The death penalty has raised different questions in society concerning its illegitimacy as a punishment for capital offences. The primary problem, which remains underlying, is whether our established justice system is out of the desire to rehabilitate or it is out of the desire for retribution. Examination of both sides of this argument, looking deep into the legality and ethics of this kind of punishment for capital offences, more so in the United States, has failed to come up with a clear stand (Hood et al. 12). Death penalty is a very critical form of punishment to the lawbreakers however, Death penalty brings to attention the legality of its existence considering arguments of several philosophers and lawyers who have in recent either supported or criticized its existence. It exists in some countries, while in other countries like Canada, it is fully out of the law. Philosophers like Aristotle have points of argument discouraging its existence, but correspondingly, there are people in society who feel that the death penalty is a good move for some kinds of crimes, like serial killers and terrorists. Despite the fact that prisons are meant for lawbreakers, it is also obvious that there are some kinds of crimes that deserve the death penalty, an eye for an eye (Hood et al. 12). This debate is indeed tough. Still, decisions will depend on the kind of justice system of a nation, considering points from both sides of the debate.
However, the Bible is considered the major reference point when it comes to such grave matters and laws. Apparently, the Bible clearly defines that no man is entitled to another man’s life. According to this scripture, it is a pure offence to commission a death sentence on an individual. God is the only person entitled to take life whenever he feels and even give it back (Forst 327). The theory of Aristotle concerning the death penalty in his work of Nicomachean Ethics, permitting the death penalty, is a disgrace to our society (Forst 327). There is a possibility of exploring various kinds of virtues and means, like resentment, temperance, sincerity, and patience, which can all help us decide on this kind of punishment. The utilitarian rule, which says killing is wrong no matter the reason for execution can help I such a situation. Besides, prisons are meant to contain lawbreakers and killing them is not a form of containment. People believe that lawbreakers can have a second chance in life when given the opportunity to change. It is uncommon to see serial killers change from prison to become pastors in our world today. God is the only one who can take life, and no human being is entitled to the same.
In contrast, the death penalty gives the state an opportunity to exact and, by any chance, the most appropriate retribution. Criminals must be in a position to face the consequences of their doings. A teaching from the past says that actions have consequences. Parents always say this to their siblings, and in real-life situations, this phrase holds (Forst 327). Touching a hot metal rod burns, which is the ultimate price of touching the rod. Consequences to our acts bring a kind of order to our society. It is, therefore, of no ill intentions that murders should endure the same. Eliminating of retribution exaction makes a society vulnerable since there is no deterrent action for such a crime.
The death penalty is a grave matter in our society, and the decisions on whether it should be allowed or suspended solemnly depend on the executive arm of government. People have different opinions on the debate, and both sides of the discussion have valid points claiming their point of view. It is, therefore, a decision lying in the hands of every justice system in a country to determine their stand from both the philosopher’s and protagonist lawyer’s opinions on the matter.
Work Cited
Forst, Brian. “Hugo Adam Bedau is Austin Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. He received his Ph. D. degree from Harvard University in 1961. He is the author of Justice and Equality (1971), The Case Against the Death Penalty (1973), The Courts, the Constitution, and Capital Punishment (1977), and Death is Different (1987); editor of The Death Penalty in America (1982); and author of.” The Socio-economics of Crime and Justice (2016): Pp 327.
Hood, Roger, and Carolyn Hoyle. The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. OUP Oxford, 2015: Pp 12
