Capital Punishment: A Penalty by Death...
INTRODUCTION
Man
has come to find himself in existence. This was not out of his decision but he
has received it. He has also come to live with others in the society. The
implication to the foregoing is that man should co-habit with others in the
society. In his stay in the society, he has experienced the wonders of good,
the ubiquity of evil and other complexities of his existence. All this has
caused human being, especially philosophers, to ponder upon the nature human
person.
 |
| This is an argument of ages: Is capital punishment right or wrong? |
On
various accounts, human person has been defined as a rational being within
available alternatives, a being that is free, makes choice, and stands
responsible for his or her choice. In line with this, human person is conceived
of as a being with such indispensable ingredients as rationality, availability
of alternatives, choice, freewill, responsibility and moral responsibility,
morality, inalienability, and inviolability. These qualities ascribed to human
being qualify him/her as a moral agent. In a bid to define a moral agent, G.O
Ozumba writes that “a moral agent must be free and responsible, imbued with
certain maturity, rationality and sensitivity” (Ethics, 3). Resounding
intellectual witness to the position of G.O Ozumba above, Dr. Ekanola asserts
that many factors give relevance and meaning to morality viz; human
rationality, choice (that is the ability to make choice), scarce resources
(raising the question of who gets what, when and how?), and the fact of social
interaction.
The
idea of responsibility identifies actions as either good or bad, right or
wrong, praise-worthy or blame-worthy, worthy of reward or punishable. This
means that punishment (in whatever nature or name) is an intrinsic attribute of
human person and therefore, a social concept. This leads us to the crux of this
research – capital punishment.
In
this research therefore, the aim is to make critical analysis of the concept of
punishment with emphasis on capital punishment. This will guide us into
interrogating the ideas in various arguments (both in support and against) on
the phenomenon of capital punishment. The background of this research is an aim
to ascertain the reality of the subject matter – capital punishment - regarding
its nature and to seek a possible way of appropriating the result in
accomplishing the role of philosophy in terms of problem solving in the human
society.
CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT
Before
we go into our consideration of capital punishment, let us attempt our
commonsense with the following story-line;
On Halloween night 1989, a group of eight young men attacked
Kimberley Rae Harbor in the Dorchester section of Boston, according to
newspaper reports she was carried into a vacant field, gang raped, stabbed over
130 times with knives and broken bottles, beaten with a tree limb, kicked,
stomped on, and then left to die in a puddle of blood (Wellman, morals, 242).
In
certainty, if these men were to be brought to us for judgment, almost everybody
will affirm that the only commensurate punishment for their heinous crime will
be death. This is an idea of capital punishment.
Capital
punishment is variously called “the death penalty” or “execution”. It is the
killing of a person by judicial process for reasons of retribution or
deterrence. Its history dates back to ages. Different societies in
history have adopted the institution of capital punishment on instances of
crime. Such crimes for which death penalty is resorted to are known as “capital
crimes” or “capital offences”. Some of the offences that attract capital
punishment are murder, rape, drug trafficking and treason. Many nations are
currently agitating for the abolition of capital punishment while orders argued
for its retention in the penal codes.
Our
objective in this research centers on moral justification of capital
punishment. Is it ought or ought not to be supported? Can there be any
circumstance that grants capital punishment as ever right? Can it ever be
morally justifiable to punish any crime with death? These questions are such
that call up and awake the thinking of the moral agent. Nobody can answer them
in a hurry hence, they request critical reconsideration. We now turn to
arguments that bother on capital punishment.
ARGUMENTS
IN SUPPORT OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Many
arguments have been brought forward in an attempt to give justification to
capital punishment. We attempt to explore some of the arguments in what
follows.
(a) BIBLICAL INSTANCES
Most
supporters of the death penalty have severally pointed to their grounds as the
bible. They assert that passages of the bible abound that give substantiation
to it. One of the examples is “whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put
to death” (Exodus 21:12). The bible also gives similar injunction against such
crime like kidnapping. Writing in support to the argument above, Carl Wellman
in his book “”Morals and Ethics” posits that “…. Christians and Jews
claim that not only does God permit the death penalty but that in certain cases
such as murder, God requires the death penalty” (247).
(b) RETRIBUTION
Arguments
for capital punishment from the point of view of retribution are based on the
equation of the punishment to the crime. For the retributionists, to strike a
moral balance, the punishment must be proportional to the evil perpetuated by
the criminal. In this regard they maintain that only death can balance death.
In concurrence with this, Emmett Barcalow asserts;
…this
means that the punishment should fit the crime, that the evil inflicted upon
the condemned criminal should be in proportion to the degree of harm he has
done. Since the only penalties bad enough to equate the greatest crime is
death, and since justice requires that the criminal receive just retribution
for his past misdeeds, and since it is right to do what justice requires,
capital punishment is sometimes right (Moral, 247).
Furthermore,
similar grounds were posited by Immanuel Kant thus,
If…he
has committed murder he must die. Here, there is no substitute that will
satisfy justice. There is no similarity between life however wretched it may
be…. This fitting punishment to the crime… is shown by the fact that only by
this is a sentence of death pronounced on every criminal in proportion to his
inner wickedness (Doctrine, 142).
(c) SOCIAL PROTECTION AND PREVENTION
Arguments
have been proposed in support of capital punishment for purposes of social
protection or prevention of subsequent recurrence. The argument here is that if
one has ever done a thing in the first instance, there is every possibility of
repetition. For this class of argumentators, the only way that guarantees that
the criminal does not murder or rape again is death penalty. It is possible,
they argue, for the criminal in life sentence to kill the inmates or even
visitors. He can also escape to continue his act of murder or otherwise.
(d) DETERRENCE
Beyond
preventing the criminal from subsequent performance of crimes, the death
penalty deters other people from similar engagements. Human beings sometimes
fail to do evil or avoid it for fear of punishment. This implies that the more
severe the punishment is, the more it deters people from performing crimes that
attract them. Since all human beings are sincerely afraid of death, capital
punishment provides a more viable means of deterring people from committing
crimes.
ARGUMENTS
AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Issues of moral
importance always seem to generate arguments from both sides in a way that tend
to look balanced. They usually provoke moral intellectualization in such manner
of plausible presentation across positions and sides. If any moral issue does not
arouse or cause arguments in the form as highlighted above, then it does not
constitute any moral problem. Capital punishment is one of such issues that
ignite real arguments on both sides. Let us now consider arguments that do not
favor capital punishment.
(a) ARGUMENTS
FROM MORALITY
Most
moral philosophers have argued that even if it is granted that capital
punishment is an effective deterrence against crimes, it does not make it to
acquire the tincture of moral acceptability. For them, capital punishment
amounts to nothing short of murder. In this regard, they assert that capital
punishment is the violation of moral law since it holds that the killing of
human kind is wrong. This, according to them, derives from the inalienability
and inviolability of the human person. Therefore, since capital punishment
involves the killing of the human kind, then it is morally unjustifiable and
therefore wrong in all instances.
(b) MISCARRIAGE
OF JUSTICE
The
argument under miscarriage of justice is multifaceted. It runs in many spectra.
Firstly, there can be error in judgment based on mistake of evidence(s).
Secondly, there can be suppression of truth through intimidation and other
kinds of corruption. Thirdly, there might be incapacitation or other influences
that hinder justice. Fourthly, the economic condition or situation can allow
one to hire a solicitor that is ineffective. On the whole, since the totality
of the judicial system is based on technical knock-out, some solicitors are
more endowed in skill than others even when they are clearly defending the
wrong. All this can lead to the execution of an innocent person. Appealing to
discrimination as an influence that can lead to miscarriage of justice, Hugh D.
Barlow gives an account in the United
States
(c) IRREMEDIABILITY
AND MORAL TRAGEDY
This
argument derives from the foregoing. For this argument, capital punishment is
wrong because it cannot be remedied. This can be experienced in the case of
judicial error. If one who is innocent was wrongfully convicted and the truth
was to be discovered afterwards, there remains no act of remedy since the life
of the innocent must have been taken already. This is a moral tragedy. This,
they argue, is worse than setting a million convicts free. It would be better
to set millions of criminals free than wrongfully executing an innocent one.
Life imprisonment for this argument is preferable since it can give room for
remedy in such circumstance. Capital punishment for this reason is always
wrong.
(d) DETERRENCE
AND EFFECTIVENESS
For
moral thinkers who oppose capital punishment for purposes of deterrence,
capital punishment is a less deterrent measure against crimes than a high
degree of detection and conviction. The question here is why wouldn’t the
threat of death be a greater deterrent than the threat of long prison sentence?
Peter Greenwood in his article “The Violent Offenders in the Criminal
Justice System” proffered an answer to the question as he puts forward that
“If people believe that the probability of being apprehended, convicted, and
punished is low, crime rises; if people believe that the probability of being
apprehended, convicted, and punished is high, crime declines” (339-340).
According to this position, it might not matter so much regarding the severity
of the punishment than it is important with reference to people knowing that
there exists a high degree of their being detected, convicted, and punished.
This poses a challenge of efficiency to the security and judicial systems
respectively. When people know that they cannot escape punishment, the result
is a higher deterrence than capital punishment.
(e) ARGUMENT
AGAINST RETRIBUTION
Those
who oppose death penalty disagree that it is the more appropriate kind of
punishment for even the most depraved criminal. They argue that the view of
retribution flows from primitive passions and emotions. Such primitive passions
and emotions include fear, hatred, and strong desire for revenge. These
emotions, according to them, do not derive from reason or any kind of humane
feelings. They hold that such emotional push are natural in human beings
that they tend to be more justified in feeling outrage in proportion to the
degree of brutality and cruelty of the crime committed against them.
CRITIQUE
AND CONCLUSION
Human
beings have been characterized by the fundamental right to life and the feature
of inviolability. This is a fact that both sides in the ongoing argument on
capital punishment will not deny. This can be held as the heart of the subject
matter. Differences in conceptions, as have been made evident in the arguments,
derive from interpretations and understanding of the aforementioned
characteristics and features of the human person – right to life and the
inviolability of human person. All claims are made with reference to background
or inclination. But the fact remains that capital punishment is a real moral
problem.
The
arguments from both sides seem to balance. This calls for our reappraisal of
the positions so far. It has to be pointed out here that the Christian position
regarding capital punishment is not clear. While some passages from the bible
seem to support capital punishment, some tend to rebuff it as wrong. Jesus
clearly repudiated the Old Testament requirement of “life for life, eye for
eye” as follows;
You
have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I
say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But if anyone strikes your right cheek,
turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give
your cloak as well (Matthew 5: 38-40).
To
further this conception, the sixth commandment reads “Thou Shalt not
kill”. Those who argue from the bible in support of capital punishment
warn that meaning should be found in context. This injunction when
meaning should be found in context. This injunction when taken out of
context can be extended to mosquitoes and animals as well. For them
therefore in the context, it can be interpreted as “Thou Shalt not murder”,
since it is only unjustified killing that is prohibited by this commandment.
If we appeal to the
moral law based on the command theory, which will take us to the Bible
injunctions as we have seen above, several criticisms can come up. Firstly,
there is the challenge of the content of the moral law. Secondly, question of
the existence of the moral laws are possible.
Considering
deterrence, one might point out the effect of reforms over time. In the olden
days, execution was done publicity and more painful. But reforms have limited
all this that the degree of deterrence might be very minimal, even less than
life sentence.
Secondly,
questions are raised about evidences of the deterrent effect of the death
penalty as against other kinds of punishment. Scientific facts prove that they
are not as effective as we tend to believe them.
Though
these arguments can go on and on, it should be made clear that in as much as
personhood is either given or attained, it can also be lost in the process of
actions. If human person has the fundamental right to life and is inviolable,
any one who takes the life of other must by that act lose his or forfeit it. It
should even be viewed as more immoral for one who murdered to think of living.
In simple terms, anyone who murders should no longer be seen as a human kind.
The right to life should include one’s right to live and the right of others to
also live. Also the idea of inviolability should incorporate not being violated
and not violating. Then if one should violate the life of the other by his /her
act of murder, he/she prima facie violates his/her features of inviolability.
In
the last analysis, capital punishment has been exposed as posing strong moral
questions. This research holds that although it might be difficult to either
prove or disprove that capital punishment has acceptable moral justification,
it can be sustained by the principle of retribution and the idea of
universalizability of actions in the Kantian Parlance.
REFERENCES
Barcalow, E. Moral
Philosophy: Theory and Issues California
Barlow, H.D.
Introduction to Criminology. Glenview ,
II: Scott Foresman, 1990.
Ekanola, Ethnics and
Morality. Class Lecture on Ethnics in University of Ibadan
Holy
Bible: The New Revised Standard Version.
Kant, I. The
Doctrine of Right. In: Gregor, M. (Trans) The Metaphysics of Moral.
New York : Cambridge University
Ozumba, G. O. A
Course Text on Ethnics Lagos
Wellman, C. Morals
and Ethnics. New Jersey : Prentice Hall Englewood
KEMKA S. IBEJI
Tel: +234 803 887 7166
Email: kingsolkem@gmail.com
Skype: kemka.ibeji
Comments
Post a Comment