The Death Penalty - Legality versus Morality
Image Retrieved on 30th November 2017 from: https://secureservercdn.net/da8.4a7.godaddywp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/death-penalty.jpg
Let me set the scene, you are on death row, your fate will be decided by the jury. What will they be focusing on, their emotions or pure reasoning? Are they biased? Do they know you, recognize you? Will their judgements be ethically justified? This provokes us to ask “How can emotion and reason give us certainty that allows us to make ethical judgements?”
So as is part of the question, how can the way of knowing of reason be used to justify the death penalty. Reason is a source of knowledge based on logic that provides us with rational certainty. Reason is effective in allowing us to morally judge legal decisions because legal decisions require: objectivity, logic, good generalisation and reliability.
Using deductive reasoning; if a deductive statement is both valid and true then I can be certain that my ethical judgements will be justified. But is it that simple? If we look at an example for inductive reasoning does that still hold up. The death penalty is hailed as the ultimate deterrent. Based off this inductive reasoning: states in America legalised the death penalty, the death penalty is the best deterrent to murder, So these states should have the lowest murder rate. So let's put that to the test. Within America, of the 25 states with the highest murder rate, 20 have the death penalty. Among the 25 states with low murder rates, 11 have the death penalty (see for more information). It seems clear then that there is no correlation between having the death penalty and low murder rates.
So does reason give us certainty in making an ethical judgement? Is it justifiable to kill a person based on the argument that doing so will make for a safer community? Do the ends justify the means in this case? I think not.
So, perhaps emotion is the superior choice to give us the certainty we need to justify an ethical decision like the death penalty. Educated emotions for example, allows us to reveal important features of the social world we live in and give us the ability to contribute our knowledge of values to the decision to give someone the death penalty. On the other hand, if these emotions are unruly, they only manage to provide a short-sighted and narrow-minded view of the situation. This could cloud our judgements and create uncertainty as to whether or not the death penalty is justified. Therefore emotions create a stark impetus to justify the death penalty when educated.
Emotions also allow you to enter the mindset of the accused. Going into the mindset of the serial killer, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, they are not interested in their own well-being. Instead they are only focused on murdering others, even if there might be negative consequences for their own lives. Knowing this, the emotions of the juries/judges will be altered when this knowledge is included in their decision. It will increase the certainty they have for the decision they ultimately make.
On balance, it seems that, the answer to our Knowledge Question, both emotion and reason play a huge part in making ethical decisions. Reason gives us the logos and reality of the situation, using past situations and information delivered to us through our society and cultural background to decide based on fact alone. Whereas emotion gives us the pathos and sympathy regarding the situation. However hard it is, we do attempt to sympathise with others, and when it comes to the death penalty when we cannot empathise whatsoever with the convicted, there is no ethical question. It is justified.
Much like in the case of John Wayne Gacy (RLS), who was an American serial killer and rapist. Both emotionally and reasonably, it was ethically justified to decide to put him to death.
The only problem that arises is when we can only sympathise with the criminal. Therefore reason takes a back seat, even when it’s too late, like in the case of Richard Masterson (RLS). Masterson falsely confessed to the murder charges during a period of withdrawal. With predating mental health issues, Masterson was not able to defend himself in court and shouldn’t have been given a capital punishment. Thus both reasonably and emotionally it’s difficult for us as to determine whether the decision was made ethically.
Reason is the most effective way to give us certainty in justifying the punishment deemed necessary. However emotion can either be an auxiliary or detract from the certainty that reason provides. So, where does this leave us? Do you agree? Are you a supporter of the death penalty or not? Please leave a comment down below with any questions, view points or feedback!
Thanks for reading