Advocacy for Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is a form of death penalty legalized in some countries for those who commit capital crimes. Crimes against humanity, treachery, war, murder, genocide, and espionage are all capital offenses. Rape, kidnapping, arson, robbery, theft, and burglary are examples of similar crimes (Pojman & Vaughn, 2009). The individual is sentenced to death and then executed under capital punishment. Despite the fact that most countries withdrew from the designated practice, various countries are actively performing it in the modern world. Numerous states have passed laws and regulations prohibiting the use of the death penalty as a punishment for a variety of offenses. Other countries basically stopped practicing the mentioned form of punishment by making the occurrence insignificant.

Advocacy for Capital Punishment

Death penalty is morally permissible (Pojman & Vaughn, 2009). Retribution has been the analogy according to most scholars and law philosophers across the word. In this case, the need for vengeance and vigilante justice takes the first priority. The argument is that any crime performed by an individual in the society requires the same magnitude of punishment. It is clear that it is against humanity principles to kill while seeking justice. Nevertheless, some crimes are so grievous that the appropriate punishment for them is capital punishment.

Complementary, commissioners discuss their petitions based on the repetitive nature of some crimes. In this case, the criminal is regularly caught in different types of capital offenses. Suggestively, when an individual commits murder then he or she gets a jail sentence. As a result, the same person becomes a terrorist. In this situation, grave crimes will be repeated several times by the same parties leading to moral destruction of the society. Perpetrators of major war crimes frequently endanger humanity despite fines and jail terms. The reckless manner in which the lives of innocent members of the affected society are put under threat through deliberate actions of self-centered individuals is too cruel to be accepted. According to Louis and Lewis, such individuals should be executed to avoid further development of such capital crimes. This analogy ensures the deterrent of crimes in the society (Powell 1975).

Also, capital crime is justifiable when the government strives to uphold human dignity along with retribution (Pojman & Vaughn, 2009). The society gets affected by capital offenses being committed. In most cases, those people who have suffered show internal grievances by demanding taking life of the criminal. This means that the party involved in the violation is deemed to die through the mob justice. Louis and Lewis admit that the government prevents this situation by punishing the culprit themselves, through the law. By doing so, the state administration succeeds in maintaining law and justice. On the other hand, such conduct prevents the society from enforcing law themselves. In this case, the dignity of the individuals is apprehended and upheld as well. This is because a criminal has the obligation to be punished on his wrongdoing.

Critiques on Capital Punishment

Punishing basically involves imposing harm on a person after a wrongdoing. The inflicted penalty should in this case have a considerable or equal magnitude to the offense associated. It is also important to note that the punishment has a legitimate domain of restricted relationships. A state has a responsibility to correct and punish criminals (Powell 1975). But more important is fact that punishment requires reference to both harm and the offense.

Further argument on punishment suggests that in as much inflicting harm is done based on previous offenses, the result of the punishment must be efficient for a penalty to be morally acceptable. This analogy provides a critical outline of the moral acceptability of capital punishment. Therefore, given issue is regarded as a utilitarian view of punishment. The approach points out that the relevance of a previous adjustment action imposed as a corrective measure on a law offender should have a great bearing to the future. The person affected in this case should benefit and have a chance to change for the better. This concept opposes the principle of death sentence. Moreover, it is possible for the court of law to have accused an innocent person of being guilty depending on the approach chosen by judges and corruption strategies. This occurrence encompasses punishing an individual who is not to blame. Apprehending an innocent person with an aim of deterring others from committing the same crime is against humanity rules. Such action also undermines the social dignity and value of the society.

In occasion of self-defense, a person who committed murder may be defined as an innocent one. In this case, the crime made has resulted from a dangerous provocation. Justice is upheld for both parties and the criminal is not convicted since the wrongdoing was not deliberate, but an act of protecting an equal potential for human life with dignity (Pojman & Vaughn, 2009). This situation puts the assailant on a guilt platform while the criminal becomes innocent regardless of his action.

Another analogy presents the counter effects of capital punishment where deterrent is not achieved. Instead, in this case, the death sentence concerns more vindictive individuals in the society. In some instances, the acts of crime being experienced after a capital punishment are associated with revenge. The close associates of the apprehended criminal avenge the death of their mate. These occurrences put capital punishment on a different scale. Criminal cases are getting rekindled instead of being deterred (Pojman & Vaughn, 2009).

Unique occasions are experienced as a result of capital punishment. As already mentioned in the paper, death penalty is associated with specific crimes namely, the capital ones. In given setting, there takes place a situation whereby an individual becomes a victim of the external condition since the person is unable to commit suicide (Pojman & Vaughn, 2009). This aspect alludes that the criminal intentionally commits the offenses worth death sentence. The reason behind this matter is to allow the society to take away the lives of violators. The feeling of committing suicide makes the person override oneself. Since then suicide committing goes indirectly, through capital punishment.

Conclusion

Capital punishment is a current practice in the contemporary world. People understand that the analogy behind capital punishment is retribution of crime alongside deterring of the same crime in the society. Upholding human dignity in the process of inflicting harm to the wrongdoing is prudent. As a matter of fact, every individual associates capital punishment with grievous crimes that interfere with life and well-being of the society. Protecting the existence of the innocent becomes the priority in this case. Advocacy for capital punishment has faced a lot of critical ideas from abolitionists and revolutionists. They upheld the notion of punishment as inflicting pain is necessary to cause change in the criminal. I agree to the mentioned statements about punishment. First, penalty is deserved by any wrongdoer. The obligation to be punished however should have limits. In some capital offenses such as murder, the violation may deserve an equal magnitude of punishment, though the apprehended person may not really be a criminal and the ruling will mean taking away an innocent life instead. At the same time, executing a criminal person defiles his or her dignity and right to live in the extreme situation of the crime. In summary, capital punishment should be completely abolished. The perpetrators deserve other forms of penalty and denial like life imprisonment. In this case, many guilty lives that commit such offenses in relation to self-defense will be saved.

References

Luxemburg, R. (2003). The accumulation of capital. Routledge.

Pojman, L. P., & Vaughn, L. (2009). Philosophy: The quest for truth. N.p.

Powell Jr, L. F. (1975). Gregg v, Georgia.