The Ethical Dilemma of the Death Penalty: Theory vs. Practice
November 7th, 2023
The death penalty, often referred to as capital punishment, has remained the subject of profound ethical deliberation throughout history. In theory, one can contend that the death penalty is ethically defensible when employed against the most extreme criminal cases, serving as a morally justified response to unspeakable crimes. However, the actual implementation of the death penalty gives rise to grave concerns regarding the potential for risks, corruption, and exploitation, thereby rendering it ethically intricate. Considering all variables, the potential for misuse dramatically outweighs the possible justice in select cases.
The policy is intended for the gravest and most abhorrent criminal acts. Frequently, capital offenses encompass acts of homicide, especially those marked by aggravating elements, such as premeditation, multiple victims, or the killing of a law enforcement officer. Certain states additionally permit the imposition of the death penalty in instances of terrorism, espionage, and specific federal offenses. Capital punishment eligibility criteria can hinge upon each state's statutes and protocols. Throughout the history of the United States, various methods of execution have been employed, encompassing hanging, firing squads, electrocution, gas chambers, and lethal injection. In contemporary practice, lethal injection stands as the prevailing method, widely embraced by numerous states as the principal means of execution.
The issue of the death penalty continues to be a source of intense debate in the United States. Advocates assert that it embodies a fitting retribution for the most atrocious transgressions and acts as a potential deterrent to potential future criminals. Conversely, critics articulate apprehensions of the potential for wrongful executions, disparities in its application grounded in race and socioeconomic factors, as well as profound ethical concerns. While theoretically, it is a tool for administering justice in response to the most heinous crimes; it can be misused, abused, or even weaponized by prejudiced personnel within the criminal justice system. Throughout history, instances have emerged where the judicial system applied it against individuals later proven innocent. Wrongful convictions due to inadequate legal representation, erroneous evidence, or suppressed exculpatory information are a stark reminder of the system's fallibility. It has been utilized in cases where it was unnecessary, including on convicts who were minors when the offense occurred but tried as adults.
Additionally, racial and socioeconomic biases have contributed to the disproportionate application of the death penalty, raising concerns about its potential for exploitation as a means of perpetuating systemic injustices. Only 13% of the U.S. population is black, yet 41% of individuals on death row are black, 35% of whom are executed. 75% of the executions were in cases with white victims. The policy creates space for racial injustice ending in execution to be legal and is especially an issue in the South. In Georgia, individuals convicted of killing white victims are 17 times more likely to be executed than cases with black victims. The misuse of the death penalty underscores the pressing need for reform, transparency, and safeguards to protect against wrongful executions and ensure that justice is administered with the utmost integrity and fairness. The policy was initially intended as penance for the most extreme despicable acts, but it is used to target society's most vulnerable individuals.
Another contributing factor to the misuse is the ethical dilemma surrounding determining what act or combination of actions is "severe enough" to warrant execution. This issue hinges on the challenge of establishing a universally applicable standard of heinousness that justifies taking human life as a state-sanctioned punishment. Most individuals would agree that someone who has committed a combination of genuinely evil acts, like Jeffery Dahmer, a cannibal, rapist, and murderer, or Ted Bundy, a man most likely responsible for hundreds of deaths. However, what specific degree sets the line between warranting execution and not? The inherently subjective nature of this judgment is susceptible to interpretation, personal bias, and the influence of prevailing social, political, and cultural factors. Such discretion can lead to inconsistencies in the application of the death penalty, with some individuals sentenced to death for crimes that, under different circumstances or in various jurisdictions, may not have resulted in the same fate. This potential for arbitrariness, coupled with the irreversible nature of the punishment, underscores the ethical concerns associated with the death penalty and its susceptibility to misuse or exploitation in the absence of a clear and universally acceptable threshold for its application.
In certain instances, the death penalty has offered a form of justice and closure to families who have endured the trauma of heinous crimes. For those who have grappled with the harrowing loss of loved ones due to unimaginable acts of violence, witnessing the perpetrator face the ultimate consequence can provide a profound sense of vindication and resolution., deterring others from engaging in similarly atrocious acts. The notion of retribution and the assurance that society is safe from the most perilous offenders can bring a measure of solace to those who have experienced immeasurable grief. Amid the ongoing ethical discourse surrounding the death penalty, proponents contend that its capacity to address the profound suffering endured by victims' families stands as a testament to its potential role in achieving justice and deterring future acts of violence. Some may argue that capital punishment prevents crime and protects police officers, but there is no evidence backing this argument.
The perils inherent in the methods of execution utilized in capital punishment, coupled with the excessive allocation of resources, epitomize the inherent flaws of this punitive system. Not only do specific execution methods carry the potential for inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering, thereby undermining the humane ideals purportedly upheld by the legal system, but they also underscore the ethical dilemma surrounding the imposition of irreversible sentences. Furthermore, the exorbitant costs associated with administering the death penalty, from protracted legal proceedings to the maintenance of death row facilities, strain public resources.
Ensuring justice for mourning families of victims does not necessitate resorting to the death penalty. Pursuing alternative forms of punishment, rooted in a comprehensive understanding of rehabilitation and societal protection, can address heinous crimes while minimizing the risk of irreversible mistakes against innocent individuals. By embracing approaches that prioritize rehabilitation, education, and addressing the root causes of criminal behavior, we can construct a justice system that not only provides solace to grieving families but also upholds the fundamental principle of safeguarding innocent lives. This nuanced approach acknowledges the complexity of human nature and allows for a more just and compassionate legal system.
Works Cited
“Alabama Inmate Opposes Being ‘test Subject’ for New Nitrogen Execution Method.” AP News, AP News, 26 Sept. 2023, apnews.com/article/death-penalty-nitrogen-hypoxia-alabama-01295e5b93701a7b5ea2b0050835b2a3.
Amnesty International. “The Death Penalty - Your Questions Answered.” Amnesty International, 28 June 2023, www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/the-death-penalty-your-questions-answered/.
Berns, W. “Defending the Death Penalty.” Defending the Death Penalty | Office of Justice Programs, ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/defending-death-penalty. Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.
Death Penalty Info Team. “Death Penalty Information Center.” Death Penalty Information Center, 22 June 2023, deathpenaltyinfo.org/.
Rimer, Sara, and Dan Biddle. “Death Penalty.” Equal Justice Initiative, 19 Oct. 2023, eji.org/issues/death-penalty/.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. RAMIREZ v. COLLIER. 9 Nov. 2021.
Willis, Jay. “Will the Supreme Court Let Texas Use Junk Science to Kill Brent Brewer?” Balls and Strikes, 26 Oct. 2023, ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/brent-brewer-texas-supreme-court-execution-junk-science/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email