PHI 103 Week 5 Final Paper

The death sentence is one of the most controversial topics that has elicited huge debate in
recent years. The death sentence alludes to the punishment by execution given to capital
offenders. The punishment is reserved for certain crimes that are believed to be violent. The
crimes include murder and rape. In the United States, capital punishment is undertaken by employing lethal injection or electrocution. Electrocution is done using an electric chair. One is tied to a
wooden chair and electrocuted through electrodes that are placed on one’s head and legs. In
lethal injection, a poisonous substance is introduced to one’s bloodstream. The morality of the
death sentence has elicited mixed reactions. Proponents argue that people who commit certain
crimes deserve to die. They argue that the sentence helps in ensuring that future crimes are
stopped. On the other hand, opponents argue that the death sentence is in contravention of
one’s right to live. The essay analyzes arguments on both sides of the divide, with the focus
being on the reasoning of the arguments advanced by the opponents and proponents.

Defense for Capital Punishment

Premise 1: The law is put in place to bar offenders from committing crimes.
Premise 2: A criminal chooses to commit an offence because the perceived benefits are higher
than the perceived adverse consequences.
Premise 3: Capital punishment is designed to increase the consequences of committing certain
offences, thereby reducing the desire to commit these crimes.
Premise 4: The legal sanctions awarded to an offender must be equally proportionate to the
crime committed.

PHI 103 WEEK 5 FINAL PAPER 3
Premise 5: The death sentence is an appropriate punishment for capital offenders.
Conclusion: capital punishment is moral.

Support for the Argument that Capital Punishment is Moral
Deterrence and retribution are the main arguments in support of capital punishment.
Retribution dictates that when someone commits a crime that harms society, the wrongdoing
merits punishment (Carlsmith, 2006). The offender should be punished through a punishment
that makes them suffer in proportion to the crime committed. Punishments in law are morally
justifiable. The justification of the punishment put in place in law is independent of the
consequence on the offender or society. The key thing is that the punishment awarded to a guilty
person should mirror the nature of the offense. The nature of the offense should dictate the
punishment given (Carlsmith, 2006). The important aspects in defining punishment for a certain
offense include the intentions of the perpetrator and the extenuating circumstances that may
mitigate the morality of the crime.
Deterrence theory is hinged on the potential wrongdoer being rational. An individual
commits a crime based on the costs and benefits of committing the crime. Punishments enforced
by the law aim to ensure that they change the costs associated with a certain crime. A rational
human being will thus be inclined to avoid committing a crime that they believe has huge costs
compared to the benefits. Various punishments under the law, including fines, incarceration, and
corporal punishment, are designed to deter people from committing crimes in the future
(Carlsmith, 2006). The law does not focus on the harm that to others but on the gains for the
preparator. Crimes that have a large payoff should have a huge punishment imposed on them to
ensure that the individuals are deterred from committing such crimes. The punishment for crimes

PHI 103 WEEK 5 FINAL PAPER 4
that society wants to uproot must be very severe. Crimes like murder have an adverse impact on
the victims and their families (Garvey, 2003). As a result, huge sanctions must be put in place to
ensure that future offenders are deterred from committing the crime. The punishments also need
to be highly publicized to ensure that the goal of deterring potential wrongs is
accomplished.

Support for the Argument Death Sentence is Immoral
Premise One: All human beings have a right to life irrespective of crimes committed.
Premise Two: The death sentence amounts to taking life from a human being and therefore
violates human rights.
Premise Three: The state must ensure that criminals are rehabilitated as opposed to
ending the life of criminals.
Premise Four: The judicial system is not perfect and may wrongly convict innocent people.
Premise Five: The death of innocent people is an unnecessary evil, and therefore society should
seek to ensure that the lives of innocent people are protected at all costs.
Conclusion: Capital punishment is immoral.
Arguments advanced against capital punishment centre on ethics and morality. Human
beings have inherent rights that need to be observed. The right to life is a right that should not be
violated despite the crime one commits (Gray, 2011). The state has a responsibility to protect
individuals and ensuring that their rights are respected. Capital punishment is founded on
vigilante values that characterized society in the 1800s (Garland, 2005). In the 1800s, the society
aimed to ensure that offenders were punished without being taken through due process. Lynching

PHI 103 WEEK 5 FINAL PAPER 5
people was one of the main forms of punishment that was implemented by society (Garland,
2005). Vigilante justice is in direct contravention of rights that bind society. The state has a
responsibility to ensure that vigilante justice that characterized the American society in the 1800s
is brought to an end.
The death sentence also results in pain and suffering to immediate family members. The
law should aim to ensure that punishments do not cause pain. To this end, executing a criminal
and having their family members bear the pain is unacceptable. There lacks sufficient statistical
evidence that shows that the death sentence succeeds in ensuring that criminals are deterred from
engaging in criminal acts. Research on the same has yielded inconclusive results. In addition, a
life sentence can be implemented in the place of capital punishment to deter offenders (Garland,
2005). The American justice system is not perfect. When a person is taken to court, the outcome
of the case depends on various factors key among the evidence as well as the defense that the
accused advances in courts. The imperfections of the justice system may result in innocent
people being deemed guilty. In capital crime cases, an innocent person will be executed by the
state. Capital punishment cannot be undone, and this means that it is immoral if there is a chance
that an innocent person may be executed for a crime they did not commit.

Analysis of the Reasoning

Both sides of the argument advance valid points in support of their differing points of
view. Extensive research has been employed to back the conclusion on whether or not capital
punishment is moral. Proponents of capital punishment cite the role that punishment plays in
ensuring that the law is upheld. Criminals are deterred from committing crimes when the legal
sanction is greater than the perceived benefits (Kaufman-Osborn, 2002). Crimes of high
magnitudes always attract huge legal sanctions, including huge fines and huge prison terms. To

PHI 103 WEEK 5 FINAL PAPER 6
this end, capital punishment should be implemented to ensure that criminals are deterred from
committing crimes such as murder and rape. The argument is founded on strong premises.
Evidence is given to ensure that the conclusion is supported fully. On the other hand, the
argument advanced against the morality of the death sentence centers on the rights of an
individual. Human rights are universal and apply to all people regardless of the crimes
committed. Capital punishment continues to enforce vigilante justice while putting the lives of
innocent people in danger. Neither of the two arguments makes a weak case. As a result, the
arguments are both compelling in their own right.
Conclusion
Capital punishment remains a deeply controversial issue. Justice dictates that wrongdoing
must be accompanied by appropriate legal action. It is important to further investigate the impact
of capital punishment on society. Such an investigation will help arrive at a solid conclusion on
whether or not capital punishment should be outlawed. An analysis of existing literature should
also be done in order to eliminate the emotions associated with the emotive issue of whether
certain criminals should be executed by the state.

PHI 103 WEEK 5 FINAL PAPER 7

References

Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(4), 437-451.
Garland, D. (2005). Capital punishment and American culture. Punishment & Society, 7(4), 347-
376.
Garvey, S. P. (2003). Is It Wrong to Commute Death Row-Retribution, Atonement, and
Mercy. NCL Rev., 82, 1319.
Gray, J. P. (2011). Essay: Facing the facts on the death penalty. Loyola of Los Angeles Law
Review, 44, S255.
Kaufman-Osborn, T. V. (2002). From noose to needle: Capital punishment and the late liberal
state. University of Michigan Press.