Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The US employs various ways of punishing criminals, and the death penalty is arguably one of the harshest methods. As of last year, capital punishment was legalized in 27 states across the nation, but the majority of regions argue whether such sentencing is fair, reasonable, or humane (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2021). For instance, Colorado and Virginia have recently abolished the death penalty, Nebraska reinstated capital punishment, and Washington and Delawares courts resolved execution practices were unconstitutional (NCSL, 2021). The topic of the death penalty regulations is important because the sentencing involves matters of justice and human rights, but its efficiency in reducing crimes is questionable. Consequently, the US should change its current policies on capital punishment because executing people, even offenders, is ethically wrong and prone to mistakes.
The Ethical Theory Related to the Topic
The death penalty is inappropriate based on the ethical theory of utilitarianism. The basic question of such an approach concentrates on desired outcomes, and the main idea suggests that an act is right if it creates good consequences (Jalsenjak, 2019). Nonetheless, while one can argue that capital punishment is meant to prevent crimes, the sentencing is not rational and generates disparities in society (Doerner & Lab, 2017). For instance, when imposing execution practices during trials, courts tend to prioritize social considerations over legal variables (Doerner & Lab, 2017). As a result, black defendants are more likely to receive the death penalty than white suspects (Doerner & Lab, 2017). Although capital punishment is supposed to improve the nation by punishing offenders, this type of sentence facilitates racial discrimination.
Furthermore, an individual may be sentenced to death if judges and juries resolve an issue based on emotions rather than legal regulations. Utilitarian ethics propose that all circumstances require a certain degree of pragmatism, and when making a moral decision, one should have an understanding of society and human relations (Udoudom et al., 2018). However, the court system is likely to make mistakes, and although a suspect may be guilty, they may not deserve to be executed. For example, in South Carolina v. Gathers, the jury voted to impose capital punishment, not because of the crime but more because the victim was a religious person (Doerner & Lab, 2017). People in charge of final judgments may pursue the death penalty due to believing that the crime targets were wonderful members of the community instead of concentrating on the defendants offenses (Doerner & Lab, 2017). Victims and their loved ones must be remembered and respected. At the same time, those involved in the court system act unethically when they sentence someone to death when the severity of the crime calls for another type of retribution.
Finally, capital punishment is associated with the authorities breaching the limits of their power. The theory of utilitarianism expresses fear of those in control exploiting subjective biases for personal gain or retention of status (Udoudom et al., 2018). For instance, in the mentioned South Carolina v. Gathers, the jury concentrated on the victims personality over the crime and sentenced the offender to death because of the prosecutor (Doerner & Lab, 2017). The public official repeatedly stated that the diseased was a religious person and implied that execution was appropriate for causing the loss of such an individual (Doerner & Lab, 2017). Considering that prosecutors are quite influential, they conduct unethically when manipulating the court system to sentence someone to death instead of imposing a more reasonable punishment.
Recommendation
By utilitarian ethics, a specific issue with the death penalty is that it causes more harm than it does good. As discussed overhead, capital punishment promotes racial discrimination, which is spread through all elements of litigation, including jury selection, charging decisions, and sentencing (Steiker & Steiker, 2020). Moreover, in addition to the high cost of administering executions, death sentences are not more helpful in deterring crimes when compared to life imprisonment (American Civil Liberties Union, n.d.; Steiker & Steiker, 2020). Notably, the abolition of capital punishment is likely to reshape American criminal justice by ending ineffective and immoral practices (Steiker & Steiker, 2020). As utilitarianism can justify an action or a situation if they produce benefits for the public, the theory opposes the death penalty because the latter facilitates discrimination, is moderately expensive and is not useful.
Consequently, capital punishment raises an ethical dilemma of whether this type of retribution should be prohibited. Despite the listed above downfalls, the majority of Americans, about 60%, support the death penalty (Godcharles et al., 2018). For example, Nebraska abolished the execution practice in 2015 but soon reinstated it the next year due to a statewide vote (NCSL, 2021). Interestingly, the white and male populations favor capital punishment more actively than black and female citizens (Godcharles et al., 2018). Nonetheless, considering that utilitarian ethics opposes the death sentence, one can argue that this kind of penalty must be banned for the greater good. However, it is unlikely that all states would abandon capital punishment even if Congress decides to require it (Steiker & Steiker, 2020). Moreover, despite presenting certain advantages, the complete abolition of the death penalty may make reforms appear unnecessary and injustices less problematic (Steiker & Steiker, 2020). Therefore, rather than concentrating on the debate of whether or not to prohibit capital punishment, it may be better to focus on improving current policies.
Authorities of all states should adopt new policies to minimize the death sentences negative impacts. Execution may be adequate in severe cases regarding, for instance, corporate punishment or rape with sufficient aggravating and mitigating circumstances (Doerner & Lab, 2017). Accordingly, if capital retribution should stay, one must consider how to reduce the number of death penalties by decreasing discrimination and biased thinking in the court system. In 2020, Utah enacted a bill that requires conviction integrity units (CIU) to conduct extrajudicial, fact-based assessments of matters involving capital punishment (Conviction Integrity Units, 2020). For example, CIU can investigate the legitimacy of the jury verdict and possibly ensure whether any biased or immoral thinking was involved in the final decision (Conviction Integrity Units, 2020). Consequently, approaches similar to Utahs recent bill could verify the process of imposing the death sentence and prevent wrongful executions.
Conclusion
To summarize, the US should change its capital punishment policy because the current practice of execution makes unethical mistakes. According to the theory of utilitarianism, actions can be justified if they produce good results, reflect an understanding of society, and oppose power overuse. However, the death penalty in the nation is quite costly, does not reduce crime rates, and facilitates discrimination. Moreover, such officials as prosecutors may use their authority to convince the jury to impose capital punishment. Simultaneously, the latter is likely not to consider that, while respecting victims, the court system must concentrate on lawbreakers and choose adequate, not necessarily harshest, retribution. Therefore, a specific issue that opposes utilitarian ethics is that the death sentence is more harmful than beneficial. Nonetheless, the complete abolition of the execution practices may not happen, so state administrations should develop policies that would investigate capital punishment cases, prohibit wrongful behavior, and prevent needless deaths.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). The death penalty: Questions and answers. ACLU. Web.
Conviction Integrity Units, UT H 324 (2020). Web.
Doerner, W. G. & Lab, S. P. (2017). Victimology (8th ed.). Routledge.
Godcharles, B. D., Rad, J. D., Heide, K. M., Cochran, J. K., & Solomon, E. P. (2018). Can empathy close the racial divide and gender gap in death penalty support? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(1), 16-37. Web.
Jalsenjak, B. (2019). Ethics and ethical theories. Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management, 1-5. Web.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2021). States and capital punishment. NCSL. Web.
Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2020). The rise, fall, and afterlife of the death penalty in the United States. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 299-315. Web.
Udoudom, M. D., Idagu, U. A., & Nwoye, L. (2018). Kantian and utilitarian ethics on capital punishment. Journal of Sustainable Society, 7(1), 5-11. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.