University Ethics: Death Penalty Moral and Ethical Analysis

This essay delves into the ethical complexities surrounding the death penalty. It analyzes arguments from Stephen B. Bright and Louis P. Pojman, exploring moral objections and explanations for each viewpoint. The essay discusses the Kantian retributive theory of punishment and the arguments pre...Read More

Running head: ETHICS ON DEATH PENALTY
ETHICS ON DEATH PENALTY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ETHICS ON DEATH PENALTY
Article 1: The Death Penalty should be Abolished by Stephen B. Bright
Article 2: The Death Penalty Sometime is Morally Legitimate by louis P. Pojman
Part I
Question 1: Main Arguments for each Moral Objection
Article 1
The article speaks for the abolition of the death penalty on the grounds of violation of
human rights and the infringement of the moral authority of the United States of America.
The author states death penalty as arbitrary and unfair for many times it is innocent lives that
are lost due to police inaction, defective judicial proceedings, erroneous judicial review, false
statements, accused's poor financial condition to get proper legal support, et cetera. Various
other factors like racial discrimination, political consideration, excessive pressure to solve
critical crime incidents fast often becomes the reason behind the capital punishment of
several accused. The author emphasizes on the grave mistake of putting innocent people to
death, in lack of supportive evidences in favour of the innocent person (Bedau, Hugo and
Paul).
Article 2
The author supports death penalty by pointing out that it remains the offenders that
there are consequences to their wrongful actions, which may deter them from committing the
crime subsequently. Death penalty is a retribution for the criminals who commits heinous
crimes, taking law and order on their own hands and killing human beings with no mercy
(Pojman).
Question 2: Moral Explanations for each Argument
Article 1

2ETHICS ON DEATH PENALTY
 Death penalty violates human rights by taking away the life of the offender, as human
rights demands that everyone has the right to live.
 It is immoral to put human life to death for committing a crime, who could otherwise
be punished in another way.
 The percentage of African Americans given the death penalty is higher.
Article 2
 Death penalty acts as deterrence for keeping the crime rate relatively low all over the
world. It acts as a fear in the minds of offenders, who understands that their wrongful
actions shall have a strict consequence.
 It is a retribution against the previous crimes committed by criminals, as they deserve
a punishment depending upon the gravity of the crime.
 It should not be confused with vengeance, as it is not an act committed out of anger
upon the offender, but a form of punishment (Pojman).
Question 3
Personally, I support the second article that speaks in favour of death penalty and
claim that it is morally legitimate sometimes. To my belief, it does acts as a deterrence to the
world by building of fear in the minds of the criminals who intend and plan to commit
heinous crimes. Strict retribution in the form of death penalty for criminals like Ted Bundy,
Steven Judy, John Mohammed is a must as they do not deserve to live after taking away so
many innocent lives. It gives us a sense of justice.
The argument in support of abolishing death sentence is not strong enough as it does
not talk about justice for the victim and their families, as mere imprisonment does not serve
as a punishment sufficient for heinous crimes like rape and murder.
Question 4

3ETHICS ON DEATH PENALTY
The famous quote “an eye for an eye would make the world blind” could have made
the argument against death penalty stronger in terms of morality and reasonableness. While,
statistical data about heinous criminals getting away scot free from the clutch of the judiciary
without being punished, returning to the society and continuing their heinous crimes would
have made the arguments in favour of death penalty even stronger.
Part II
John Oliver in the video ‘Lethal Injections' is of the view that death penalty is wrong.
He points out that 4% of the defendants who are sentenced to death are actually innocents,
which is a major reason for opposing death penalty (Lethal Injections: Last Week Tonight
With John Oliver (HBO)).
The Kantian Retributive Theory of Punishment claims that death only be the proper
punishment for a crime as heinous as rape and murder. As rightly said by Kant, a Sovereign
state must punish for maintaining the social security of its citizens from criminals (Rauscher).
The retributive theory not only considers the guilt of the criminal but also considers the type
of committed, thereby categorizing the punishment of certain crimes under death penalty.
Agreeing with the retributive theory by Immanuel Kant, I personally believe that
capital punishment is the most suitable punishment for crimes that take away precious lives
of innocent people is possibly death. Kant recognizes that the theory of 'eye for an eye’ is
although not suitable always, but it is sometimes required to deliver justice in specific
situations.

4ETHICS ON DEATH PENALTY
References
Bedau, Hugo Adam, and Paul G. Cassell, eds. Debating the death penalty: Should America
have capital punishment? The experts on both sides make their case. Oxford University
Press, 2005.
"Lethal Injections: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver (HBO)". Lastweektonight, 2019.
Pojman, Louis P. "Why the death penalty is morally permissible." Debating the death
penalty: Should America have capital punishment (2004): 51-75.
Rauscher, Frederick. "Kant’s social and political philosophy." (2007).