Does capital punishment ever have legitimacy in our ethically-conditioned society? ⚰️

Should there be a death penalty?

• Yes
• No

A penal system’s role in society is to provide justice, which may be achieved through the principles of reparation, retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. To incarnate such ideals, criminal courts may offer solutions through numerical sentences, monetary penalties or community service. However, a more controversial avenue the justice system may advocate for is capital punishment: the use of state-sanctioned killings to access justice. Whilst the view of such a punishment diverges internationally, is its transgression of universal human rights enough to dismiss any validity for its incorporation? Could its inclusion yield greater rewards than the ethical backlash that is brought consequently?

Capital punishment tends to be accepted only by a minority universally, with the push to end such methods through various treaties and agreements, epitomised with the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (UDHR). Such a document formed following the atrocities of the first half of the 20th century through the world wars, genocides and famines. A response to the emotionally charged catastrophes resulting in the bleak outlook of humanity was in order. The foundation of the UDHR in 1948 can, thus, be seen as an attempt to solidify the basic rights each individual intrinsically has access to and hopefully avoid the repeat of events victimising humanity. In these mandates, Article 3 outlines the ‘right to life’ an autonomous being must always have access to, and most importantly, ‘Article 5’ which outlaws the use of torture or degrading forms of torture on a subject. Whilst such principles are predominantly designed to prevent unlawful killings, this has also concerned forms of capital punishment because of the physical torture and bodily harm that it necessitates. Resultingly, as an extension of these mandates and global public opinion, most countries such as the UK have subsequently prohibited the use of capital punishment to remain in accordance with their ethical duties. Such concerns to do with morality and ethics have climaxed in modern society, which can be further demonstrated in concerns and global protests against the use of abortion and genetic testing. Capital punishment is another that has long been critiqued because of its involvement in tampering with human life. Alongside this, majority of governments have refrained from its utilisation because of the perceived lack of justice it achieves, and the cycle of potentially unnecessary killing it fosters (the slippery slope argument). 

Furthermore, if we tap into the past, the use of physical torture as a form of punishment has been tied with corruption and political gain. Take the regimes of Adolf Hitler in 1930s Germany. Known as ‘The Night of the Long Knives,’ Hitler systematically conducted an operation to purge political dissidents. To only further the injustice, capital punishment was unequally applied, involving the use of racial prejudice on jewish descendants, which was epitomised by the use of ‘The Final Solution.’ Whilst on an aggrandised scale, these uses of corporal punishment with limited disapproval reflects the capacity for corruption when legitimising forms of capital punishment. Above all, the normalisation of this punishment holds dangerous consequences, with it losing the ethical duties, morality and guilt that regulates a person, which was seen in Nazi Germany. Thus, this historical example among others have showcased the extremity of the slippery-slope capital punishment can follow when implemented. 

Whilst this may act as a tool of deterrence, the political use of this penalty to quash dissidence and promote a climate of fear more often than not can lead to corruption within the state. This can prevent challenges to one’s authority, allowing the perpetuation of power without critique or question (as we saw on numerous instances through the 20th century). Additionally, the chain of subsequent events continues when assessing what crimes may mandate the use of capital punishment. Genocide? War crimes? Murder? Is it as simple as an ‘eye for an eye’? Last month, the Pakistani court sentenced a man to death for the murder of 17 year-old social media influencer, Umar Hayat. In most cases of capital punishment, death sentences seem to have some grounds despite the controversy remaining. Yet, recently, capital punishment has been especially egregious when used for non-lethal crimes, particularly to combat the “war on drugs” which accounts for nearly 40% of executions worldwide. This lack of consistency leads to divergences in which crime warrants such a punishment, which could cycle around to the possibility of corruption as aforementioned, and may result in the unequal distribution of justice.  Thus, there must always be a hesitancy and precaution when exploring and debating this notion.

Whilst looking at the ramifications of capital punishment on a panoramic perspective, the consequences can also be viewed on a more psychological and personal plane. Akin to assisted dying or euthanasia, capital punishment requires an official to sentence and conduct such a service. In a society which now aims to improve mental health and wellbeing of all, to appoint an individual to carry out such an emotionally charged punishment can have psychological ramifications through turmoil and lifelong guilt. Such a duty can only be for the hard-hearted, and to state this claim reflects the moral reprehensibility of this act. As well as this, the burden society would carry and the court if a mistake comes to light would be unspeakable and catastrophic to the resilient culture built post World War. A sentence may be overturned and reversed, but an execution is irreversible and complete. 

The extent to the burden this punishment has on the psyche may also extend to families that are connected to the guilty party. To see a father or mother sentenced to death can devastate an individual, particularly a child, and can have horrifying consequences on their  future. What is even more worrying, despite the prohibition from the UN, nearly 50 worldwide executions since 2016 have occurred on under-18s in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Not only does this violate international law, but the morality to stretch this punishment to all ages cannot hold confidence for the public nor be sustainable. An unintended chain of events resulting in society, economy, families as well as the demonstration of the lack of restraint capital punishment can have may exacerbate the injustice a single action can result in. And above all, after all the impacts, does it provide a satisfactory conclusion to the crime? It may offer a short-term closure to victims of the subject in question, but the grievances families and society feel following the crime may not simply be solved by a state killing.

Whilst these reasons prove that capital punishment may never be fully justified, there may still be a very limited scope for its implementation. In a hypothetical situation, where a perfect, universal decision of what crimes and their respective severity constitutes a death penalty, capital punishment can successfully act as a more impactful method of deterrence. Where the penalty is weak, crime tends to foster because of the limited consequences. However, to implement a death penalty as the consequences may come close to the perfect deterrent to the crime. With these are the fundamental goals of the justice system, capital punishment can theoretically have a scope for application. However, studies have suggested that it is not the severity of the consequence of crime that most perpetrators fear, but the possibility of being caught. Resultingly, instead of debating whether capital punishment is necessary, placing efforts into the improvements of surveillance or targeting the root cause of the crime rather than instilling a climate of fear may have greater success.

However, if we take a murderer, does one ever believe they can be rehabilitated if one descends to these levels? As humans, we would like to think so. And this rehabilitative efforts of punishments, such as the Norwegian prison model which focuses on natural, peaceful conditions as opposed to a gruelling prison. Yet, this may not be the case, with reoffending rates as high as ever. What capital punishment brings is the lack of risk of reoffence, especially for crimes such as genocide where there is limited hope for rehabilitation. These crimes that involve mass murder and individuals divorced of any ethical consideration of others may only trivialise justice if a simple numerical sentence is the outcome. Whilst confined, the education, communication and basics are still provided, which many individuals across the world still lack. To be offered even the scarce, despite the solitude, is this a just punishment for an individual who may have transgressed society and have committed atrocious crimes such as the stealing of another’s life. Acknowledging that it is an extreme action, it may prevent future deviance, but it also risks the potential for individuals willing to be rehabilitated. 

The Middle Ground:

Whilst capital punishment is slowly eroding away from most justice systems, with it scarcely remaining in a few US states, Saudi Arabia, Iran and China (the global figure around 2,700 but the true extent is often unpublished states), such a debate of whether capital punishment is necessary hits the limelight because of its impact on humanity. Through the perspective of the individual who is victimised by a serious crime, capital punishment may be the only justified punishment, and even that does not warrant satisfaction for the innocent. However, in a society where ethical considerations have climaxed, it is important to consider the lack of satisfactory justice it provides, having unintended consequences on individuals close to the event and the short-term moral closure it provides. Particularly in the US, ‘death row’ often has a financial burden and takes years to come to a conclusion, only delaying and hindering the access to justice. Thus, whilst capital punishment should not have its inclusion in a majority of cases, even for a murder, where it may mandate is for those who transgress so severely that rehabilitation does not justify, such as an orchestration of a genocide.