Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment

The death penalty is the most severe sentence that a person can have declared on them. Death is final. Our country still debates this issue. It is a controversy among politicians, scholars, members of the judicial system, philosophers, and most of our society. Choosing just two to show the opposing side was difficult. In the end the pick was, Immanuel Kant representing the argument in favor of the death penalty and Justice Brennan taking the side of being against the death penalty. When looking at the pros and cons of the death penalty, we need to decide whether it is moral and ethical for our society today. As long as we have the death penalty in our society, there will always be debates for and against capital punishment.

There are many reasons why we have the death penalty. The main reason is that if a person takes another person's life the murder needs to die. They gave up their right to live the minute the vile act was committed. The theories that are questioned the most are: If we have the death penalty, then criminals would be less likely to murder if they knew they would also be killed. Another theory is that murders poses a threat to our society and should be allowed to remain among society and the death penalty would guarantees that the killer would not be able to kill again. The opposite viewpoint is the fact that killing people should not be done by anybody, including the state and federal law enforcement system. In my opinion the death penalty has to make sure that the offender does not go back into society to murder again. Any other alternative might release the offender after ten years of prison or rehabilitation back into society to possibility kill again.

Many questions arise when the subject of the death penalty is the topic of discussion. One question asked the most is: Does the death penalty kill innocent people and does it destroy our human rights? Branden Rendal states: The death penalty must be eliminated because it kills innocents and destroys our fundamental human rights (Rendal,1998 ). Other questions asked: Is it racially biased? Is it based on revenge?, Does it deter crime?, and Is capital punishment more expensive than life imprisonment?

There are many different opinions about how a criminal should be disciplined in the court of law. The eighth amendment has been analyzed by the Supreme Court Justice the court come to a consensus but there then the court was faced with many interpretations. In 2009, The Gallup Organization did a survey and came up with the following figures: That 80% of Republicans, 65% of Independents and 58% of Democrats supported of the death penalty. The number of executions in the United States in 2010 was 46. This is down from the previous year (Death Penalty Facts, 2010). Using this information and reviewing the thoughts and views of philosopher Immanuel Kant and Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, we can see the pros and cons of these famous people. Immanuel Kant argues in favor of the death penalty his philosophy is: "whoever has committed murder, must die," he continues to say, "However many people who have committed a murder, or have even commanded it, or acted as art and part in it, they ought all to suffer death" (Kant, 1996). "A court decision is mandatory for punishing a murderer. A society that does not sentence a murderer to death turns into an accomplice of this crime" (Kant, 1996). Justice Brennan argues that, "we need to comprehend human behavior in a scientific way that will help us better understand why people do what they do, namely criminals. The science of human conduct and psychology has advanced through the years. Maybe with this advancement we could prevent repetition and deter others from the terrible murderous crimes"(Hager,1985). Brennan also suggests that the advancement of respect for human dignity and moral values in a society can lead to less crime.(Regnery,1984) This is a utilitarian view that looks for the best possible outcome for the society in the future. These two views have opposite goals and solutions.

Capital Punishment has been used for centuries. Many countries in the world have been abolishing the death penalty because they see that it is cruel, unethical and immoral. In the United States and written into our Constitution, we have the ultimate duty to enforce and punish offenders. In 1972 to 1976 the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In this ruling, it was found that the death penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment for an individual under the eighth amendment. The death penalty was reversed when new methods, which were more humane, were introduced for executions. The method recommended and approved was the use of lethal injection.

Today's modern society has advanced as a civilization to the point that the death penalty will no longer be tolerable according to Justice Brennan. The establishment of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the state has to respect the worth of all humans and a punishment too severe would deprive a human of his dignity. Kant would agree, it is up to the state to enforce or punish the offenders and that a society needs laws. He would also say the offender needs to lose his rights to be a member of society and receive just punishment for his crime.

The views of the average population are similar to that of the philosopher and Justice, in that the purpose is for criminals to be punishment in hopes that this would to deter future criminal acts. The deterrence theory suggests that a rational person will think twice before committing the crime for fear of the consequences or punishment which is death. This theory has not proven any evidences that this works any better than a lifetime of imprisonment. The reason given is that it takes too long to go through the process to get to an execution so very few executions are enforced. The retentionists proclaim that deterrent influences of the death penalty can cross state lines into the jurisdictions of states that currently do not have the death penalty, so it is beneficial for states that still have the death penalty to continue to enforce it. The imposition of the death penalty for federal crimes is upheld by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act have imposed nearly sixty new offenses. Some of the new capital offenses include; murder of federal prisoner serving a life sentence and drive by shootings in which the offense pertains to certain drug arrest.(Death Penalty Information Center)

The second view is retribution, which is the need for society to enforce some type of punishment for the murders. Supporter for the death penalty have suggested, that the only proper response to the vilest murders