Is the Death Penalty Objectively Wrong?

This debate explores whether the death penalty is objectively wrong or if its use depends on the country or state. Arguments for and against capital punishment are presented, considering the seriousness of the crime and the need for justice.

Philosophy 1110
Spring 2019
Student Name
Debate Topic:
Most countries around the world have abolished capital punishment
(the death penalty). However, there are many countries, and some
states in the US, that continue to execute those convicted of the most
serious crimes. Does this show that the death penalty is right for some
countries, but wrong for others? Or do you believe that the death
penalty is objectively or universally wrong, and thus should be
abolished everywhere?
It is not objectively wrong, since certain crimes of the most serious nature require capital
punishment. Capital punishment is therefore not objectively wrong.
Capital punishment is not one of the common judgments that are delivered and the
countries who have capital punishment in use implement them for the rarest of the rarest cases.
The history of capital punishment proves that these have been brought to use only when the
culprit is acquitted of some serious crime that involves either genocide, or any act of war or
aggression in order to harm the people. The importance of capital punishment lies in the fact that
it serves as an instrument of fear for the culprits and the people who are involved in such serious
crimes. Capital punishment instills a fear within the minds of the culprits and can prevent such
heinous crimes in the future.
Death penalty takes away the life of the culprit and though it contradicts the right to live,
yet the reason for this punishment justifies the punishment.
First Premise
The first premise stands true since the nature of punishment depends on the seriousness
of the crime. Capital punishment is offered only when the nature of the crime is unpardonable
and involves death or killing of individuals without any sensible justification of the same.
Therefore it is not objectively wrong.
Second premise,
The death penalty takes away the life of a culprit who has inflicted deadly harm to either
individuals or to a group of people that is unpardonable and distinguishes the nature of the crime
as a rare event. For example, the serious crime of serial killing or killing and rape of children are
acts that cannot be pardoned in any form. Without capital punishment justice would not be
delivered to the victims of the crime.
Objection:
The crime committed by any individual is not out of will but due to some influencing factor
that motivates the culprit to commit an act of killing or serious crimes. The convict must be
given a chance to reflect and rectify the faults that has been made by him. “To err is human to

Philosophy 1110
Spring 2019
Student Name
forgive divine” and therefore it is common of humans to make a mistakes, but all convicts must
be given a chance to reflect on their deeds and rectify their mistakes.
The convicted person deserves to die with respect to the nature of crime, but does not allow a
space for reflection or correction. Along with every convict must be given a chance since
humans are bound to make mistakes they should be allowed to reflect and rectify them. Along
with the
The first premise of the task does not hold true and therefore the argument is wrong.
The convicted person is awarded a death penalty owing to the nature of the crime which is
unpardonable. Along with it is imperative for the culprit to reflect before performing an act of
crime that can lead to the awarding of death penalty for the people. Therefore the objection is
false, since death penalty is not awarded for petty cases, but for the serious crimes.
The nature of crime for which death penalty is assigned is not for crimes that are human
mistakes. The death penalty is assigned after considering all actions, nature of conflict, the
outcome of the crime and the amount of harm or damage inflicted. Thus while committing such a
crime, it is imperative that these people are aware of the consequences, yet they commit the
crime and should be awarded punishment accordingly.
The harm when inflicted upon humans is considered a serious crime, but similar damage
or harm performed with the other living things or the environment is treated with such
seriousness only due to the nature of the crime. The mass murders or war crimes completely go
unnoticed or with very little amount of punishment that is awarded to them. Therefore the
seriousness of the crime justifies the capital punishment is completely wrong.