Name
Professor
Subject
Date
Is the Death Penalty Moral.
Capital punishment is often justified because the community has a moral duty to ensure its population’s protection and safety. Murders undermine this protection and safety. By only putting perpetrators to execution, can the community guarantee that convicted criminals do not murder again? Advocates of capital punishment argue that society should embrace such actions that would usher about the strongest balance of good over evil, and capital punishment is one such procedure. The death penalty benefits the people because it can discourage violent crime. Capital punishment is also justified on the grounds that society has a moral duty to defend human life, not take it. Central to different arguments are opponents of the death penalty, such as Berns and Steiker, who claim that equality is a form of ensuring that everyone is fairly represented. Furthermore, it is unreasonable and immoral to punish criminals to discourage others from being criminals. Justice demands that humans be independent, which can regulate itself, as a human being, unlike animals, and to be a responsible moral creature who does to strip criminals of their human dignity when sentenced.
. According to Berns (505), the morality of capital punishment is influenced by the Bible, and the institutions that dominated in the World were those that extracted their values from the Bible, and death was a conventional penalty. Most of these states were the most violent, indicating that hypocrisy and harsh punishment go together. Therefore, death punishment cannot be enforced equally or in a non-discriminatory way; it is just that both political theories nor even the Bible lent credence to these objections. Instead, the abolition movement stems from what can be reasonably characterized as a moral and anti-religious work. Furthermore, society imposes the death penalty to prosecute, justify the death penalty, and punish the offender for what he has done to us, not as a person, but as a moral culture. This is the particularly practicing vengeance marked by viciousness and moral resentment, and our values prohibit free expression of moral indignation (Berns 505-506).
Human integrity should not be interpreted as a capacity to be a moral personality, capable of deciding between right and wrong (Berns 507). Human dignity is the criterion by which we decide who ought to receive what. If everybody, whatever they do, possesses human dignity, no one deserves to be treated differently, not everyone else. Hence, no person deserves to be punished, particularly the death penalty, to rob him of human dignity. Even the vilest conviction deserves a form of basic human dignity. (Berns, 507).
Criminals are rightly the object of wrath. The legislation, particularly the criminal law, succeeds by endorsing and accusing (Berns, 508). Henceforth death penalty is made on the criminal code in which fines are to be levied to suit the crime, not only to suit everything social science teaches us about punishment and rehabilitation (Berns 507). The society often applauds those people who do not perpetrate such actions. The entire process here is the gratification of the law-abiding of the individual indignation. The anger that the offender may experience at the presence of the crime. When a perpetrator is disciplined, he satisfies the rage, and by doing so, honors the law-abiding people who feel it. This is one aim of punishment: rewarding the law by fulfilling the indignation they feel or should feel at the sight of the crime. It pays and thus teaches the law-abiding the joy of the hope of vengeance (Berns, 508).
Death penalty lacks procedural fairness. The damage fashioned by the penalty is not justified and is not equal to the punishment. The criminality of those on whom it is inflicted, then the infliction of such wrongdoing and suffering is wrong-imposing unfair retribution distinct from and worse than the pain. In our multicultural culture, many of the most inclined to commit the worst offenses of capital murder are, as a group, also most probable to have influenced or compromised their volitional ability the social circumstances for which we bear some responsibility. Notably, the victim’s race or the perpetrator is a salience factor in determining whether the convict will be condemned to death. Therefore, there is an ethnic skew in the allocation of capital sentences. Markedly, showing doubt in fundamental morality and ethics of the death penalty (Steiker 766-767).
There is a lot of indication of ethnic marginalization in implementing a penalty rather than the dissemination of crime. Specifically, the distribution of capital punishment failures concerning breaches of the norm of equal care and reverence is inherently qualitatively distinct from private murder’s distributional deficiencies of private murder. Racial disparity in the application of the death penalty and racial inequality in the allocation of private killings. Racial disparities in the application of capital punishment-both the inability to give identical weight to the bereavements of African American victims relative to white victims in comparable circumstances and the greater desire to take the lives of black offenders compared to white victims (Steiker 768)
Death penalty is a lack of dignity. Death, from either execution or murder, by definition, does not provide a new basis for asserting that the harm to human dignity as a result of execution is indistinguishable from the harm to human dignity as a result of murder. The interpretation of the human dignity case focuses exclusively on the impact of severe punishment on the victim; it does not help to invalidate the “life-life tradeoff” statement., The human capacity of the person killed but administering death as punishment may also harm or ruin the human capacity (Steiker 771).
Remarkably, it is impractical to punish criminals to prevent others from being criminals (Berns, 505). This argument is supported by Steiker, who posits that the death penalty, for this reason, is pragmatic. It is immoral to inflict suffering on one person to influence the actions of others. The reality that it is implemented selectively, invidiously, or in so many instances through errors in our dysfunctional legal framework makes it a morally reprehensible occurrence in contemporary society (771). The death penalty is morally reprehensible; thus, it stems from gratification, which is out of vengeance expectation (Berns 507). Evidently, the death penalty derives its rationale from distinctive human capability retribution is justified as the result of a human being authority: the responsibility to punish stems from the will of the offender to choose the wrongdoer. (Steiker, 774). Retribution is justified to protect human agencies from personal attacks (Berns 508).
Part c.
Practically, Steiker’s argument on questioning the morality of capital punishment is based on thoughtful facts. The author argues that the death penalty as a practice may weaken several of the human ability required for personal control and, therefore, may affect the required precondition for any justification of punishment. Moral human agency requires justification and the moral conviction and unique human affective qualities, such as empathy through weakening or destroying the human capacity to join. The harsh punishments, innovatively in others’ suffering, affect society as social agents, free to choose our destiny. As for punishments, the death penalty has the potential to be morally questionable in aspects that go far beyond their unjust killings (Steiker, 774).
Retributive void resides in the conviction, hence judging that every specific crime is one for which the death penalty is applicable. The murder of the innocent-a moral error that we have a new justification for doing so. All murder victims are innocent unless proven guilty, questioning the moral wrong with the murder of an innocent person when one applies the guilt of the blame for the heinous wrongdoing to the taking of existence.
Work cited
Berns, Walter. “Defending the Death Penalty.” Crime & Delinquency, vol. 26, no. 4, Oct. 1980, pp. 503–511, doi:10.1177/001112878002600404.
Steiker, Carol S. “No, Capital Punishment Is Not Morally Required: Deterrence, Deontology, and the Death Penalty.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 58, no. 3, 2005, pp. 751–789. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40040280. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020