Murderers with Mental Disabilities

Running head: MENTAL DISABILITIES 1
Murderers with Mental Disabilities
PHI 208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Instructor:
June 04, 2019

MENTAL DISABILITIES 2
Part 1: Ethical Question
Should we execute convicted murderers that have mental disabilities?
Part 2: Introduction
Convicted murderers have often been proven to have been suffering from mental
disabilities. The brutality with which they commit their crimes often urge judges and policemen
to validate the mental stabilities of these murderers. The question which this paper would aim at
answering is whether convicted murderers should be executed, who have mental disabilities.
Some argue that the law applies to all, and there is no specific law in the constitution that
exempts convicted murderers with mental disabilities from being penalized (Silver, Horgan &
Gill, 2018). However according to Stone (2015), just because the constitution does not lay out
the framework for these murderers, does not mean that this is ethically suitable in a universal
manner. This is because laws and justice often tend to differ from ethical points of views. For
instance, if the constitution of North Korea is taken into account, there could be a long list of
laws which would violate ethical considerations (Yoon, 2017). This is the reason why the main
thing which has to be noted in this regard is to consider whether universal ethics permit or
consider the issue of executing murderers with proven mental disabilities.
For the purpose of this, it is important that the issue is looked upon from the perspective
of an ethical theory. Ethical theories tend to provide a universal ethical framework for various
ethical alternatives, which are required to ensure that a particular alternative is in the best
interests for all of the parties involved in the ethical situation. A perfect example of this would
be Utilitarianism, which ensures that every party involved in a particular case is equally
benefited from any particular ethical alternative sought for. The discussion in this paper would

MENTAL DISABILITIES 3
revolve around further explaining the theory, and applying it to the question, to find out whether
murderers with mental disabilities should be executed or not.
Part 3: Utilitarianism
This theory states that the most important thing while making an ethical decision during
an ethical dilemma, is to ensure that the alternative action is in the best interests of all of the
parties involved in the situation (Mill, 2016) This is the theory which makes sure that
universality is achieved through the actions that is sought for. By universality, it means benefits
for all of the living organisms under the sky. It argues that ethical alternatives are not those
which are in the benefits of one party, at the cost of suppression of another party (Lyons, 2015).
There should be a balance in the benefits acquired by both of the parties in the scenario.
However, this theory has also gone under significant changes over the years. The philosophy of
the theory had been formulated by Jeremy Bentham, and from there, it was further modified by
Emmanuel Kant, which got exclusive by the name of Kantism, in modern times (Barrow, 2015).
It belongs in the family of consequentialist theories, and the current philosophy in the theory
states that ethical alternatives should be sought based on the maximum number of people who
would benefit from it (Barrow, 2015). This amendment in the philosophy is done because of the
fact that people often have contradicting interests and satiating them with a single alternative is
often impossible. Hence, the number of people who would benefit from the alternative should be
considered instead.
It is very much applicable to the question which this paper is trying to answer, since the
interests of both of the parties in this situation is contradictory to one another. The murderer
would want his life to be spared, where on the other hand, the society would want their lives to