In a perfect world, punishment would only be given to the guilty, resulting in a utopia where residents can live without concern for innocent individuals being penalized.
It would be a serious mistake to fail to acknowledge that humans do not have the authority to decide what qualifies as appropriate punishment. Consequently, the implementation of capital punishment should be banned in society due to the considerable number of innocent individuals who have been executed.
When contemplating the presence of life, it is crucial to use logical reasoning. As a community, we should take on the responsibility of assessing and deciding on punishment instead of simply carrying out punishments. It is important to recognize that only God has the power to enforce such penalties. The goal of punishment should be focused on the future, aiming to enhance future societies.
Capital punishment is justified based on two reasons: deterrence and reform. Supporters claim that the death penalty prevents future murders and protects potential victims. However, this argument is weakened by the extensive appeals and retrials process that results in convicted criminals spending years on death row. If a life sentence in prison fails to deter a potential criminal, then neither will the death penalty.
From my perspective, capital punishment as a deterrent is needless; instead, we should prioritize reform. I firmly believe that reform is the most powerful method capable of genuinely changing the criminal; although it may not completely transform them. Whether through psychotherapy or confinement in a correctional facility, reform offers offenders a chance at redemption – even if it involves lifelong imprisonment. Ultimately, reform remains the sole justifiable form of punishment without resorting to ending someone’s life.
Utilitarianism posits that an action is morally correct if it maximizes the happiness of those impacted. In line with this belief, capital punishment would not be deemed justifiable since it fails to maximize the happiness of all parties involved. For instance, if the accused individual were wrongly convicted, their expected benefit or satisfaction would not reach its maximum potential. Furthermore, even if the criminal were indeed guilty, their happiness could only be maximized if they were mentally disturbed and harbored a desire for their own demise.
According to Richard B. Brandt, it is important to have a set of rules in rule-utilitarian theory to guide our actions, including legislative actions. By adhering to these rules, we can achieve maximum overall utility or happiness for all individuals. However, there is insufficient conclusive evidence that capital punishment effectively deters crime. Hence, it is logical to reject its use as a form of punishment since this contradicts the objective of maximizing happiness for everyone involved.
The main objective of utilitarianism is to decrease unhappiness by choosing the lesser punishment between two options: life imprisonment or death. In order to guarantee maximum happiness for everyone, the well-being of society as a whole must be taken into account. Utilitarianism argues that life imprisonment can be justified since it is believed to discourage potential offenders and decrease the occurrence of repeated offenses. Ultimately, this fosters societal happiness and leads it towards a state of balance.
According to Brandt, if we integrate utilitarianism with accurate facts about a specific thing or situation, we will yield accurate statements about obligations. These obligations should aim to maximize the happiness of the affected party, and as a result, society must ignore capital punishment.
