Sydney Portale

Intro to Religious Studies – Heayn

Ethical Discussion Paper

10 December 2018

Capital Punishment

In order to accurately evaluate and calculate the ethical dilemma of capital punishment, it

is imperative to first define the action. Capital punishment is any killing of a person by the state,

typically practiced for extremely dangerous criminals. However, there are many dilemmas when

discussing capital punishment, the first being the criteria. As mentioned before, the death penalty

is reserved for the worst of the worst, the criminals who posed so much of a threat to society that

they no longer deserve life. Is this the only criteria applicable? Is that not unjustifiably subjective?

In order to be able to justify the taking of someone’s life, there should at least be some criteria

and/or severity measurement that begins the process of being put on death row. Now, it may be

unforgivably cold and detached to claim that one person’s life is less important than three of four

in a multi-victim homicide, but there should be a way to classify exactly which criminals deserve

the death penalty. The severity of the crime obviously needs to be taken into consideration, but

this is a discussion point to be covered in the outline of the ethical dilemma. Regardless of who

receives the punishment, it is still unclear over who is permitted to issue the punishment. Even

though capital punishment is killing done by the government, this raises the question of whether

capital punishment is allowed to be executed 1 by any entity other than the national government,

or if it can be carried out by state level governments as well. Under this premise, that would give

exceptional power to the states or provinces, weakening the power and jurisdiction of a national

1
This is my attempt at a pun. Thank you.
or centralized government. Regardless of who would be given the power to execute executions,

the overarching question becomes: who has the right to determine life?

If the right of life is a subjective topic, with the allowance of power to give, how can that

be determined? Should it become a nation-wide vote as to who can deem someone unfit for life,

or should it just be understood that the people in positions of power have sound enough judgement

to make that call? Or does the onus lie on individual states to determine what is best for their

citizens? Since the United States runs off a representative democracy system of government, the

people have decided that the power to decide lies in the hands of those they have elected. Whether

it is at a state or national level, the citizens’ representatives are the ones making the decision to

continue or discontinue the practice of capital punishment. While many states have declared the

practice unconstitutional by their own standards, many other states still allow the process

considering the United States government has maintained that the death penalty is still a legal form

of punishment. If the right to life is given to anyone, the government is the most logical answer,

given the fact that the citizens themselves chose their representatives. However, this still does not

answer whether anyone has the right to determine the right to life. The right to life is a sacred

ideal, and according to scriptures across multiple religions, none shall kill. The holy texts place a

high value on the human life as many sacred texts include the “do not kill” clause, which places

the human life above everything. Thus, begs the ethical question of whether on a world scale, is

capital punishment ethical, or unethical?

In order to begin discussing the ethicality of the death penalty, the ethical dilemma must

be stated: is it ethical to murder a law breaker? The first lens from which to view this dilemma is

that of Emmanuel Kant, German philosopher, who believes in the deontological approach to ethics.

This form of thinking, developed by Kant in the late 1800s, is based upon one’s duties and
responsibilities, regardless of outside causes and consequences. It is also known as a duty-based

ethical approach. Deontological ethics is built upon categorical imperatives which dictate exactly

how a person decides, and these cover topics including lying and harming others. When it comes

to the categorical imperative of lying, deontological ethics would state “do not lie” because under

the category of lying, the imperative is to not do it. This is an extremely strict view of ethics, but

it can have some ill-defined areas when it comes to the category of harm. Any action has a

potential to do harm to someone or something, yet what if the harm of doing the deed does not

outweigh the harm of not doing it? Is one harm more important than the other, or does it then

become a personal judgement call? This may be the situation in the case of the death penalty. On

one hand, deontological ethics says, “do no harm”, so therefore the death penalty should not be

allowed. Yet, what happens when not executing the criminal causes more harm to a person or

group of persons than executing them?

It now becomes a situation of weighing the harm done on each side. The execution of the

criminal clearly does harm to that person, and it potentially does harm to that person’s family.

Contrarily, not placing the criminal on death row could cause emotional trauma to the victims of

the crime/their families. Comparing the harm done to others is a slippery slope to navigate, but

there is more potential to do harm by not executing the criminal. By executing the criminal, they

are no longer a potential threat to society or other prisoners, and they are no longer around to cause

trauma to the victims of their crimes. By not executing them, the criminals are still around to cause

harm to other people they may interact with over time. However, deontological ethics does not

concern itself with any consequences of actions. The potential to do harm is not a valid factor

when deontologically deciding whether to execute the criminal. Based upon the non-

consequentialist method, the ends do not justify the means. With this in mind now, that means
that the death penalty is not allowed. Killing causes harm to the criminal being executed, and

anything other than that is negligible.

The opposition to deontological ethics would be Utilitarian ethics, which places a premium

on the majority. Utilitarianism states that the most ethical decision is what brings the greatest

happiness to the greatest number of people. Brought to the western world in the early 1900s by

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarian ethics focuses purely on consequences and
2
reaching the goal. Under utilitarian ethics, the death penalty would be a long ethical process.

Since utilitarian ethics needs to satisfy the claim “greatest happiness for the greatest number”, the

question of happiness and the measurement of it need answers. It is nearly impossible to measure

the amount of happiness in someone as one person’s level of happiness could be equal to 10 other

persons’ happiness, which means the entire situation of utilitarian ethics is far more subjective than

deontological ethics. If happiness cannot be accurately measured, then the next step is to determine

how many more people will benefit from the execution of a criminal on death row.

The first side to examine is the side of pro-capital punishment. If capital punishment were

carried out, who would be happy? The first individual or individuals on that list would be the

victims/families of the victims of the crime committed. These individuals have been most affected

by the actions taken by the criminal, and they would be the beneficiaries of happiness and/or relief

after the execution of the person who caused them their traumas. These individuals’ happiness

holds the largest stake, followed by the happiness of the rest of the community/nation. This

criminal puts others in danger for their crimes, and by sentencing them to die, their threat is

eliminated to the public. Those in the area and community would be very happy to know that there

is no opportunity for the criminal to rejoin their ranks after causing harm. The third party’s

2
Louis Day, Ethics in Media Coverage (Independence: Wadsworth Publishing, 2005), 58.
happiness to consider is the other criminals. The inmates would be the ones who have to live with

the criminal in prison and could easily pose a threat to their lives as well. With those groups in

mind, the execution of a criminal would affect over 200,000 people alone just in one maximum

security prison.3 Combining these parties, over 220,000 people could be happier and better off for

the execution of the criminal.

On the opposing side of the argument, it must be estimated on how many people would be

positively affected by not killing the criminal. The first person involved is the criminal facing the

penalty as it is their life being most affected. However, the criminal is facing either a grueling life

in prison, one that may cause life-long pain and foster regrets. Would this mean that the criminal

would have a happier life if their life ended? Is the pain of living with their mistakes worse than

the pain of leaving Earth forever? Kenneth Williams, a prisoner sentenced to death in April 2017

wrote an article about his final thoughts while in his last days on death row. He states in the article

that many prisoners given their death warrant beg for clemency, mercy, from the court, but he had

a different opinion on that matter.

God has transformed me, and even the worst of us can be reformed and renewed.
Revealing these truths meant more to me than being granted clemency. I'm still
going to eventually die someday, but to stand up for God in front of man, that's my
victory.4

Williams’ view on the topic offers an interesting view as he after this quote, he goes on to state

that he will eventually leave the earth anyway, so this is just expediting the process.5 It is hard to

3
“Federal Bureau of Prisons” Department of Justice. 23 November 2018, 5 December 2018.
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_citizenship.jsp
4
Kenneth Williams “'It is vital that I reach a place of self-forgiveness': A death row inmate's thoughts days before
execution” Insider. 9 April 2017. 7 December 2018. https://www.businessinsider.com/a-death-row-inmate-
describes-his-thoughts-days-before-execution-2017-4
5
(Williams 2017)
say whether Williams would be happier with the death penalty or with life in prison, but by his

words, the decision does not matter.

Even if Williams himself is indifferent towards his fate, his relatives may not be. The

families of the prisoners will be severely affected. While the families may not have the means to

see the criminal while they are in a prison, there is still the possibility of seeing them, whereas they

do not have that capability if they are executed. The family’s feelings hold some of the most

validity as, in the Kenneth Williams example, he could be leaving his child parentless with no

hope of ever seeing them again.6 After the family, comes a much larger group of people: the

taxpayers of the nation. According to a study done by one of Susquehanna’s graduates, Torin

McFarland, the cost of keeping a criminal incarcerated for a life sentence is far less costly than

placing them on death row to face capital punishment. The fees incurred include housing these

criminals, as the living accommodations are far greater, a lengthier series of court proceedings,

and the high costs of lethal injection chemicals. McFarland also states that the few spoiled

executions that result in extensive law suits also contribute to the large expenditure that capital

punishment incurs. After crunching all the numbers, including the categories mentioned above,

McFarland reaches the conclusion that a death penalty inmate costs just under $1.2 million more

per year than a general population inmate.7

Even though not all tax payers will pay into the same fund when it comes to issuing the

death penalty, there are still citizens affected by this astounding number. Tax payers in California

for example, contribute to the average cost of $170 million in state wide costs of prisoners on death
8
row and receiving their punishment. However, this just means this is where the allocations of

6
(Williams 2017)
7
McFarland, Torin. “The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis.” Susquehanna Political
Review 7 (2016) 46-69.
8
“Death Penalty Information Center” DPIC. 2012, 7 December 2018.
funds go from the taxes of California citizens, and this does not necessarily mean taxes would be

lowered if California were to outlaw capital punishment. If the practice were abolished, these

funds would be placed into other government programs alike, therefore negating the cost of capital

punishment to the tax payers.

Under this logic, the only true affected parties, whose happiness is under examination, are

the prisoner and the prisoners loved ones. Keeping this in mind as compared to the over 220,000

others who would benefit from the murder of the criminal, utilitarian ethics favors the protection

of the death penalty as legal. Removing the consideration of measurable happiness, maintaining

the legality of the death penalty positively impacts a far greater number than if the practice were

eradicated. The execution of a dangerous criminal is ethical under utilitarianism, but the next

mode under which to analyze the death penalty is virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics, founded by Aristotle around 350 B.C., claims that “moral virtue is

obtainable” and the end goal is to reach virtuousness.9 In this light, virtue ethics contradicts

utilitarian ethics as Aristotle claims that the ends do not justify the means. While the end goal is

to achieve moral virtuousness, each decision made is its own entity; making an unethical decision

would stray from the path to virtuousness. Aristotle also believes that the most virtuous decisions

made are done through moderation and finding the Golden Mean. The Golden Mean is defined as

lying between the boundaries of superfluous and scarcity, which would equal an approach rooted

in balance.10 Aristotle and virtue ethics seek to find what is the most balanced and fairest attack

on an ethical dilemma, and the two opposite poles of a decision are typically more harmful than a

compromise.

9
(Day 2005)
10
(Day 2005)
 In the case of the justice for crimes and felonies, one extreme would be to let these

convicted felons off with a warning and/or an unreasonably short sentence in prison, and the other

extreme would be to kill every individual who breaks the law. These two options present the two

bookends of an ethical dilemma in which Aristotle would say neither extreme would help further

one’s moral virtuousness. By letting each criminal run free to rejoin society quickly, he is placing

many others in a dangerous situation; however, if he were to kill each person who committed a

crime, he would unfairly be killing off hundreds of thousands of people who may have committed

only a petty crime. In this instance, a middle road must be taken, yet what is the middle that seeks

the highest virtue? The direct middle could be letting half the criminals run free while executing

the other half, but what determines who is in each half? This is not the most virtuous approach to

the ethical dilemma. The ethicality of punishing can be looked at through its impact on society.

If the executioner is protecting society by eliminating a threat to it, is that not elevating his

virtuousness? Yet if he were to kill an individual who would not continue being a harm to society

and those around him, killing him would not elevate the executioner’s moral virtue.

The true dilemma of virtue ethics lies in where, between the two bookends of a dilemma,

does a decision fall that will elevate a person’s moral virtuousness. In the case of the death penalty,

the moderate killing of criminals that are detrimental to society could be beneficial to the growth

of a person’s moral virtue.

While all these ethical theories and practices seem logical and practical for application on

paper, not everyone in the world agrees upon one set of ethical beliefs and may even apply a

different ethical view to each situation they are facing. This creates a world in which

disagreements, debates, and discourse are always prevalent. Unfortunately, these three things are

not always done in a civil and calm manner; in fact, the political and social landscape has grown
increasingly volatile over the last decade. In this landscape it is increasingly difficult to hold an

educated and civil discussion with someone of an opposing view point, but it is important to do so

in order to create a society in which civil discourse is possible and encouraged.

According to Maureen Metcalf, CEO of Metcalf & Associates consulting, there can be a

formula to use in order to go about disagreements in a respectful manner so that discussion on a

topic is furthered. She has an eight-step plan in order to foster civil discussions on controversial

and charged topics. Metcalf sat down with a diverse collection of individuals in her office and set

out to ethnographically study the discussion. Her plan goes as follows:

1. Acknowledge and surface different perspectives in the room

2. Treat everyone respectfully
3. Allow people space to express different points of view without interruption
4. Differ constructively
5. Express willingness to be influenced by a new information
6. Invite quieter participants to add their perspective
7. Add a liberal dose of humor
8. Create a new direction that integrates the best thinking of all participants 11

However, Metcalf’s view on this topic requires a certain level of intellectual maturity. Metcalf’s

fifth step of civil discourse calls for an individual to set aside their own steadfast beliefs in order

to have an honest discussion and debate about the possibilities of other options. Not to generalize

but many people who are staunch in their political and ethical positions are not willing to open

their minds to the possibility of different stances. Herein lies the current issue of political

polarization. The way to combat the rising issue of violent and forceful debate is to be open to

discussion on a topic of passion.

Unfortunately, the Internet has not helped further this problem. With the rise of open forum

platforms in which anyone with a computer and Internet can post, there has also been a rise in

11
Maureen Metcalf “Navigating the Choppy Waters of Disagreements” Forbes. 28 February 2017, 8 December
2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/02/28/navigating-the-choppy-waters-of-
disagreements/#125dd8ff18a0
weakened political communication. Peter Dahlgren, professor of media and communication at

Lund University in Sweden, states that the accessibility to information and the ease of posting

personal opinion has led to the fall of the “formal political arena” which subsequently gave rise to

the informal publication of opinions.12 This caused a weakening of the democracy and ability for

citizens to gather accurate and unbiased information. Unfortunately, the Internet allows for the

spread of hateful, vicious, and harmful discourse which does not help progress the goal of creating

more open-minded discussion. In order to create an environment that fosters healthy and civil

debate, each participant must enter with an open mind ready to perceive and comprehend his

opposer’s views, even if he will disagree.

Even though it seems easy to ask of individuals to open their minds to other ideologies, it

can be extremely difficult for some, especially if their beliefs and ideas are strongly rooted in their

faith. A person’s beliefs could potentially stem from deep roots in their religion, which are much

harder to change as there comes with religion a set of guidelines and arranged beliefs, much like

the Ten Commandments in the Bible. The question then becomes, is it ethically right to try and

change someone’s religious beliefs in order to further a political agenda? The United States

outright claims that freedom of religion is one of the founding beliefs, yet there are also sets of

laws that prevent and prohibit people from practicing their faith as they chose to. The US has laws

in place to prevent discrimination of citizens, yet there are business owners in the service industry

who, in practicing the laws of their religion, would prefer to reject service to those whose actions

are not in line with their faith. Is it ethical to protect their religious interests or to neglect their

beliefs in order to protect a law? This begins the debate between the separation of church and

state.

12
Dahlgren, Peter. “The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation”
Political Communication 22 (2015)
 The United States is growing to become a more and more secularized nation, as there is a

clear separation from church and state, and many laws and ordinances contradict traditional

religious beliefs. However, there are still citizens all over the country who practice traditional

religious beliefs and do not agree with some of the more liberal stances taken in the government

in history. When it comes to upholding the statutes that the nation was built upon, the Constitution

says under the First Amendment that each has the right to freedom of religion, yet it also says the

government has no obligation to cater towards or respect in the law any religion.

Under this premise, the government should not be taking any religious preference into

consideration, but this does not mean the government rejects any practice of religion. Even though

the government does not advocate for or against any religion, its citizens should be free to practice

their religion without repercussions. Even if discriminatory and hateful, a business owner has the

right, under his free practice of religion, to refuse service. If the government disagrees with this

idea, then a stipulation should be added to the First Amendment stating that religion is free to

practice, short of discrimination and the killing of others. Many may not agree, and may feel

disrespected, but if that is how that person choses to go about their business in correlation to their

religion, then the business owner will be the one reaping the costs.

The political climate is tumultuous in this age considering the extreme polarization of party

beliefs and the heads of those party’s actions, but it is important to also remember the basis on

which the nation was founded. Each has the right to live their life a certain way, but they better

also be prepared to face the potential consequences for their actions. There is no correct answer

when it comes to dealing with and solving ethical dilemmas, but it is quite important to understand

the various viewpoints that the opposition takes in order to develop a balanced, fair, and logical

approach to navigating a world full of dissention and turmoil.