The Capital’s Punishment Essay Sample

Capital punishment has been around since the European settlers came to the new world. “The first recorded execution was Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608” (Britannica). Capital punishment, also widely known as the “death penalty”, is defined as the execution of an offender than was convicted to this penatly by a court of law. The idea originated from Ancient Greek and Roman practice. Capital punishment was also condoned by many of our world's major religions including Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic Law. “Cruel forms of execution in Europe included “breaking” on the wheel, boiling in oil, burning at the stake, decapitation by the guillotine or an axe, hanging, drawing and quartering, and drowning” (Britannica). Historically these deaths were public, allowing crowds to watch over the dead bodies until they rot in place. The morality of capital punishment has been long debated. Not only the morality of the situation but the effect that it has on criminal behaviors. 

I believe that at the end of the day, capital punishment is just another form of  murder. Murder is not acceptable under any circumstances and should not be considered a reliable punishment for felons. Felons should have to live out their lives rotting in a jail cell instead of getting a free pass out of their punishment. Capital punishment is a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. Studies show that the mentally ill, people of color, and the poor make up the majority of death row inmates. In the United States, “between 5 and 10 percent of prisoners on death row have a mental illness”, according to Mental Health America (ACLU).Not only is capital punishment inhumane, it also eliminates the chance of rehabilitation. The moral message that capital punishment conveys is the very thing the law is trying to represss - killing. Capital punishment includes an unacceptable link between the law and violence.

In contrast, some people believe that it is morally right to convict someone to this penalty. “Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder, because they have taken the life of another, have forfeited their own right to life” (Britannica). The individuals that have this way of thinking come from a retributive mindset. This means the response that the court of laws should have against criminal behaviour focuses on the punishment of the convicted and compensation of the victims. “In general, the severity of the punishment is proportionate to the seriousness of the crime” (Britannica). Some who support the death penalty argue that it makes it impossible for criminals to commit their crimes over again. While this may be true, the death penalty also makes it impossible for these criminals to redeem themselves and get the help they need for rehabilitation. The percentage of murderers that are suffering from mental illnesses makes up about 33% of mass killings. “Lee and Hall point out that depression and PTSD may be considered as mental illnesses for the purpose of death penalty ineligibility”(PhysiciansTimes). Even convicted felons with mental illnesses are sentenced to the death penalty and will never recieve rehabilitation that they needed. 

 Not only does the death penalty take a toll on the families of the criminal, it takes a tole on the physician giving the lethal injection. These physicians in certain situations must break their moral code and follow what they are being told to do. “Physician skills and procedures that contradict established medical practice are being used to carry out government mandates''(Keane). Physician participation is key to these executions due to their medical knowledge and skills. “This means, however, that medical technology and physician expertise are utilized to end life rather than to sustain it” (Journal). Those who support physicians taking part in these executions believe that it is essential to minimize suffering. When it comes to ethical standards, physicians have no place in these proceedings, although their intent may be to provide comfort. “Today, the AMA Code of Medical Ethics speaks directly to a physician’s ethical responsibility when it comes to capital punishment stating, in part, that “as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, a physician must not participate in a legally authorized execution”” (AMA). Physicians participating in legally authorized executions is not ethical, although it may be legal in the eyes of the law. Ethical points of view come down to what is right and what is wrong. It is ultimately wrong for a physician that is given medical knowledge to preserve life, to use that knowledge to take life away. 

According to the divine command theory, capital punishment is not moral and therefore should not be a part of the eighth amendement. Under no circumstances should murder be something we resort to. The death penalty is taking ones right to life away from them. No matter the depth of why someone would be eligible for the death penalty, it is unethical. The divine command theory proposes that an action’s status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. This implies that one should not commit murder because life is sacred. The divine command theory rules against capital punishment as well as Kantianism.

 Kantianism, also known as the double effect principle or deontology, views capital punishment as being wrong by its nature, a violation to life, and takes a look at the inhumane ways capital punishment is carried out. Society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and welfare of all citizens. This leads people to believe that “only putting murderers to death can ensure that convicted killers do not kill again”(SCU). Consequentialists would argue that the death penalty could be beneficial to society only if it would do more good than harm. When thinking about the death penalty, I believe that is does more harm than good. Not only is this punishment legitimizing and justify killing, it promotes the idea that our human rights/rights to life are insignificant in the eyes of the law. 

In conclusion, when it comes to the debate of whether or not capital punishment is ethical, I believe that it is ultimately unethical. Capital punishment is the execution of a convicted felon. The government likes to use the word “execution” as a placeholder for the words “legal murder”. At the end of the day capital punishment is the murder of a convicted felon. Murder is wrong, killing is wrong, therefore capital punishment should be considered immoral. In the eyes of a consequentialist, capital punishment is beneficial to society only if it would do more good than harm. When trying to determine whether the death penalty would promote more good than harm, all aspects need to be considered. Not only is this person having their right to life taken away from them at the hands of the government, they are putting physicians in a place where they may be obligated to break their moral code. Physicians jobs are intended to preserve life and help people. When they participate in the lethal injection given to these felons they are being asked to do the exact opposite. The divine command theory justifies my point of view. It states that an action’s status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. This implies that one should not commit murder because life is sacred. The divine command theory rules against capital punishment as well as deontology. Both of these theories suggest that capital punishment is morally wrong, not only due to the fact that it goes against the will of God, it is a violation of life. No matter how you look at it, capital punishment is killing, and killing is always ethically wrong.