Justice demands the death penalty for serious crimes. Discuss

by perlie (student)

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Perlie Mong

Justice demands the death penalty for serious crimes

Using death penalty to administer justice has long been a subject of debate. There are many arguments both for and against it. In my opinion, I think justice does demand the death penalty for serious crimes.

Firstly, justice is the fair treatment for all and assigning punishments and rewardes impartially. According to Colossians 3:25, “Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is not favourtism.’ This biblical quote suggests that punishment should fit the crime. For someone who has committed serious crimes, i.e. murder, surely he should receive serious punishment, i.e. capital punishment, as Exodus 21:23 states, ‘But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ Death penalty not only punishes the criminal, but also offers closure for the victim’s family even though the victim cannot be brought back.

Some people might argue that a society needs to move away from the ‘revenge mechanism’ to become truly civilised and ‘Christian’, as Micah 6:8 says, ‘Christian justice has no place for vengeance, self-righteousness, or “getting even.” Instead, justice requires us to seek the good of others, even those who have wronged us. And though that may still require us to take legal action against wrong-doing, we are called to do it in a spirit of love and mercy.’ Moreover, it can be hypocritical to kill murderers and killing murderers does not show that killing is wrong. It also seems to be against Articles 3 (Everyone has the right to life) and Article 5 (No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In fact, we might be falling into the trap of being more sympathetic to the criminal than the victim. In arguments of the death penalty, there are two lives to think about. Too much emphasis is placed on the convicted murderer, the one being executed, and the victim is often forgotten. Yes, the Bible has taught us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44), but it has also taught us to love our neighbours (Matthew 22:39). When our innocent neighbours have lost their lives or seriously harmed when they have done nothing wrong themselves, the love for our neighbours demands us to administer justice on their behalf, which sometimes means death penalty to the criminal. The court is not taking revenge on the victim’s behalf, but rather punishing a criminial according to the gravity of his/her crime and in the process offering the victim and/or his family consolation and relief. Therefore it is not a cruel or inhuman punishment. Afterall, how can the victim’s family be consoled when they know that the criminal who has murdered their beloved one(s) is living in an air-conditioned, cable-equipped prison where he/ she gets free meals, personal recreation time, and regular visits with friends and family? The loss of freedom cannot be compared to the loss of a life. This is not justice. If the punishment for theft is imprisonment, the punishment for murder needs to be something more sever as human life is more valuable than any material item. Moreover, nowadays we carry out captial punishment by lethal injection, which is a much more comfortable way of dying when compared to the heinous way they killed the victims. They also get the chance to make a will and prepare for death which the victim never had the chance to do. Therefore it is in fact a merciful way of punishing the criminals who have committed serious crimes while administering justice and so is not revenge. Furthermore, even though everyone, including the criminals, is entitled to sanctity of life, it is the sanctity of life of the victim that justifies death penalty, as written in Genesis 9:6, ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.’

Moreover, killing can sometimes be justified if there is a good cause behind it, therefore death penalty can be justified. It is also arguable that death penalty is an act of an society to defend itself. Apart from the retributive justice aforementioned, utilitarianism justice is another type of justice. Utilitarians argue that justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals; therefore death penalty should be carried out as it is effective to keep the society safe. It has the ability to achieve future social benefit, i.e. reduction in crime rate. A society needs to use punishment to deter would-be criminals from unlawful actions. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. It is also a vindication of the law. It shows that the law is respected and certain crimes just cannot be tolerated. Therefore utilitarianism justice does demand death penalty for serious crimes like murder. Furthermore, the society needs to execute criminals who are guilty of high treason (i.e. another serious crime) for self-defence. If a person carries out an act of high treason, he is attacking his own country/ society; therefore he should no longer be entitled to any social protection that society offers and should be treated as a foreign soldier. In fact, by carrying out an act of high treason, one is already acting against the Bible, as 1 Peter 2:13 teaches, ‘Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority.’

Some people may argue that we do not rape a rapist or steal the car of a car-theft as a punishment, then we should we apply the theory of ‘an eye for an eye’ to murderers? Moreover, life imprisonment has the same effect in protecting the society anyway, as the criminal will spend the rest of his/ her life in the prison, isolated from the sociey. Furthermore, there is no absolutely positive conclusion about the deterrent effect of death penalty. Therefore justice does not demand the death penalty fo serious crimes.

For the first counter-argument, the simplest answer is that raping a rapist or stealing the car of a car-theft does not necessarily stop them from doing so again, but by sentencing a murderer, especially a serial murderer who is likely to murder again to death, he/she will never have the chance to murder anyone else. It is a permanent incapacitation. Therefore it is effective in keeping the society safe and thus lesser of the two evils. As for the second counter- argument, life imprisonment does not offer the same level of protection to the society as death penalty. First of all, there is always a chance that a criminal will be given a parole even if the sentence of the criminal is supposed to be life imprisonment without parole. While some people think that paroles offer a second chance for criminals to ‘be good’ again, there is no guarantee of it. In fact, 5% of murderers released on parole in Oregon committed homicide again within the subsequent five years. Moreover, there is also the chance that the criminal might escape, with or without murdering the prison officer, who is also innocent. For the third counter-argument, although there is no absolute proof of the deterrent effect, there is no absolute evidence to disprove it either. If it does not have a deterrent effect, we have just punished people according to the gravity of their crimes and stop them from murdering anyone else again; but if it does have a deterrent effect, we are actually saving innocent lives. Therefore social justice and utilitiarianism justice does demand the death penalty for serious crimes.

Therefore, in conclusion, I think that death penalty should be used as a punishment for serious crimes. This is because it is adminstering justice on the victim’s behalf by giving punishment to the criminals according to the gravity of their crimes. It also protects the society by deterring potential criminals and prevent serial killers to murder anyone again.