Capital Punishment Should be Abolished

Thanks Pro! Onto the arguments. I shall present two arguments in favour of the death penalty. Firstly, I will argue that the principles of retribution justify Capital Punishment (AKA, the death penalty), and secondly, that Capital Punishment acts as a deterrent to further crime being committed. Retribution/Lex talionis Firstly, the death penalty creates a morally more satisfactory state of affairs. This may be seen by explicating the principle that by committing a moral evil, one creates a moral debt to the victim. This is true under any moral theory aside from moral nihilism (but if nihilism is assumed, the debate is null) - even subjectivist theories - and so should be accepted in any case. Provided the act gives harm to the victim, a damage by way of harm (either harms of repression or harms of reduction, as analysed by constitutive criminology [1]) is made. In other words, when one commits a crime, one creates a moral debt. To restore equilibrium, and a fortiori a moral state of affairs, this debt needs to be paid, and thus, some form of retributive punishment needs to be administered - as Morris states, "exacting the debt" [2]. If a truly moral state of affairs is acieved, lex talionis should be polity, in which case, the retribution matches the debt. A death should result in death. Thus, the death penalty is justified for at least those crimes where there has been a loss of life. As Kant pithily explains: “whatever undeserved evil you inflict upon another within the people, that you inflict upon yourself"[3]. Furthermore, Hampton elucidates: "If I have value equal to that of my assailant, then that must be made manifest after I have been victimized. By victimizing me, the wrongdoer has declared himself elevated with respect to me, acting as a superior who is permitted to use me for his purposes. A false moral claim has been made… The retributivist demands that the false claim be corrected. The lord must be humbled to show that he isn't the lord of the victim." She continues: "Retributive punishment is the defeat of the wrongdoer at the hands of the victim (either directly or indirectly through an agent of the victim's, e.g., the state) that symbolizes the correct relative value of wrongdoer and victim. It is a symbol that is conceptually required to reaffirm a victim's equal worth in the face of a challenge to it." No other form of punishment achieves this end. For a great deal of crimes, namely, those that result either in death or else are so morally atrocious that they are equivalent to the loss of life, nothing but death would be proper retribution: not even life imprisonment can compensate for loss of life. Thus, one cannot then resort to other forms of punishment such as incarceration as retribution. Only the death penalty can suffice. Why should we accept the above? It is evident firstly as I mentioned above: almost every moral theory posits that evil is a real thing, inflicted upon the victim, and by extension, should be balanced. Secondly, convention and emotional response from individuals points towards this. Calls for retribution for crimes are unbelievably widespread - murderers, pedophiles, rapists - indeed, such right realist theories are in popular opinion at the moment, with over half of the US population in support of capital punishment [5]. While this entails conventionalism at best, the sheer uniformity of opinion means that it can be accepted as a properly basic belief, with a prima facie justification for its veracity. Deterrent The second argument comes from the idea that the death penalty prevents further crime being committed in the future, since it gives a sanction to the perpetrator of the crime. When considering whether to commit a crime or not, the perpetrator makes a rational choice, as explicated by opportunity theory [6] (Cornish and Clarke): in committing a crime, the criminal makes a choice - i.e., whether or not to commit the crime - this much is certain. In any decision, however, one must, either correctly or incorrectly, weigh the benefits against the costs as to arrive at an informed decision which benefits the individual. Crime is no different, and can be seen by the scale of utilitarian crimes. Now punishment acts as a cost to criminal behaviour. Surely, for the most efficacious criminal polity, the harshest punishment acts as the strongest deterrent. If the cost of committing a crime is death as opposed to incarceration, criminals - not only those committing murder, but those committing all moral misdeeds - will decide not to commit the crime in the first place. Thus, the death penalty should be imposed simply due to how it deters other crime from being committed. It matters not whether it is in itself immoral (though I would contest - see above). What matters is its effect. Not to go all pragmatic, but this alone justifies the death penalty. The stats support this. For instance, Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd found that in 3,000 US counties, for every 1 execution there were 18 fewer murders. [7] Another way to look at this is given by Duff (2001 and 2011), who offers a communication theory whereby punishment - especially harsh punishment - is necessary to communicate censure for wrongdoing, to the moral community. When the execution of criminals is advertised by the mass media, everyone is alerted to the abominable nature of the act such that it warrants death. This communicates to the moral community that murder, high treason, etc. is intrinsically wrong. In doing so, the moral community, striving to conform to accepted rules and norms, will indeed conform and step away from criminal acts. Think of it simply: unless the point that murder is wrong of the highest order is communicated in one form or another, one shall do it. Only the death penalty - not the measly competing punishments like life imprisonment - achieves this. Indeed, crime should be lowered the most possible. Thus the most extreme communication - death - is surely therefore the best policy to pursue. If the above is successful and properly communicated, very few deaths of immoral individuals (from the death penalty) can prevent a far higher number of innocent deaths. This is surely a morally more acceptable scenario than the alternative, and indeed can help prevent more crime from being committed in the Long-run. Conclusion I have shown not only why the death penalty is morally virtuous on its own accord, but also why even if it is not, it serves a greater cause of deterring crime. Taken cumulatively, the above constitutes a strong argument for the death penalty. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Morris, “Persons and Punishment”, The Monist, 52: 475–501. [3] Kant, 1797, The Metaphysics of Morals, M. Gregor (trans.), New York: Cambridge University Press (1991). [4] Murphy and Hampton 1988: 125–126 [5] http://www.people-press.org... [6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [7] Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd, "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data", American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 344-376