation could come up with alternative ways of punishing such criminals without really having to subject them to death, a traumatizing and inhumane practice that takes away a person’s fundamental right, which is the right to live. States that still permit the practice should acquire some lessons from jurisdictions that already forbid the act and work towards developing a country that values life, and gives people a chance to reclaim their behavior.

Conclusion

The report holds that the death penalty is wrong and should be banned because it violates ethical standards, employs inhumane ways of taking away the lives of people, and violates the constitution. Evaluating death penalty from a utilitarian perspective, it becomes apparent that the practice would not yield the outcomes many would appreciate or regard as positive and good. Despite having virtue ethics in mind, judges passing the death penalty do not act in a virtuous way. They are not accustomed to evaluating their own moral nature which is precisely why they see nothing wrong in executing someone. The death penalty, however, is wrong, because it applies very crude approaches to kill victims and affect their psychological wellbeing before the event occurs. It contravenes Article 2 of the Human Rights of the Constitution as well. While the supporters of the death penalty argue that the practice encourages deterrence its opponents feel people would still engage in grievous crimes from other compulsions despite the existence of the law. The best way to hasten abolition is for different states to come together and share a common policy on how to enforce alternative ways of punishing violators. 

Works Cited

Gupta, Mc. “What are the Pros and Cons of Death Penalty? Which Method of Execution is Best?” Indian Journal of Clinical Practice, vol. 23, no. 10, 2013, pp. 666-669. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a75c/bf6a8c36a2e010fa173fa2e12492421ddccb.pdf

Kronenwetter, Michael. Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO, 2001.

Sethuraju, Raj, Jason Sole and Brian E. Oliver. “Understanding Death Penalty Support and Opposition among Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Students.” Sage Open, 2016.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015624952

Van Zyl, Liezl. “Virtue Theory and Applied Ethics.” South African Journal of Philosophy, vol. 21, no. 2, 2005, pp. 133-143. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272455448_Virtue_Theory_and_Applied_Ethics

Warden, Rob. “Reflections on Capital Punishment.” Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, vol. 4, no. 2, 2009, pp. 329-359. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=njlsp