Is capital punishment for serious crimes such as murder morally permissible?

Throughout history capital punishment has been proven to be effective against capital crimes.
Capital punishment is the legally authorized infliction of death on someone who has committed
a capital crime (Oxford University Press, 2015). Capital crimes include, but are not limited to
first-degree murder, rape, treason, espionage and terrorism. Supporters of capital punishment
are referred to as retentionists and those who oppose it are referred to as abolitionists (Pojman,
2005). Two views held by retentionists are deterrence and retributivism (Pojman, 2005),
whereas abolitionists argue against capital punishment in support of long-term imprisonment
based upon the inevitability of error, unfairness and barbarity (Bedau, 1992). This essay will
discuss the views of both retentionists and abolitionists to demonstrate why capital punishment
is morally permissible.

Deterrence is the action of punishing a guilty person as an example and to create fear in other
people for the punishment. Capital punishment is such a punishment, that when carried out
consistently and promptly will create fear in the mind of any rational human being. Every
human being fears death, even animals and as Ernest Van Den Haag, in his article on
Deterrence and the Death Penalty mentions, One abstains from dangerous acts because of
vague, inchoate, habitual and, above all, preconscious fears (1968, p. 282). Most criminals
would think twice before committing a crime if they knew that their lives were at risk. A good
example of this is given by Gernstein (1960) in Pojman (2005) where the police commissioner
of London testified that a gang of armed robbers disbanded after one of its members was hanged
for committing murder. If a human being still goes on to commit a capital offense despite
having knowledge of capital punishment, then such a human being is not rational and must be
eliminated for the greater good of society. Conversely, abolitionists argue that the deterrence
effect is implausible due to the numerous safeguards associated with capital cases which
inevitably lead to lengthy delays and as a result capital punishment cannot be carried out
consistently and promptly. This argument is flawed because the problem lies in the judicial
system and not in capital punishment itself and as Haag writes It is not the penalty- death
or prison-which is unjust when inflicted on the innocent but its imposition on someone who is
innocent (1968, p. 281). Furthermore, they argue that statistical evidence in favour of the
deterrence effect is indecisive, thus it is not effective. However, this form of reasoning is
fallacious because it fails to consider the middle ground which states that while we cannot
actually show that the death penalty deters, the weight of evidence supports its deterrence
effect (Pojman, 2005).

Abolitionists also argue that prisoners awaiting capital punishment often have to wait for years
for the punishment to be enacted due to the numerous safeguards associated with capital
punishment and that this long waiting period has adverse effects on the mental state of
prisoners. This argument is hypocritical as life sentences without parole are just the same, a
prisoner waits for death whilst in prison for the rest of their life and this also has negative
effects on the mental health of a prisoner.

Some people believe that the death penalty may become a cause of irreversible mistakes as the
death penalty is irreversible. Once a person has been executed, there is nothing that can be done
to reverse the punishment if the person is found to be innocent and I wholly agree with this.
However, the chances of an innocent human receiving capital punishment are extremely low.
The death penalty is not handed out by the judicial system without lots of care, investigation
and finalisation. When the life of a human being is at stake, trials are more likely to be fair then
when other matters are at stake and as result capital punishment is less likely to be inflicted
when compared to other forms of punishment (Haag, 1968). A study cited by Lopatto (2014)
states that 4% of people who are served the death penalty are innocent, if the study is right.
Again, the problem lies with the judicial system and not with capital punishment. Furthermore,
this is a small price to pay in order to protect society and as Pojman (2005) mentions it is
morally acceptable as the intention behind the execution is justifiable. Civilians often get
caught in the crossfire between police officers and criminals but does society advocate for the
entire police force to be dissolved? During a defensive war, we accept the fact that innocent
civilians die at the hands of our soldiers, but do we advocate for the end of the war? In both
cases, the answer is no and this is because society understands that mistakes happen and that
such mistakes are morally permissible as they are for the greater good (Pojman, 2005).

Abolitionists are merely mistaken in assuming that prison sentences are an alternative to capital
punishment. There is no guarantee that a human being will be the same after years in prison,
especially after spending years in solitary confinement. If a human being is lucky to get
compensation, there are certain things in life which money cannot buy. The opportunities and
time lost with family and friends will not be able to be recovered. Furthermore, prisoners who
are kept in solitary confinement, are prone to develop anxiety, hallucinations, wild mood
swings, and are unable to control their impulses (Kiem, 2013). Rodriguez (2011) reports that
in 2005, forty-four prisoners in the Californian prison system committed suicide; 70% of whom
were in solitary confinement. If these are the conditions in a first world state prisons, one can
only imagine the conditions in third world state prisons. For example in Zimbabwe, prisoners
only get one meal a day and have prisons are overcrowded (Gavaghan, 2009; Aljazeera, 2009;
Dailynews, 2015). Now, how is prison better than the death penalty?

Abolitionists such as Bedau (1992) think that capital punishment is barbaric, but tell that to
rape victims and families who have lost their loved ones due to the actions of barbaric people.
People like Steven Timothy Judy, Timothy McVeigh, Gary Ridgway, Andrei Romanovich
Chikatilo and Henry Lee Lucas deserve nothing less than the death penalty. They raped and/or
murdered numerous human beings in cold blood, destroying families and lives. Steven Judy
even had the audacity to say he wasnt losing any sleep after he raped a woman, murdered
her and drowned her three small children. Those few capital offenders who suffer for a few
minutes whilst dying deserve it, after all, what goes around comes around. Furthermore, with
the advancement of technology, it is rare for an execution to be botched. Currently, the rate of
botched executions in the United States of America stands at 3.15% (Sarat, 2014) which is low
and so abolitionists cannot claim that capital punishment is barbaric as the remaining 96.85%
of executions are quick and painless.

Retentionists hold the view that a criminal must be punished in accordance to the crime they
commit, whether society accepts it or not. This is referred to as retributivism (Pojman, 2005).
The reason being is that if society fails to punish criminals in accordance to the crimes that
they commit, then there is a possibility that individuals will take the law into they own hands.
On the contrary, abolitionists such as Edward Heath argue that capital punishment is a thirst
for revenge (Pojman, 2005). However, there is a difference between retribution and revenge.
Revenge is personal and often involves exacting more punishment on the offender whereas
retribution is objective and impersonal (Pojman, 2005). Put simply, capital punishment is not
revenge, but it is putting an end to the lives of irrational human beings who dont benefit society
but instead cause harm to society. Bedau (1992) argues that retribution in terms of capital
punishment is premediated, violent homicide. This is false as retentionists carry out capital
punishment to protect society from criminals.

Bedau (1992) also argues that capital punishment is unfair and that it discriminates based on
race, sex and socio-economic factors. Again, this argument is fallacious because capital
punishment cannot discriminate, it is the judiciary system that is discriminating and blaming
capital punishment for the weaknesses of the judiciary system is a red herring fallacy.
Society should therefore focus on reforming the judiciary system in order to eliminate
unfairness.

It is evident from this essay that capital punishment for serious crimes such as first-degree
murder, rape, treason, espionage and terrorism is morally permissible as it serves to bring
justice to victims in an objective manner and, most importantly it helps in protecting society
from criminals. This is provided that capital punishment is carried out consistently and
promptly.
References

Aljazeera, 2009. Zimbabwe prison called 'death camp'. [Online]

Available at: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2009/04/2009411994118412.html
[Accessed May 2017].

Bedau, H. A., 1992. The Case Against The Death Penalty. [Online]
Available at: http://users.rcn.com/mwood/deathpen.html
[Accessed May 2017].

Dailynews, 2015. https://www.dailynews.co.zw/articles/2015/03/19/improve-zim-s-prison-

conditions. [Online]
Available at: https://www.dailynews.co.zw/articles/2015/03/19/improve-zim-s-prison-
conditions
[Accessed May 2017].

Gavaghan, J., 2009. Life in Mugabe's Hell Hole: Zimbabwe jail exposed in secret film that
shows inmates starving to death. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166509/Life-Mugabes-Hell-Hole-
Zimbabwe-jail-exposed-secret-film-shows-inmates-starving-death.html
[Accessed May 2017].

Haag, E. V. D., 1968. On Deterrence and the Death Penalty. Ethics, July, 78(4), pp. 280-288.

Kiem, B., 2013. The Horrible Psychology of Solitary Confinement. [Online]

Available at: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/solitary-confinement-2/
[Accessed May 2017].

Lopatto, E., 2014. How Many Innocent People Are Sentenced To Death?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethlopatto/2014/04/29/how-many-innocent-
people-are-sentenced-to-death/#567c39983b9e
[Accessed May 2017].

Oxford University Press, 2015. Oxford Dictionary of English. 3rd ed. s.l.:Oxford University
Press.

Pilkington, E., 2014. US death row study: 4% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent.
[Online]
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-
percent-defendants-innocent
[Accessed May 2017].

Pojman, L. P., 2005. A Defense of the Death Penalty. In: A. I. Cohen & C. H. Wellman, eds.
Contemporary debates in applied ethics. 1st ed. s.l.:Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 107-123.

Rodriguez, S., 2011. Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement, s.l.: Solitary Watch.

Sarat, A., 2014. Gruesome spectacles : botched executions and America's death penalty. 1st
ed. Stanford(California): Stanford University Press.