The Death Penalty

The Death Penalty

Introduction

The Capital Punishment Debate has historically been a controversial one that presents a variety of contrasting point of views, each of which make sense but question very different notions of ethics, morality and criminal justice. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate whether Kant's ethics support or oppose the death penalty, in light of contrasting perspectives. These include Marshall's varying definitions of the term “retribution” and his purely retributive justification of the death penalty. The opposing view is Pojman's response to Marshall's argument, which maintains that, retributive justice is only a necessary moral requirement for a system of punishment (Sterba, 1977). Finally, this essay will describe Kant's own conception of persons and their moral status. By using Kant's ethics, this essay will analyze which view, Marshall's or Pojman's, is closer to Kant's own. Consequently, at the end of the debate I will state a clear stance on the question whether the death penalty is morally permissible.

History of the Death Penalty in the United States

As a European colony in the 17th century, America adopted Europe's customary death penalty for numerous crimes such as idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy and murder. These early criminal codes reflected religious doctrines, principally the Code of the Old Testament. Enlightenment in the 17th century called for abolishing the death penalty. The age of Enlightenment saw the rise of Rush and other death penalty abolitionists. From 1790 to 1950, numerous American states modified their penalty statuses, including clauses such as first- and second-degree murder, discontinuing public executions, abolishing the mandatory death sentence, and revising the methods used to execute offenders (Carmen et al., 2008).

The brief period from 1960 to 1970, first as a voluntary moratorium and then as a result of Furman v. Georgia (1976), was the only time that suspended the death penalty. Nonetheless, the death penalty remains as a judicial component of the American criminal justice system used as a last resort or ultimate punishment by state legislatures (Dukes Sr, 2008). Every law must be constitutional, including the death penalty and sentence, thus petitioners who challenge the Court's authority must present evidence to that effect. This is where the debate of capital punishment begins.

Discussion

Marshall's Retributive Justice

The retributive theory of criminology and criminal justice originated from the adage of the Old Testament, Hammurabi's code 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' which straightforwardly supports the death penalty. Justice Brennan's concurrence in Furman v. Georgia (1972) reinforces the abolitionist argument that capital punishment is unconstitutional and cannot coexist with respect for intrinsic human dignity (Knowles, 2011). Justice Marshall elaborated on purely retributive justification for the death penalty in the following words, “the death penalty is appropriate, not because of its beneficial effect on society, but because the taking of the murderer's life is itself morally good.” Marshall believed that retribution justice is not a tool to maintain social order, such that if state legislatures did not enact it people would take matters of retribution into their own ...