Capital Punishment Ethics

Capital punishment ethics

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Capital punishment ethics

        Capital punishment is an acknowledged legitimate infliction of death as the penalty since time immemorial, and it is mainly employed for a broad diversity of offenses (Rae, 2009).  It is an insufferable denial about the civil liberties thus making it unreliable with the essential principles of the existing self-governing system. Via application of the lawsuit, legislation, and encouragement against this vicious and ruthless institution, many people struggle to prevent executions and instead pursue obliteration of the capital punishment (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2014).

Arguments for capital punishment

            Retributivists assert that any criminal individual deserves to be appropriately punished in proportion to the corresponding gravity of their crime. Thus, in case an individual commits a murder, then the appropriate punishment ought to be death (Vaughn, 2015). Retributivism aids to safeguard the prevailing social order thereby disregarding the opportunities of attaining vigilante justice.

            Capital punishment is seen to a deterrence of repeating crimes in the society. The idea of deterrence stipulates that in case the punishment is deemed adequately wrong then it is likely to discourage people from committing the offense, and the person who is not depressed are utilized as suitable examples to scare and remain to dissuade others (Rae, 2009). Deterrence is considered as educational since it normally demonstrates to people consequences in case certain crimes are committed thus reiterating the ethical values of the society.

                Moreover, people perceive death penalty to be right since it makes the community safer. Incarceration of the offender often makes people feel unsafe since there is always the likelihood of the offender escaping and seeking retaliation for the prevailing victims (Vaughn, 2015). Thus, execution of the offender is seen to bring the families and corresponding victims closure due to proper justice.

            Lastly, capital punishment is depicted to be inexpensive since life imprisonment typically takes into consideration the costs of housing coupled with food for the prisoners (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2014). Moreover, the cost of an appeal is deemed to be a wastage of resources to the people who commit criminal acts to the people they live with together within the same society.

Arguments against capital punishment

            Humankind life is considered to be treasured and thus murderers ought not to be dispossessed of the essential treasure of their underlying lives. Moreover, the treasure of the underlying lawbreaker’s existence cannot be demolished by the corresponding delinquent’s immoral behavior even if they have committed murder (Rae, 2009). Individual abolitionists are deemed to be unfair since life ought to be preserved unless there is a great lesson not learns from it, and the proponents of the capital punishments carry the burden of proof to justify their position.