Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Philosophy capital punishment1 capital punishment1 Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison. The most famous retributivist Kant, states that the guilty ought to get punished because they chose to act wrongly, and by punishing them, we are respecting them as a moral agents. This occurs because humans are given the ability to reason and act morally and thus if we don’t punish them we are not treating them as moral agents. Also, according to retributivists the punishment must fit the crime committed. Hence, if an offender commits a crime we must treat him as a moral agent and punish, but while corresponding the act to the punishment quantitatively and qualitatively. Thus a retributivist can be against the death penalty if the crime committed doesn’t fit the punishment given. This argument by Kant shows that offenders will get what they deserve when they commit a wrongful act, but some criminals or murderers don’t really know what is going on, thus they are not deserving of punishment. Kant believes in universalizing the maxims which you act on, hence a murderer has willed that the same thing be done to him which makes the death penalty morally required according to Kant(Kant, pg 240). This shows that Kant is a strong supporter of the death penalty because without it how would we be able to rightfully punish murderers. Therefore all murderers ought to be sentenced to death row and if they are not proven innocent they will be given death, which brings up many questions about the innocent victims of the death penalty. Another retributivist, van den Haag, is also a major supporter of the death penalty. He is not concerned about sentencing innocent people to death because according to him there will always be innocent victims, but that number or percentage must be kept to a minimum. Over the past 85 years, there have been 25 who have proven to be innocent after death, but according to van den Haag this is a reasonable number because there will always be mistakes(van den Haag, pg252) . People against the death penalty say not only the guilty are being executed, and innocent lives are being taken, thus we should have a stricter death row sentence to see if it is possible the accuser will be innocent. Also, it would be too difficult to make a law that ensures that only those committing the worst crimes are sentenced to die, for example if an abused wife decided one day to get back at her husband and take his life. According to retributivists she doesn’t deserve to die even though she is guilty. Also, with the death penalty race, age and gender come into play. For example, there isn’t much media coverage on men on death row, but if there was a women on death row you wouldn’t miss a thing about it. Another example is the case of Ferman vs Georgia in 1972. This case showed that capital punishment is unconstitutional, but the court didn’t say it was cruel and unusual punishment. Consequently, with the fact that the majority of people on death row are usually poor, become somewhat insane, and are minorities, this shows that capital punishment is arbitrary and discriminatory in practice(class notes). Van den Haag’s defense is that if capital punishment is said to be immoral, then regardless how you distribute among the guilty it is still immoral. On the other hand, if it is immoral then no distribution could make it immoral, thus if you discriminate and you are racist toward these offenders it is still moral. The guilty deserve it nonetheless, hence the only question is if they deserve it, and the only case where one can be unjustly punished is if you don’t deserve it. Therefore, offenders must deserve the punishment because if they get what they deserve, it should deter others from committing the same crime. Thus, unless you can prove that it is a uniquely effective deterrent, there is no justification for such a penalty. This would be unnecessary for any crimes that are deserving of death because if it doesn’t stop other offenders, these criminals might as well be in jail where it is just as an effect deterrent as death(van den Haag, pg 251). Bedau is one of many that are apposed to the death penalty since it is not an effective deterrent. Bedau argues that we are not deterring others from committing such crimes with death, so why do we pay twice as much for death penalty if life in prison is just as effective. Thus it is not the best means to the desired end because it doesn’t contribute to the reduction of crime, it is not economical, and it doesn’t make the offenders better people. Also, it should rectify the injustice it was done, which goes along with the punishment should fit the crime, and it should serve as a channel for the release of the public’s anger. According to Bedau, none of these goals are met by the death penalty, for example if a murderer chopped up someone and he was convicted and got a drug injection for his life sentence, this doesn’t rectify the injustice it was done nor does it channel the public’s anger(Bedau, pg 259). For example, Texas has the most reported murders, and has the most capital punishment. Also, there is a state that had the death penalty, got rid of it, then got it back and the murder rate stayed the same over that entire period. Thus the death penalty is deterring everyone but the murderers. Supporters of the death penalty argue that it protects law enforcement, but this doesn’t occur because the offender realize that they’re going to death row anyway, so why not take everyone down with him. Also, it increases crime because all the expenses in raved in the death penalty could have been used to prevent crime. Consequently, the low budget countries with the death penalty don’t have such funds, causing them to take the money from programs such as feeding the hungry, educational programs, and preventing crime. Another option could be a cheap death penalty to prevent the execution of such beneficial programs. This would just cause even more innocent people to be killed because we would have to eliminate all the costs involved with trying to prove that the criminal is innocent since death is irrevocable(class notes). I feel that the side opposing the death penalty which consists of Bedau, presents stronger arguments. I think this is the case because of the two consequences of the death penalty, which are executing the innocent and recidivist murders. The retributivists Kant, and van den Haag contain both risks of the death penalty while on the other hand, Bedau’s only risk is recidivist murders, in which murderers are given the opportunity to kill innocent people while they are sentenced. Therefore, no matter how you look at it the retributivists have two risks while Bedau only has one. It is true that murderers deserve to die, but how do you make sure it’s those people who die and not innocent people like Roy Roberts. Its always arbitrary and discriminatory as it is applied, while it is not even being an effective deterrent to other criminals, and its costs are twice as a life sentence in prison. Thus, if you are a supporter and you can’t come up with an answer to any of these arguments, then you are a false supporter and should re-think your views. The only argument for the death penalty is that in theory it could be agreeable because it seems as though it would deter criminals but in practice there are too many arguments against it. Bibliography: Word Count: 1392
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.