Research Paper Example on Death Penalty

Since 1970, 1,542 people have lost their lives from the death penalty in the United States (Executions Overview). That means 1,542 people are no longer alive because they were sentenced to the death penalty and executed. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has been actively used in the United States since the 1600’s (Early History of the Death Penalty). It is currently legal in twenty-seven of the fifty states, South Carolina being one of them (States and Capital Punishment). The crimes that are punishable by the death penalty are also known as capital crimes. Capital crimes consist of murder, hijacking of an aircraft, treason, espionage, genocide, and rape or kidnapping alongside of murder (Crimes punishable by death).  Since the first documented case of the death penalty in 1608, there has been great controversy over the moral and ethical terms of capital punishment. The controversy that arises when considering the moral terms of the death penalty has divided people into two sides. One side supports the death penalty and views it as a form of punishment while the other side opposes it and views it as inhumane. Both sides of this debate show ethical rationalities within the reasonings of their beliefs. The Utilitarianism belief is evident within the supporters of the death penalty, the Kantian idealism is apparent in those who are against the death penalty, and John Rawls Theory of Justice is evident within both sides of the argument. 

The supporters of capital punishment view the death penalty as a means of justice. This logic stems from the idea that if a person is capable of committing a crime such as murder, then they deserve the same punishment done to them. The supporters believe that it is acceptable to execute a person in order to punish them for their actions. They think that taking away a person’s life who committed a capital crime is for the greater good of everyone. These beliefs align closely with those of Utilitarianism. Utilitarians focus on the outcome of the result. For instance, if a person who commits the capital crime of murder is punished by death, there will be a sense of justice and peace for the victim’s family and for everyone else. Utilitarians believe in choosing what will benefit most of the people, even if that means a small percentage of people will suffer. They think it is just to sacrifice the minority for the sake of the majority. In this case, the supporters of the death penalty view it as morally acceptable to take the life of a person to provide justice for everyone else. To Utilitarians believe this is rational since only one person will suffer, and the rest of the people can have peace knowing that a dangerous person is no longer here. According to the University of Minnesota, a study found that only 20.1% of victim’s family members reported feeling a sense of justice and closure as a result of the death penalty (Victims’ families).  Justice, peace, and closure are not ensured by the death penalty. The only thing that the death penalty ensures is that a life will be taken away. The Utilitarianism idea of doing what benefits the majority at any cost is evident in the argument supporting the death penalty. For the Utilitarian belief to be effective, it must be certain that the result of the outcome will be what will benefit most of the people.

Those who oppose the death penalty view capital punishment as inhumane. This means that they think that it is not morally justified to make a punishment death. Capital punishment and death itself is something that almost everyone views as bad or cruel. Punishing a person to death when most people view it as cruel is unjust. This aligns directly with Kant’s beliefs. Kant believes that people “must not be used merely as means, and so far therefore restricts freedom of action” (Kant, 2). What Kant means by this is that every person should be treated as a human being with value and worth. No one should use or do something to another person that would contradict or undermine one’s value or worth. A person should not be treated as a means to an end, instead they should be treated as a whole. The argument against the death penalty shares similar ideas with Kant’s theory. According to Kant’s theory, using the death penalty would consider using a person as a means to an end. Putting someone to death directly contradicts viewing their life as valuable or whole. Even if the person has done something horrible such as committing a capital crime, it does not make it morally right to take their life according to Kant. Kant says “the natural end which all men have is their own happiness (Kant, 3). Using the death penalty takes away a person’s natural end which means a person’s happiness.  The death penalty directly opposes everything that Kant believes. Kant would consider the death penalty as unmoral alongside the opponents of capital punishment.

Even though there are drastic differences in the viewpoints of both sides regarding the death penalty, they do share one similarity. In John Rawls theory of Justice there is one characteristic that can be applied to both sides of the argument. In John Rawls theory, he states “a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust” (John Rawls, 61). This text means that the governing bodies are responsible for deciding if a law or rule is morally justified. The controversy of this concept when applied to the death penalty makes it very difficult to understand what is considered as just. The issue is that capital punishment is legal in twenty-seven states and illegal in thirty-three states. It is difficult to decide if the death penalty is acceptable according to Rawls theory]y since the governing bodies of different states do not have an universal answer. It is not very reliable in the effort of reaching a moral decision because of the inconsistency of the law in different states. Technically, those that support and oppose the death penalty can both align with John Rawls theory depending on which state the death penalty is being discussed in. This is a great example of how complicated the issue is when discussing it in moral and ethical terms. It is not easy to find a solution to the death penalty when multiple meanings can be applied to the same ethical rationalizations.

The ongoing debate of the death penalty has remained a controversial issue in the United States since the first capital punishment was sentenced. The reason why it is still prevalent today and remains unsolved is because of how difficult it is to reach a resolution. The debate of the death penalty considers moral and ethical issues that many people view differently. Some people believe that capital punishment can be justified in terms of justice while others view it as inhumane. In fact, the United States decided to leave the legalization of the death penalty up to each state individually because it is too difficult to universally agree on one decision.  The complex issues regarding the death penalty will remain evident until there a solution that everyone can agree to. The death penalty can be understood deeper through the moral and ethical interpretations from Mill, Kant, and John Rawls. Investigating these theories in relation to the death penalty can provide further justification and reasoning when dissecting what the death penalty stands for. Since there are extreme differences in the beliefs between those who support and oppose the death penalty, it is uncertain when the issue will be resolved. The death penalty is still in place in twenty-seven states, which means people are still being executed to this day. The number 1,542 is not the stopping point for the number of lives lost from the death penalty. This number will continue to increase every time a person is sentenced to death row as a punishment.