Turn on your television to any of the popular ‘cop’ shows, whether it be one of the “Law & Order” series or CSI and you’ll usually find an episode where a prisoner who is faced with the death penalty nearly dodges it or it’s revealed after the penalty is executed that the prisoner was indeed innocent. Even though its Hollywood’s portrayal of capital punishment it does have some truth to it. The risk of executing an innocent person is generally considered the strongest and more practical argument against capital punishment; abolitionists condemn the death penalty for its irreversibility.
Capital punishment has been a hot topic for debate for years with many agreeing for its continuation within the justice system as well as a good amount of those opposed to it. Those against the death penalty believe that it violates the criminal’s right to life, while proponents believe it re-affirms the right to life by punishing those who violate it by taking other lives. For the most part, the death penalty has been the focus within the realm of public debate in the United States which has made courts and legal decision makers to observe the various attitudes of citizens surrounding the issue. With such scrutiny it’s brought up important questions such as: what arguments have been made for and against the death penalty? This question is answered in some of the key issues in the debate surrounding capital punishment: deterrence, social protection, retribution, barbarity, irreversibility, and costs.
Deterrence is the notion that punishments imposed by society for criminal activity will discourage its members from engaging in criminal behavior. Reduction of crime, or at least prevention of an increase in crime, is an example of a social goal. The goal influences the choice of punishments because of their impact on the crime rate. Proponents find that the death penalty is the only sanction that’s severe enough to deter professional criminals from taking part in violent acts. However, opponents of capital punishment have attacked the deterrent value of the death penalty for many reasons. Opponents have even said that capital punishment is no more of an effective deterrent than prolonged execution.
In addition to deterrence there’s also the issue of social protection. Regardless of their stances, both advocates and opponents of capital punishment agree that society has a right to protect itself from criminal activity. However, debate surrounds how effective the death penalty is as one of society’s means of protection.
Even if we consider that capital punishment is moral, we would still question its effectiveness. We would also wonder what the purpose of its sanction and if it accomplishes that purpose at a cost that is acceptable to society? Whether you’re a proponent or an opponent on the issue of capital punishment one must consider all aspects that fuel the debate. From deterrence, social protection, retribution, barbarity, irreversibility, and costs. It seems like public support for capital punishment has depended on a lack of understanding about how the death penalty actually operates in society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There's an interesting parallel between this and the logic of the argument in the Danner article on torture. There, Danner argued that we need to be concerned about whether torture produced useful information BECAUSE that is an argument that proponents in the political process are making. Similarly, even if one's personal convictions lead one to say capital punishment is unacceptable a priori, the political debate about capital punishment requires a careful analysis of whether or not it does in fact deter crimes and which kinds it might deter more, which kinds less. Some of the categories in Andeneus article are useful starting point for sorting this out.
ReplyDelete