The Pros And Cons Of Capital Punishment

In John Stuart Mills speech on capital punishment, he expresses his favor of the preservation capital punishment for murder and thoroughly defends his position. Mill bases his belief on the proposal that he death penalty is the most effective deterrent on criminal behavior, he believes it is the most human way of treating criminals who commit murder, and it increases the sum total of happiness. Mill states that human action should adhere to the “greatest-happiness principle,” which strives to produce the greatest sum total of happiness sum among all parties involved.

Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, is a controversial subject which has been argued for decades due to the ethical decisions involved. People believe the death penalty is the right thing to do and that it is the perfect example of ‘justice’ while others believe that it is immoral and overly expensive. The death penalty is not a logical sentence for criminals, it doesn’t give them the right type of justice and it is immoral.

Capital Punishment is a moral controversy in today’s society. It is the judicial execution of criminals judged guilty of capital offenses by the state, or in other words, the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws can date back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. and the ethical debates towards this issue have existed just as long. There is a constant pro-con debate about this issue, and philosophers like Aristotle and Mill have their own take on this controversy as well. Aristotle is against capital punishment, while Mill believes it is morally permissible.

Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.

Mill focuses more on the second of the two as the most effective justification of the death penalty. Mill states in his address “There is not, I should think, any human infliction which makes an impression on the imagination so entirely out of proportion to its real severity as the punishment of death.” Crime in itself causes suffering, to reduce crime by creating a fear of penalty is a utilitarian practice.

Immanuel Kant, a supporter of capital punishment, offered us of the most complicated, if not ambiguous, views on the subject. In fact, he would’ve ironically disagreed with its modern proponents. Those who advocate capital punishment today often do so for utilitarian reasons. For example, the death sentence would protect society by not only preventing a purpertrator from committing the same crime again, it would also deter others by setting an example. Kant would’ve argued the rights of the condemned are being trampled; by using him as an example, we are using him as a means to an end. A rational being, in Kant’s view, is an end in himself, whether criminal or law-abiding

The implementation of these laws are very significant as they are the foundation of a nation or a society. Therefore, whoever violates these laws and opposes the social order of that society must be deemed guilty and must be punished. For Kant, punishment is retribution in its legal form. John Stuart Mill as well supported the capital punishment but his view is different from Immanuel Kant. According to Mill, the death penalty is instrumental in a society, and it is the least cruel mode of punishment to deter crimes. Mill believed the severity of a punishment is intended to cause fear, therefore preventing crimes. Therefore, both the theory of utilitarianism and deontology permit capital punishment to be morally

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, eighteen states have abolished the death penalty since its implementation (Facts About the Death Penalty). But what are the reasons behind doing so? Historically, public policy concerning capital punishment has shifted dramatically, from required capital punishment to jury nullification to a rise in the abolition of the practice. Public opinion has shifted alongside policy, with more and more Americans disapproving of the death penalty and the morality behind it, citing it as an inhumane and hypocritical approach to justice and punishment. I am with the the more progressive Americans that do not believe in administering the death penalty under any circumstances. Rather, I support life imprisonment or the insanity defense for capital offenses whenever appropriate. Capital punishment is ineffective because it lowers the state down to the level of the defendant, frequently discriminates against racial minorities and those of lower socioeconomic status, and it has been abolished in nearly every other modern democratic country.

The five theories of punishment, therefore, tend to be associated with the laws ensuring justice. The Rational Choice Theory, or deterrence, is a Utilitarian approach that attempts to discourage others from committing a similar act. It focuses the mind on the consequences that will befall if they choose to follow the same course. This, however, is nonsensical to assume that criminal acts are results of rational behaviour, which future criminals can be dissuaded from by merely evoking fear. B. Hoose, a classical utilitarian, says do the act that produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Capital punishment therefore is justifiable because not only does it act as a deterrent but it also rids society of dangerous and undesirable citizens. Although even though capital punishment may have a good effect on one person, it would make a terrorist a martyr and therefore unfortunately encourage further crime. Retribution, another central theory of punishment, fits naturally with people’s feelings because it suggests that wrongdoers should have to pay for what they did. The principle of just deserts

Death penalty is also known as capital punishment or execution. Societies from all over the world have used this sentence at one point in history, in order to avenge criminals. Most common reasons for being sentenced to death were war crimes, war treason, murder and espionage. Back then, the capital punishment was almost always accompanied by torture, and executions were public. The most used execution method was by hanging. If an inmate chooses the electric chair it takes anywhere between 2 min and 15 minutes. The criminal receives a jolt between 500 and 2000 volts for every 30 seconds, attending doctor waits for body to cool after each bolt and check if the heart is still breathing. While in some societies, violent death penalties are still being employed – like shooting, hanging, electric chair and gas chamber – in most countries, these have been replaced with a painless method – the lethal injection. When the person is put to death for the death penalty they use a lethal injection execution, in most cases. Sodium thipal makes the person go deeply unconscious but unable to feel himself being paralyzed from the “pancuronium bromide”. On death row an inmate waited an average of 15 years between sentencing and execution but a quarter of inmates die on death row from natural cases. The time has come to make punishment fit the crime, too oppose lethal injection, but not because these untried new drugs might obituary cause pain, but cause confusion, lethal injection conflates

As a final point, on capital punishment the discussion turns to John Stuart Mill and his utilitarian view point that supports capital punishment. In Mill’s speech, “In Support of Capital Punishment” (1868), he contends that capital punishment is actually a better way to treat individuals rather than being confined to prison for a life sentence (Van Camp, 2014). It is viewed that Mill’s does successfully present this argument by suggesting that execution is essentially a quick end to suffering as opposed to suffering for the remainder of one’s life. One who is sentenced to a life in prison is subjected to an environment that will only offer cruel mental and physical punishment and unhappiness ultimately leading to death (McBrien, 2010). Although

The Founding Fathers had in mind that no man ought to be subject to “cruel and unusual punishment”. However, taken out of context nearly 250 years later, the notion of capital punishment may seem both cruel and unusual. The death penalty for capital crimes has stirred not only moral and religious ,but poses an economic issue as well. Opponents of the death penalty cite that Lex talionis, or the idea that one ought to retaliate for wrongs done, is an idea gone and has no place in a new civilized society. Also they does an eye an eye make the whole world blind. The death penalty is a barbaric and inefficient way of punishing criminals. In many areas of the country, the death system of appeals and trials makes up 60-80% of the total criminal

There are several controversies surrounding capital punishment. Some people are in favor of the death penalty and some people are against it. Capital punishment is the death penalty for a crime. It is not right to seek revenge on another person’s life, and we have the right to live. There should be justice for the crime but not take the life of the person that committed the crime. Many people are not aware of how wrong, painful, and costly an execution is, and above all, it is possible to kill innocent people.

The ethical issues centering on capital punishment, both for and against, are many. Thus, the retentionists or advocates of capital punishment argue that the death sentence is equal to justice or just desserts for taking another life, and is not cruel or unusual punishment (Rae, 2009). In addition, retentionists also argue that capital punishment is a deterrent to violent crime, and capital punishment lessens the financial burden to taxpayers in harboring inmates who receive a life sentence (Rae, 2009). However, and according to Marcus (2007), most criminal justice professionals disagree on deterrence (p. 11). Opposing the retentionists, are the abolitionists who primarily argue that the death penalty cheapens human life and undermines the dignity of human beings who are created in the image of God (Rae, 2009, p. 259). Furthermore, abolitionists also argue that capital punishment is retributive, unconstitutional, racist, and punishing to the poor and sometimes innocent (Pugsley, 1981). Lastly, abolitionists contend that capital punishment denies the opportunity for an inmate to change and be rehabilitated (Pugsley, 1981).

Since the mid 1900’s, capital punishment has brought many individuals into many diverse view points throughout the years. Capital punishment is a way of punishing a convict by killing him or her because of the crime he or she committed. Capital punishment will always have its pros and cons. There are opponents who absolutely disagree with capital punishment. And then there are advocates who support the idea. In the advocates view point, capital punishment is a way to minimize the threat in the world today. In the opponent’s point of view, opponents disagree with capital punishment, because of the high expenses it brings to the states. Also, opponents argue that capital punishment