Capital Punishment Vs Right to Life

Although the Christian faith opposes to capital punishment, other religious views in counterpart accept it and are in favor of it. The Islamic faith, for instance allows and the death penalty in the basis of their religious teaching and laws. “Take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does He command you, so that you may learn wisdom” (Qur’an 6:151). This Qur’an verse, for example, proofs that although God gives a profound punishment for those who do wrong, human justice should also act upon in. For this reason, even though the Islamic faith prefers forgiveness, the right to life is not as significant to them as it is for the Christian faith.

Overall, most religious groups act in favour of the right to life, although the Islam faith accepts capital punishment, like Christians, their respect for forgiveness and life is what they aim to follow.    

The theory of Utilitarianism acts in favour of capital punishment as long as balances out happiness over unhappiness. Basically the idea that an action is right if it produces happiness, determines that wrong actions generate unhappiness. Utilitarians believe that if capital punishment will prevent crime then it should be carried out. For instance John Stuart Mills, a famous utilitarian acts in favor of capital punishment. In facts to support his statement he says in a speech the following words, “I defend this penalty, when confined to atrocious cases, on the very ground on which it is commonly attacked--on that of humanity to the criminal; as beyond comparison the least cruel mode in which it is possible adequately to deter from the crime”. This proof states that utilitarians defend capital punishment as longs as it deters crime and produces guilt to the offender.

 The idea that crimes produce unhappiness is what corroborates to the though of capital punishment for utilitarians. If capital punishment is imposed, then those who are planning to commit crime will likely fear punishment and will opt to change their criminal thoughts. Utilitarians also believe that criminal punishment will rehabilitate offenders spiritually and morally. The fact, that this punishment will bring remorse for their actions, is what will produce the balance of happiness over unhappiness. This is because, it will be benefit society with the deterring of crime and the offender will regret his/ her wrongdoings.    

The theory of utilitarianism however, does not always endorse that an act will produce the balance of happiness over unhappiness. If a criminal is condemned to the death penalty, it does not mean that it will stop crime from happening. Also, there is no accuracy that it will make an offender feel remorse for the wrong actions committed. Utilitarianism, does not base their argument on justice, instead their defense for capital punishment does not balances out the concern of human welfare. If punishing a criminal deters crime, then there is no reason for the offender to have the right to life.  Overall, utilitarians subordinates the right to life argument, because for them punishment is a response to guilt and it what makes Capital punishment accurate in the basis of the balance of happiness over unhappiness.  

In general, Utilitarianism defends capital punishment, because it will ensure human welfare through the sense guilt that will produce to criminal offenders and the benefits that society will have.  

The theory of retribution is mostly based in human justice the ideology of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth it’s what subordinates their idea of the right to life. Retribution states three points: “All guilty people deserve to be punished, only guilty people deserve to be punished, guilty people deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime”. With this example, Retribution argues that it is moral to punish does who commit crimes. In fact this theory states that capital punishment is true human justice.

Emmanuel Kant, a famous philosopher and follower of the retribution theory bases his argument regarding capital punishment on The Principle of Equality. For Kant, equality is the standard that should always be consider when applying human justice.  This idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth comes forward when he states “   The evil that a wrongdoer inflicts is the measure of how severely s/he should be punished” . Unlike the utilitarians, when they say that capital punishment is remorse to guilt, retributivists base their argument on how suffering and pain will create justice.  

The theory of retribution goes against the right to life, because justice is what makes society secure and developed. However, morally retribution is a form vengeance. If capital punishment is allowed worldwide then killing will be defended in other situations on the basis of retribution. For instance, if my friend kills my mother then I have the right to kill her mother. Retribution contradicts human welfare with idea of human justice. If society educates society to kill then society will most likely kill. This why by allowing capital punishments, factors such as more crime and killings will become an issue. If human justice shows society that by killing another human being we will punish and teach them a lesson, we are also encouraging and teaching them that killing is right.                          

Overall, retribution is an argument that will portray the sense of vengeance through capital punishment and it act against the right life.

In point view, the right to life is an inalienable right that no one should control or violate. In fact human justice should take into consideration other forms of punishment for those who commit capital offences. For me human justice is supposed to teach society to reflect upon their wrongdoings by taking away their right to liberty. With capital punishment, criminal offenders will not be punished according to the human laws. I believe that death is not a punishment, in fact, is state of being where no one knows what will truly happen. For instance, if capital punishment deprives criminal from life then death is considered the worst human punishment. This why my question lies on whether death is the most severe form of human punishment. For instance, what happens to a person who is diagnosed with a mortal illness and is sentenced to death. If a criminal offender is being sentenced just as this woman is being sentenced, then death is not truly a punishment. The woman who is being sentenced to death to death by her illness is being equally sentenced as the criminal being sentenced to capital punishment by human justice. To me this seems unfair, because if we commit wrong actions in our lives, then ought to pay them while we are alive, so that we can learn and reflect upon them.  Capital punishment will only get rid off those who act and are a menace to society. This means that as society we are being judgmental. For this reason, my concern is that as human beings, we are not perfect and for that we do not have the right to deprive anyone from the right to life.    

In General, the right life is what makes society reflect upon the importance and value of life. If human justice deprives people of their right to life, crime will be induced and social factors will arise within nations. Those who are in favour of capital punishment are most likely to act upon their objectives views and not be concern about the impact that it will have on society. For instance those who follow the theories utilitarianism and retribution, act upon the idea of guilt and punishment. On the other hand religious beliefs who support and oppose the issue take into consideration the idea of the right to life on the basis of higher being whose the only who can take away the right to life  of humanity. Overall, capital punishment violates the most valuable right that humans have, promoting human punishment and guilt in a form of senseless laws and theories that are supposedly based in true human justice.              

         

   

 

---