DEATH PENALTY: GOING BEYOND MORAL CLAIMS

Ivan James Francisco Tuazon, BSC 1F

The death penalty argument has traditionally become an ethical one. Those who are in agreement say that
offense warrants the penalty. Protesters argue we can't decide who lives and who dies. Killing, although as a
punishment, is still killing. Nevertheless, in current history, claims based on economics, discrimination, and
morality have gained prominence, as has the form of slaughter.

STEP 1: GATHER THE FACTS

In defiance of the Vatican and international human rights groups, the Philippines killed its
first person in 23 years. Leo Echegaray, 38, died via fatal injection in a jail on the outskirts of
Manila. Before his death, the Philippines was rife with controversy.

Lawyers for Echegaray petitioned the Philippines Supreme Court to postpone his execution
because they had not received the government's new execution regulations. The court refused.
Early in the morning, Echegaray was brought to a jail execution chamber while supporters
cheered. Echegaray walked with his head bowed, tied to a Bible. He donned a "Execute justice, not
people" button and an orange wristband from President Joseph Estrada's election campaign.

Estrada has refused to stop Echegaray's death. The national penitentiary in Muntinlupa, a
Manila suburb, was well guarded. Schools were shuttered, and barbed wire fences were set up at
the prison gates to keep out media and campaigners for and against the death penalty. Estrada
ordered Thursday the removal of a telephone hot line between his office and the prison to
emphasize his commitment to the execution. In order to deter future rapes, the president must be
strong and responsible for his actions.

STEP 2: DEFINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES

The morality and effectiveness of death penalty have long been debated. Moral, utilitarian,
and practical grounds are used to support or oppose capital punishment today. It is frequently
argued that society has a duty to safeguard its citizens' safety and welfare. Murderers jeopardize
this security. Only capital punishment ensures that convicted criminals do not kill again.

Second, proponents of capital punishment argue that society should encourage behaviors
that promote the greatest balance of good over evil. Death penalty may prevent violent crime.
While it is impossible to provide direct proof since individuals who are discouraged by the death
penalty do not commit murders, common sense tells us that people will not do something if they
understand they will die if they do it.

If the prospect of death has prevented many would-be murderers, then abolishing the
death penalty will result in the loss of countless innocent lives. We have merely sacrificed the lives
of convicted murderers if the death penalty does not deter. It is indeed certainly good for
humanity to wager that the death penalty deters murderers while endangering innocents' lives
than to gamble that it doesn't. If significant risks must be taken, let the guilty do so, not the
innocent.

Furthermore, proponents of capital penalty say that justice requires execution of

individuals guilty of murder. Justice is assuring that everyone is treated equally. It is unfair when
a criminal causes others more harm than he or she can tolerate. Criminals would be favored if
society penalized them less than their innocent victims, allowing them to escape with less than
their victims. To be fair, society must punish offenders with damages comparable to those inflicted
on innocents. The death sentence provides justice for all by putting those who intentionally kill
others to death.

STEP 3: REVIEW RELEVANT ETHICAL GUIDELINES

Life is sacred and civilization has an ethical duty to defend it, not destroy it. Human life
may be taken only if it is required to achieve the greatest balance of good over evil for all
concerned. Given our commitment to reducing suffering and misery, we must reject the death
sentence in favor of a less harsh alternative that achieves the same aim. There is no proof that the
death penalty deters violent crime more than, say, life imprisonment. In reality, research
comparing the murder rates in countries with and without the death sentence reveal that the rate
is unrelated to the death penalty: Murders occur in both death penalty and non-death penalty
jurisdictions. Unless the death sentence alone deters murder offences, we are required to avoid
from applying it when other options exist.

Moreover, the death sentence is not required to protect the public against re-occurring
killers. Keeping murderers in prison achieves the same aim without taking another life. Either
way, offenders "get what they deserve" without the death sentence. Justice does not call for capital
punishment. It simply demands that the worst offenses be punished as severely as our moral
beliefs allow. Although it is obvious that the death penalty is not required to attain specific societal
goals, it does come at a high cost to society. First, the death penalty is wasteful. Many of those
sentenced to death might be rehabilitated. Executing the death sentence negates any good these
people may have done for society if permitted to live. Also, juries have been known to err,
convicting innocent persons to death. Their lives could have been saved if they had been
permitted to live.

The death sentence wastes money and lives. Contrary to popular belief, executing a person
is significantly more expensive than life imprisonment. Due to the finality of death sentence cases,
significant procedural measures must be taken at all levels to guarantee that the risk of error is
reduced. A single capital case thus costs three times as much as keeping a person in jail for their
entire lifespan of forty years. Furthermore, the death sentence devalues life and damages society.
Allowing the state to kill some of its citizens legitimizes the killing. Even a condemned killer's
death degrades us all. Society owes it to itself to put a stop to this harmful habit that yields little
advantages.

STEP 4: OBTAIN CONSULTATION

Those who support the death sentence think that murderers have sacrificed their own life
by taking another's. The death penalty also expresses and reinforces the moral outrage of the
victim's family, as well as all law-abiding individuals. Those opposed to death punishment say
that by legitimizing the exact behavior that the law tries to suppress; it sends the wrong moral
message. Moreover, they argue, capital punishment for smaller offenses is unjust since it is
disproportionate to the harm done. Reformers argue that capital punishment is inhumane and
demeaning to the condemned. Those in favor of death punishment say it has a particular deterrent
impact on serious criminals whose fear of prison is insufficient. Opponents point to data showing
that the death penalty is no more effective deterrence than life or long-term incarceration.

As to if lethal penalty can be delivered in a just way is also debated. Those who are in favor
of death penalty think that rules and processes may be designed to ensure that only those truly
worthy of death are killed. Opponents argue that arbitrary and biased classification of crimes as
deserving of death is borne out of the previous implementation of capital punishment. Many poor
and ethnic and religious minorities do not have access to good legal representation, and racial
discrimination drives mainly white jurors in criminal trials to convict blacks and other minority
prisoners disproportionately. Furthermore, they claim that lengthy appeal procedure for
executions forces people sentenced to death to live in fear of their destiny.

STEP 5: LIST THE STEP 6: COMPARE STEP 7: WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES

ALTERNATIVE THE ALTERNATIVES
COURSES OF WITH THE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
ACTION PRINCIPLE
Life imprisonment Losing your freedom If someone has been
without the possibility has a much lower cost sentenced to life in
of release is an than serving a life prison without the
LIFE WITHOUT alternative to the death sentence. While other possibility of release,
PAROLE penalty. Life sentences states are eliminating they won't be allowed
allow convicted the death penalty, to amend mistakes or
criminals to spend the Oklahoma is doing expose evidence,
rest of their lives in jail. the opposite. resulting in injustice.
Legally, until the
A life sentence
individual dies, the
provides the The death sentence
relationship is
opportunity for carries an intolerable
permanent. There are,
LIFE IN PRISON mistakes to be danger of putting
however, minor
remedied or fresh innocent people to
variations that may
evidence to be death.
involve the possibility
discovered.
of parole.

STEP 8: MAKE A DECISION

When offenders are punished, it conveys to them that what they have done is wrong and
provides them with an opportunity to repent and improve. Various versions of this viewpoint
exist, including educational, communicative, and rehabilitative approaches, each with significant
distinctions from the others. The underlying concept is that punishment should help the
perpetrator see what he or she has done wrong and should motivate him or her to repent and
improve....

Regardless of whose version of this viewpoint one endorses, its implications for the death
sentence are very obvious. When it comes to preparing for the death chamber, what is the point of
a criminal changing himself or herself? Yes, many individuals attempt to combine and contrast
different parts of these three broad perspectives, but such mixed theories are often unhelpfully ad-
hoc and can provide contradictory recommendations. It is preferable, in my opinion, to state one's
position clearly and answer the question: whose point of view should take precedence in our
thoughts on punishment? It is only after that, that we can begin to consider the justice of
governments that murder their people.

The case for the death sentence has usually been framed as an ethical one. Those who are in
agreement believe that the offense justifies the punishment. Protesters say that we do not have the
authority to determine who lives and who dies. Killing, even if it is done as a punishment, is still
considered murder. Nonetheless, throughout recent history, allegations based on economics,
prejudice, and morality, as well as the method of slaughter, have risen to the forefront of public
debate.