Ethical Dilemma The Death Penalty

Ethical Dilemma: The Death Penalty

Name

Institution

Course

Tutor

Date

Ethical Dilemma: The Death Penalty

Matters related to human life are in most instances very sensitive and surrounded by various controversies. This is attributable to the ethical, moral and legal concerns that surround the issue of life and death. The religious values that are used to guide the behaviors of the public are also employed in making critical decisions related to life and death. Among the issues that the society is currently grappling is death penalty or capital punishment. The legal and social spheres have failed dismally to provide convincing reasons that can be employed in accrediting the death penalty. Thus the idea of capital punishment remains extremely sensitive and very controversial. This situation has further been compounded by the declining moral standards that greatly undermine important social and religious values upon which societal wellbeing is based. The increasing incidences of heinous and devastating crimes like murder attest to this. Regardless of the complexity and seriousness of the current crimes, it is important for the society to respect the intrinsic value of human life and refrain from pursuing capital punishment.

According to Zimring (2004), capital punishment constitutes the penalization of the convicted individuals of certain criminal activities by killing them. Relative crimes are considered to be serious and in most instances, they involve the death of other individuals. Currently, nurses and physician are usually called upon to participate both directly and indirectly in capital punishment. In his research, Banner (2003) indicates that they are called upon to asses the capital punishment equipment or the prisoner, supervise or monitor the execution process, prescribe or prepare medications and solutions, insert intravenous catheter, inject lethal solutions, attend and witness the execution or pronounce the prisoner dead. This practice contravenes the nursing code of ethics that opposes the participation of medical personnel in the execution of death penalty. In essence, this contravenes various goals as well ethical principles that guide the nursing practice.

From an ethical point of view, nurses and physicians are expected to uphold relative principles of justice, ethics of care, beneficence, fidelity and respect for persons. Besides prohibiting them from taking part in capital punishment, requiring to strictly assume the role of nursing during the execution process and needing them to participate in restoring, promoting and protecting the prisoners’ life, the code of ethics requires them to maintain the dignity of human life and actively involve themselves in international as well as national dialogues aimed at abolishing the capital punishment (Peternoster, Brame & Bacon, 2007). In this regard, it can not be disputed that nursing practice is at the center stage of capital punishment controversy. Their active involvement has diverse implications on their professional wellbeing. Certainly, there is a conflict between their professional values and legal expectations. The active involvement of the nurses and other medical personnel in the process of execution has culminated in the erosion of public confidence in the nursing process. According to Banner (2003), this has adverse impacts on the practice because it undermines effective promotion of health.

There are various viewpoints that support the pursuit of this legal procedure. To begin with, most arguments supporting this process are anchored on the principles of redistributive justice. In this respect, Peternoster, Brame and Bacon (2007) indicate that credible justice requires the individuals who have pursued a wrong to suffer for the negative implications of the respective wrong. Further, this argument asserts that the punishment that the individuals need to be given should be proportional to the wrongs that they engaged in. Criminals from this point of view need to be punished according to the crimes that they committed. Thus when a criminal commits murder, the only fair punishment for him or her is capital punishment.

In addition, the public in most instances demands that the justice be pursued in this manner. In this respect, pursuit of capital punishment by the courts is largely informed by the need to reflect the public demand regarding abhorrence. This is further supported by important religious arguments pertaining to ‘an eye for an eye’ (Bedau & Cassell, 2005). Likewise, this demands that only guilty people should punished and the punishment should be reflective of the degree of the crime that they commit. Put differently, they should not be punished either too severely or too leniently.

Also, supporters of capital punishment insist that it should be employed because it has the ability to deter other individuals form engaging in the practice (Banner, 2003). In this regard, public surveys indicate that death constitutes one of the social occurrences that populations fear the most. In this consideration, it is argued that individuals are unlikely to engage in murder and other relative crimes when they know that is punished by the death penalty. Statistical evidence indicates that compared to imprisonment, death is the most feared form of punishment. This can be used to explain why individuals prefer life imprisonment to death. This is regardless of the fact that life imprisonment denies the respective individuals his or her freedom through his or her lifetime. Even with the extreme conditions that characterize the prison environment, prisoners would still value this to death. For the preceding reasons, the proponents of death penalty advocate its use to deter relative crimes.

Further, proponents of this practice argue that it is instrumental in preventing incidences of re offending. From a legal point of view, those that are executed of death penalty would not have a chance to commit more crimes. Although arguments against this have indicated that those imprisonment without any possibility for parole can address this concern, proponents still argue that incidences of escape from prison undermine the attainment of relative goals and objectives. Basically, it is argued that when an individual is still alive, the possibility of posing danger to the public is high. For his reason, they argue that it is better for the individual to be guilt. From an ethical point of view, utilitarianism requires that all activities be geared towards enhancing the highest degree of happiness for a significant percentage of the population. Death penalty enhances attainment of the highest degree of happiness for the majority of the population as the danger to their general wellbeing is addressed accordingly (Zimring, 2004).

Moral arguments in support of the practice also indicate that the crimes of treason, kidnapping, death, murder, torture and larceny imply a contravention of the moral code and important moral values. Seemingly, encouragement of this practice would culminate in leading the population in a state of anarchy. The proponents in this regard contend that capital punishment protects and honors human dignity. This is because it treats the defendant as an ethical or moral being who has the capacity to make rational decisions. Also, the individuals are treated as persons who have the free will of determining their own destiny with respect to right or wrong. In essence, this procedure refrains from likening humans to animals that can not make personal decisions. For this, Bedall and Cassell (2005) posit that it is moral and should therefore be encouraged.

Legal debates related to this also indicate that pain and suffering should not be entirely employed for determining the type of punishment to be undertaken by the courts. This is particularly so because the aspect of pain and suffering is sensitive and closely related to the emotional wellbeing of an individual. Therefore, sole emphasis on it undermines the objectivity of reviewing capital crimes. In this regard, proponents of the practice argue that painless procedures have been adopted to further the process (Peternoster et al, 2007). The states that have adopted this mode of punishment use a method of execution that is agreed to be the most humane. Since it inflicts minimal pain in the person being executed during the process, the respective method is not perceived to be either cruel or unusual.

Proponents of the practice also ascertain that it is relatively cheap as compared to the life without parole option. From an economic point of view, this goes a long way in saving the resources that would have otherwise been employed for improving the quality of life and general wellbeing of other facets of the population (Banner, 2003). Statistical evidence ascertains that there is a significant percentage of the American population that still suffers from the detrimental implications of poverty. Relative resources can be channeled to improving their quality of life and relative degree of happiness. Ethically, proponents of this presume that this contributes to their general wellbeing and goes a long way in enhancing justice.

As aforementioned, capital punishment issue has equally been compounded by various controversies that are legal, ethical and also based on the value system of the society. Just like their counterparts, the opponents of the process have also cited certain concerns that seek to oppose or prevent the pursuit of the practice. With respect to deterrence, the opponents of this practice argue that regardless of its use, this as not had significant impacts on the rates of capital crimes in the respective countries. Social science research findings ascertain that execution does not have any direct implications on crime deterrence. The relative aspect that reportedly deters crime pertains to the act of being caught and punished accordingly. Capital punishment is therefore considered a harsh punishment that should be prevented in all circumstances.

From an ethical point of view, opponents of the practice argue that human life has intrinsic goodness that should be protected and furthered in all circumstances (Banner, 2003). It is an invaluable asset that a human have and even the worst and most cruel murders should not be deprived of a chance to have and live it. The offender’s mode of conduct can not be likened to the value of other life and should therefore not be employed for making relative decisions regarding the life of the offenders. Opponents of the practice also underscore the right to live to be vitally important and one that should not be undermined by capital punishment (Bedau & Cassell, 2005). In this respect, they contend that each individual has an inalienable right to live and capital punishment violates this important right.

The flaws in the legal procedures have also been employed for shunning the practice of capital punishment. In this respect, Zimring (2004) indicates that the value of human life has increasingly been demeaned by the inherent flaw sin the legal procedures. Reportedly, the lives of innocent individuals have been compromised because of the mistakes that are made by the legal personnel. To avoid this, the relative individuals insist that death penalty should be done away with altogether. Relative to this is the fact that capital punishment is not furthered retributively. Various concerns have been raised regarding the racial prejudice that is practiced by the legal personnel. This is apparent in the statistical evidence that shows that the colored individuals are more likely to be executed using death penalty than their White counterparts (Peternoster et al., 2007).

From the point of view of the value system of the society, Banner (2003) asserts that the practice is not only inhumane but also cruel and degrading. This is because of the fact that the process exposes the criminal to intense pain and suffering. This is attributable to recognition that the methods employed are torturous. Common methods include electrocution, use of lethal gas and strangulation. Coupled with the flaws that are inherent in the legal system, this goes a long way in degrading the self worth of the individual. In essence, the manner in which the execution process sis carried out degrades humanity and reduces the same to animals. The flaws also undermine pursuit of justice that provides the basement upon which credible societal values are based.

From an individual standpoint, it should be acknowledged that human life is very important and should be protected and nurtured at all costs. Humans are charged with the responsibility of protecting this life because they have sufficient resources and the ability to think and make rational decisions. Religious values and principles ascertain that the death penalty has detrimental implications on the general wellbeing of the humans because it compromises the sanctity of life. It is worth appreciating that life is divinely given and should therefore be protected. Capital punishment undermines the worth of human life and likens it to the code of conduct of the offenders. For this reason, the practice should be shunned and avoided under all circumstances. This will be instrumental in promoting respect for human life.

Notably, the flaws that characterize the process have adverse impacts on the affected population. In essence, these have disadvantaged certain segments of the population that lack the ability to protect them selves. Statistical evidence indicates that minority populations have particularly been affected because of the limited influence that they have in the legal system. To a great extent, this has compromised their ability to attain and benefit from justice. This compromises their quality of life in different ways. Further, it encourages social disparities that make it difficult for the society to attain equality. Also, this undermines the American legal system that is otherwise considered ideal across the globe. The ethical principles of nursing require the medical personnel to be on the fore front with respect to protecting and nurturing life. Rather than participating in the process, nurses should take practical measures to prevent the use of this type of punishment.

References

Banner, S. (2003). The death penalty: An American history. Harvard: University Press.

Bedau, H. & Cassell, P. (eds). (2005). Debating the death penalty: Should America have capital punishment? The experts on both sides make their case. Oxford: University Press.

Paternoster, R., Brame, R. & Bacon, S. (2007). The death penalty: America’s experience with capital punishment. Oxford: University Press.

Zimring, F. (2004). The contradictions of American capital punishment. Oxford: University Press.