Capital Punishment.

Thank you for providing this interesting topic and for allowing me to debate you.I will take the position that capital punishment is not a morally acceptable manner of punishment. Note that moral acceptability is itself somewhat controversial as there are different ethical theories that one can use to assess this topic. I will only make reference to two popular ethical theories: deontological and consequential. I am fully aware that other perspectives are possible. However, the two approaches have widespread appeal and are easily understood.A) Deontological Analysis of Capital PunishmentIn a deontological analysis of capital punishment, what matters are fundamental rules about actions (1). If we know what the fundamental rules are concerning a situation, than we can determine what courses of action are acceptable. It is widely held that killing a human being is wrong unless it is done in self-defense. From this perspective, regardless of how much it is appropriate to be angry at a criminal or how revolting the crime, the criminal remains a human being whom we are killing outside the context of self-defense.Why then do some people partial to deontological morality still support capital punishment? This may stem from either a) dehumanizing the criminal, or b) arguing that a life must be paid with a life. To the first, the fact of being human does not change as a consequence of one's actions. Being human is a biological/psychological phenomenon that is impervious to what actions I may take. Addressing the second issue, it is true that we expect people who have done wrong to make reparations. If I steal 10$, I may be expected to pay it back. An extension of this logic may be invoked with murder. If I take a life, I should pay mine. However, I would argue that the obligation to avoid taking human life is stronger than the obligation to make reparations. In sum, the evil done in killing a criminal is greater than the good achieved by a "life being given for a life".A) Consequentialist Analysis of Capital PunishmentA consequentialist would argue that capital punishment is morally acceptable if it on the whole if its positive consequences outweigh its negative consequences (2). However, we have little reason to believe this is the case.First, the evidence on the deterrence effect of capital punishment remains mixed and careful attention to the data has shown than no conclusions can be drawn (positive or negative) (3). Rather, due to difficulty in collecting data and disparate methodologies, no empirical basis exists that can reliably show that capital punishment leads to lower crime.Second, the possibility of innocent people being killed cannot be discounted. Since the US reinstated the death penalty, some cases have come to light in which the executed was later thought to probably have been innocent (4)Third, the costs of capital punishment can be prohibitive as democratic societies will require the possibility of appeal to avoid wrongful executions as listed above. These costs may outweigh the savings made by not having to imprison someone for life.In sum, the consequences of capital punishment are the death of one person, the creation of a climate in which people know we sometimes kill innocent people, and complicated and expensive legal battles. Little evidence exists to support the notion that the use of capital punishment deters criminals from murder. As such, the benefits seem negligible compared to the risks.ConclusionIn sum, I do not believe capital punishment is morally acceptable either from a point of view in which deontologically killing is considering wrong, or from a consequentialist analysis of benefits and costs.I thank you for your attention and wait eagerly for your reply.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://link.springer.com...(4) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...