‘Death Penalty Dilemma’

The Individual Paper for Ethical Dimensions in International Business

Group B/Year 3
Hidayatul Fitriah HAMID
Student ID: 162526

Introduction

The purpose of the report is to analyze an ethical issue concerning capital punishment
that are being carried out by some countries in the world to punish and to execute criminals in
their defense. One of the few key aspects that we will talk about in this report are whether or
not capital punishment ethically acceptable? Is death penalty a solution to the matter in which
one committing a huge crime? Does it convey justice to the people where the country in which
the citizen value human rights? This topic was chosen because there has been a heated debate
on this issue in the country where I came from which is Malaysia. It is very significant to me
as the government has just recently abolished the death penalty early on October 2018.

Background Information

Capital punishment or also known as death penalty is a practice usually by the state
government to punish someone by killing and executing them. According to the Death Penalty
Information Center, the estimated number of executions being carried out in the US since 1976
until 2018 were about 1483. As is evident from what has been said, the justification for the
executions were that in defense for real justice that people are to suffer for their wrongdoings.
However, it does not convey any real justice if the person was actually not guilty but was
sentenced to death as there were no significant evident to prove them innocent. As for that
matter, a case study taken from Amnesty International is used in this report to better illustrate
the situation.
A case in Japan, a man named Hakamada Iwao was in the death row for almost 20 years
which was one of Japan’s longest serving for death row. He was arrested in 1968 for a crime
he maintains he did not commit. He was convicted as suspect in murder of his boss at the
factory where he worked, his boss’s wife and two children. After 20 days of arrest and
interrogation without lawyer, Hakamada admitted to the crime. However, he withdrew his
confession during the trial and testified at the court the reason he confessed was because he
was tortured during those 20 days and police has threatened him to confessed. Hakamada
claimed the police pulled his hair and slapped him which lasted for 12 hours every day. It was
believed that Hakamada was founded innocent by one of the judge but was outvoted by two
other judges. He was nevertheless sentenced to death sentenced in 1968.
Following what one of the judges believed he was held innocent, there were a lot of
evidence that were assumed to be distorted for which one of the strongest evidence the court
has against Hakamada was a piece of cloth that was stained by the victim’s blood. The clothes
were too small for a size as big as Hakamada. However, the prosecutor who was in charged at
that time claimed the evidence was found abandoned in a tank at the factory and that the clothes
may have shrink while it was in the tank.

Analysis

A question of ethics always has more than one perspectives, and these are in conflict in
some ways. We can take a look at how ethics and laws has always been inter-related with each
other but it is not the same. We cannot make those two equally the same and just because
something is not ethical, it does not mean it is illegal. The same goes when something is ethical,
it does not necessarily mean it is legal. Some unethical act is legally permissible. For example,
Hakamada was tortured while he was being interrogated by the police until he had no other
choice but to admit to something he doesn’t commit. Otherwise, he will be half dead for not
cooperating with the authorities and for not giving any statements or confessions for the crime.
Under the Japanese prison system, the suspect can be detained for up to 23 days for
interrogation and other possible procedure before the trial took place. Hakamada was forced to
confess as a result of the pressure he received from the police. The act of abusing the suspect
are believed to be legally obligatory for the police to capture the murderer, however, the action
is immoral to some extent because it will have a severe impact on the victim’s mental health
and body.
Another approach to analyze the scenario is by using the utilitarian ethical theory. For
this particular case of death penalty, the utilitarian rule explains that even though killing people
is considered bad and unnecessary, but killing a murderer is for the greater good. According to
Jeremy Benthem (1789), for what is deem to be for greater good, that is the only things that
matter the most and so for most of the ethical decision making such as death penalty they are
based upon this. As long as it does not hurt other people or stakeholder for instance our family
and friends, it is ethically acceptable to perform the action. Besides, the concept of humans is
controlled by the avoidance of pain and the gain for pleasure. This explains why they have
agreed to the death penalty, in which to avoid any more casualty that could create signs of
dangerous alarm to the people and it is especially not a message for the criminal to ‘pay’ for
their crimes. Also prevailing justice to the victim’s family and close relatives that are stake in
the dilemma. Consequently, people could have a better chance to live in peace and harmony
without allowing any fear to infiltrate them.
On the other hand, we can also take a look at another approach from Immanuel Kant
the ethics of duties theory which is Deontology. Kant follows the golden rule for which you
must treat others how you wish to be treated. This is rather a bit of an extreme approach
compared to utilitarian. Kant follows the intention of our actions, not the consequences from
the action. Basically, he believed that once you have committed murder you are no longer
accepted by the society. The murderer practically deserves the punishment which is also
another word to say ‘an eye for an eye’. Therefore, it is ethically permissible for them to be
sentenced to death as they do not belong to the society anymore.

A convincing argument

In my honest opinion, both theories have shown interesting logic and valid reasons to
permit death penalty, nevertheless, I took a stand and I believed that for Hakamada to be
sentenced to death was not morally justified. He was forced to confess and abused by the police.
Regardless of that, he was still convicted to murder and death sentenced afterwards. Even
though it might be true that he killed the victim, clearly abusing and torturing were simply
inhumane and unethical and it is also against human rights. The judges might think the decision
made was to protect innocent people but I personally think that if the suspect were treated well
enough and given more time they will cooperate at the end of the day. They are humans like
us too, and what is the point of stopping them from killing by killing people. It makes us no
different than the actual killer.
Besides, if you believe that life is sacred, that sacredness even applies to those who
violated the virtue of life by killing other people. As for that matter, we violated the virtue of
life by sentencing them to death. Other than that, one of the judges believe that Hakamada was
innocent but that statement was quickly ignored by the court and other judges. After the
execution, what if Hakamada was later held innocent, there is no going back. At the end of the
day, innocent people get killed due to the mistakes made by the legal system.
- Do not agree with Deontology
Conclusion

In conclusion, would it reasonably to say that death penalty brings more happiness and
harmony to the community? That is a tough question to answer. Personally, to take away one’s
life that has done wrong is not justice but it is revenge. Although it may necessary be that death
penalty is a way to teach lessons for murderer, but we have no right to end someone’s life as if
we are holier than thou. Death penalty is not the only solution to every violent crime. Studies
even shows that killing do not deter people from committing other crime but it is the idea that
they got caught and punished for the things they have done wrong. Naturally, people will feel
more scared to be punished and hurt in a conscious state. This act of punishment is more painful
and sometimes the physical pain can last for as long as we can remember. For death penalty,
however, pain is literally dead.
Bibliography

[1] Amnesty International Norge. (2013). Death Penalty Case Studies. [online] Available
at: https://www.amnesty.no/aktuelt/flere-nyheter/arkiv-bakgrunn/death-penalty-case-
studies [Accessed 4 Nov. 2018].

[2] Bbc.co.uk. (2018). BBC - Ethics - Capital punishment. [online] Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml [Accessed 4 Nov.
2018].

[3] House, R. (2007). The Principle of Goodness. [online] Faculty of Sciences, University
of Southern Queensland. Available at: https://eprints.usq.edu.au/2886/1/death-
policy.pdf [Accessed 4 Nov. 2018].

[4] Kramer, M. (2011). The Ethics of Capital Punishment. [online] Oxford University
Press. Available at: https://www.pbookshop.com/media/filetype/s/p/1391947013.pdf
[Accessed 4 Nov. 2018].

[5] Parenethical.com. (2011). Ieva: Utilitarian and Deontological Perspectives «

Introduction to Ethics. [online] Available at:
http://parenethical.com/phil140sp11/2011/03/06/ieva-the-death-penalty-utilitarian-
and-deontological-perspectives/ [Accessed 4 Nov. 2018].