This is the official definition of capital punishment otherwise known as the death penalty. Used for centuries by nations, empires, and states capital punishment has been an extremely controversial topic for many years. Although the death penalty is the ultimate punishment -the death is, by all means, irretrievable- it is still practised and relatively prevalent in many parts of the world, including Middle East, Asia, North Africa, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and the USA. In total there are 56 countries worldwide, actively involved in practising legal executions. According to global data platformStatistathe total number of death penalty cases in 2019 represents 1649 executed.Even the world's religious communities are divided when it comes to the vexed issue of the death penalty.Lex talionisor “an eye for an eye”- the law of retaliation which mentions The Old Testament, creates a strong contrast between The New Testament which encourages us to “turn the other cheek”.
So is capital punishment morally justified?
Supporters of the lethal punishment believe that a person who has committed murder loses his right to live, because he has taken the life of another. They consider capital punishment to be a form of retribution representing moral satisfaction not only for the victim's family but also for the government as the representative of the law as well as for law-abiding citizens. Another argument in favour of the death penalty indicates that this type of punishment has a powerful deterrent effect on potential future criminals to whom the threat of imprisonment does not signify a sufficient penalty. Furthermore, many supporters refer to German philosopher Immanuel Kant. In his doctrine of transcendental idealism, he argued that capital punishment is an inevitable part of functioning society. According to Kant ,“If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.”
No one can deny the fact that families of murder victims undergo severe trauma and loss which no one should minimize. However, executions do not help these people heal nor do they end their pain; the extended process prior to executions prolongs the agony of the family. Families of murder victims would benefit far more if the funds now being used for the costly process of executions were diverted to counseling and other assistance. The death penalty is also not a proven deterrent to future murders. According toDeath Penalty Information Center, a study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the USA's leading criminologists do not believe capital punishment is an effective deterrent to crime.
Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response. Laws and our criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that would establish a respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that one out of every ten who has been executed in the United States since 1977 is mentally ill, according to Amnesty International and the National Association on Mental Illness. Is, in this case, capital punishment morally just?
My personal belief on this disputed problematic stems from the conviction that every human being should have the right to live. Even the one who has taken life.
A few days ago, I got the opportunity to see a film called “A Short Film About Killing” by the famous Polish director Krzysztof Kieślowski. His raw, vehement, and violent portrayal of the process of taking human’s life made me think even more about marks this brutal act leaves on people. Legal executions are as harsh, cruel and hyaenic as murdering someone. In both cases we are taking one’s life involuntarily. And aren’t we also a bit hypocritical when we ask the government to take a person’s life and break one of the rules based on the law we want to satisfy?
Retribution for a crime means the justice system is going to get even for the crime you committed. But that does not mean the justice system is really just. It isn’t just to prolong the pain and agony of the grieving family. It certainly isn't just to execute mentally ill. Taking the life of the people who has killed, we are committing the same crime. We should not give into our first instincts and act impulsively (act like the murderers we want to execute) but instead, we need to act like civilised and mature society.
What should we think about the justice of governments who kill their citizens?
