Capital Punishment: Ethical and Moral Perspectives

Running head: SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1
SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
Introduction
Capital punishment also recognized as death penalty refers to an execution of an offender
sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. Capital punishment
must be distinguished from extrajudicial executions, which are performed without appropriate
process of law. According to Reiman (1985), the term ‘death penalty’ at certain level is used
interchangeably with capital punishment. However, imposition of the penalty is not always
followed by capital punishment or when it is upheld on petition because of the possibility of
commutation to life imprisonment. Critical arguments in defence of the death penalty usually fall
into one of two groups. Goldman (2015) has noted that consequentialist arguments indicate to
the beneficial effects of capital punishment, usually focusing on prevention and avoidance. On
the other hand, non-consequentialist arguments chiefly seek to rationalize execution
independently of its effects such as by appealing to the idea of justice. Drawing relevance to this,
consequentialism can be related to the view stating that morality emphasizes on producing the
accurate kinds of overall consequences. The thesis statement of the essay is, “The State is
ethically wrong in posing death penalty on certain criminals for committing certain criminal
offence.”
Discussion
Capital punishment has been in existence for ages. Such an existence is evident from
ancient law policies with Plato’s renowned interpretation of Socrates’ trial and execution by
democratic Athens in 399 B.C.E. Tanyi and Bruder (2014) have note that majority of
contemporary philosophic consideration to capital punishment materialized from penal reform
proponents, as ethical, moral assessment of law as well as social practice or amidst theories of

2
SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
the contemporary state and sovereignty. However, the mid-twentieth century emergence of an
international human rights government along with U.K constitutional controversies instigated an
additional philosophic focus on theoretical perspectives of punishment and the death penalty,
which involves arbitrariness, errors or discrimination in the Britain institution of capital
punishment. Comprehensive studies of Vaughn (2015) have noted that the fundamental
philosophic question regarding capital punishment is related to ethical justification. Such a
question bases is its query on which grounds is the state’s intentional and conscious killing of
identified criminals for specific serious crimes such as murder or rape is regarded as a morally
justified and valid response towards voluntary criminal conduct.
In the view of Shariff et al. (2014) as with questions regarding the morality of
punishment, two broadly diverse approaches are commonly identified. The first approach relies
on retributivism shedding light on previous conduct that values death as a penal response as well
as utilitarianism or consequentialism by takes into consideration to the impacts of the death
penalty particularly any severe impact with the aim in preventing more crime through deterrence
or incapacitation. At this juncture, it is important to throw light on diverging perspectives
between Kant’s utilitarian approach to death penalty and standard consequentialism. Studies
conducted by Li (2015) have claimed that Kant’s utilitarian approach towards capital punishment
chiefly depends on underlying factors and the causal effects of the practice by focusing on areas
whether the death penalty draws required effectiveness in incapacitating or preventing potential
offenders. Moreover, Walen (2015) has argued that if such a punishment fails to influence these
ends enhanced than punishing alternatives that are based on extensive incarceration, in that case
capital punishment does not show justifiability and ethics on utilitarian grounds. As a result,
drawing relevance to ethical and moral principles, the comparative efficacy of capital