Tang Tik Man Professor Hon-Lam Li UGEC Applied Ethics 2841 January 8, 2013 2.

Should there be the death penalty in any legal system in the world today?

The abolition of death penalty has always been the controversial issue which discussed extensively in different debate. It has been practiced by many countries as a way to punish the criminals. However, in the civilized society today, should death penalty be still existed? Some countries have abolished death penalty within these ten years. Would the change made by these countries indicate that death penalty is really not the best way to punish the criminals and should be banned? To find out the answer, we better to discuss why we have to carry out death penalty? In this paper, I would try to discuss what the purpose of executing death penalty in detail is and would there be any other punishment that could achieve such purpose and to replace it instead.

Kant, who suggested retributivism, has stated that if a wrongdoer has committed murder, he must die and no possible substitute can satisfy justice. ( Kant, the Metaphysic of Morals ) Besides, Igor Primoratz has pointed out that death penalty is

the only proportionate sentence to take revenge on the offender who has committed certain crimes for instance murder. However, I would like to raise a question, what is meant by justice? If we carry out a punishment that is the same as that as the offender did on the victim, does it satisfy justice? If yes, then if one steal my money, and then I have to steal something back from him. If this really happen, how is the society will become? Without discipline, without peace, and only unrest left behind. The legal system loses its meaning eventually.

As I believed that the existence of a legal system is not only to protect citizens right but also to let the offenders to reflect themselves via various punishments for example prison but I would like to make clearly that the punishment does not include death penalty. It is no doubt that one should bear the responsibility on what he has done. For example, if one has committed in murder, he should be sentenced for many years or even life imprisonment instead of put to death because in the former case, they could have a chance to reflect above themselves and the act they did. However, in the latter case, the life of a person is ended, punishment on the offender seems only take revenge on him but lose its original meaning. Imagine that a student cheated in an examination, this is the worst act within the school rules. However, the principle would punish him and hope that he could reflect upon himself via punishment rather

than kick the student out of the school immediately. In fact, retributivism itself exit problem already, it involves hurting other so as to achieve justice. If a person committed crime for example, murder, the victim died already, we should not kill another person in order to achieve justice because the death of the criminal dose not implied that justice could be regained. As we all know, life is invaluable and irreversible, even one has committed in a serious crime like murder, the legal system should not put another person life to death.

Besides, in the paper Punishment and the rule of law and the difficulty of Tolerance, it suggested that death penalty has a deterrent effect. It can deter crime.(Scanlon, Thomas 221) In fact, there is no proof of it. In some countries that death penalty has not abolish, the crime rate is still remaining high. Actually, a person committed crime because of many reasons and most of the time, the offender are not thinking rationally, therefore, no matter what the consequence is, they will still do it. In fact, if one has strongly determined and has a plan to do a thing, the consequence on them is nothing to them but the most important is they did it. For example, if one wants to kill a person who kills his family, he would do it no matter what consequence or what kinds of punishment are. Besides, if execution can achieve a deterrent effect, does it mean that all crimes should be punished by death penalty because this is the

best way to stop a person from committing crimes regardless of their seriousness? It is absolutely absurd to say that. For instance, if a person involve in a fright or just stealing, does it mean that they have to put to death because the deterrent effect is the greatest in order to minimize the crimes in the future? It seems that the reason of deterrent effect is too broad which can prove much more that is unreasonable. Moreover, if death penalty is executed, it may result in a greater number of crimes rather than it could deter crime because the criminals may escape from being arrested and so kill more innocent people. Once they are arrested, they have to be put to death, so they would make every possible ways to escape from being caught. Therefore, a cruel punishment like death penalty does not mean it processes a greater deterrent effect. In contrary, life imprisonment can also achieve the same deterrent effect. When applying Marquis Future likes ours view, death penalty and life imprisonment can both result in loss of the future of the criminals, once a person was sentenced within his lifetime, he lose freedom, they lose happiness etc. (Don Marquis 188) or it can said it deprive their future like ours. However, when comparing with death penalty, this is a much more civilized and gentle sentence. Therefore, I would agree that life imprisonment could replace the cruel punishment i.e. death penalty.

On the other hand, according to utilitarian view, death penalty can save more victims

in future. (Scanlon, Thomas)I think it is not persuasive at all. A person committed crime doesnt indicate that he would commit it again, thus, how could we say we take the risk of the future of innocent people. As I believed that everyone will have done something wrong, however, it doesnt mean that he will do all the things wrongly in his remaining lifetime. A person commit crime may due to lots of reasons for instance, his background, influenced by others. They should be given a chance to change. In contrary, a person who hasnt commit crime doesnt mean that he wont commit it in his future. In fact, everyone in the world is a potential criminal even the one that sit to you might kill you; who know? Actually, we are taking the risk of each other s life. Thus, I could not agree that execution of a person could save the innocent victims in future. This is not proved and cannot be proved. Also, van der Haag cites evidence saying in USA, 1 execution may save 7 future murders from taking place. This evidence on the other way implied that death penalty has a great deterrent effect that can stop the criminals from committing crimes. Yes, it is. But most generally, as I mentioned before, an offender cannot think rationally when they committed crimes and the evidence above is some exceptional cases. Not all the countries with death penalty could show a decline in criminal rate; even it shows a declining rate does not indicate that is due to the reason of execution. Thus, it is difficult and unpersuasive to say the execution can cause a decline in the criminal rate in the future and so to

achieve utilitarian purpose.

However, there is point mentioned by Primoratz, who said that death penalty may result in execution of innocent person via mistake in conviction. (Igor Primoratz . death penalty wake forest) In my view, this is not a good point against death penalty as most of the time we will not stop to do some things away to prevent certain things that may occur. For instance, driving a car may have chance to hit the people but we wont stop driving a car because of this reason. And also it doesnt have proof of it. I believed that once death penalty is executed, the process in determining a person whether he is culpable or not must be very serious and the evidence included must be very strong and persuasive in pointing that person. Thus, this is not a good reason against death penalty. Whether death penalty should be abolished or not depend on whether it is worth doing this and is necessary to end a person life to achieve certain purpose.

In this paper, I have expressed my view on death penalty by mentioning the purpose of carry out this cruel punishment including retributivism, deterrent effect and utilitarian. I have tried to make some arguments against some wording stated by the people who support death penalty. It seems that when examining these views in deep,

it is not worth ending a person life to achieve a certain aim. The legal system nowadays should exclude such a cruel and uncivilized punishment. This paper strongly recommends that death penalty should be abolished and banned in the world today.

Works Cited Scanlon, Thomas. The Difficulty of Tolerance. Cambridge University Press. Reprinted. D.P Wake Forest Lori Ornellas. Death Penalty Arguments: Deterrent or Revenge. 5/3/01