Philosophy, John Kitzhaber

Philosophy, John Kitzhaber
Name:
Institution
Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc311113472 \h 3Discussion PAGEREF _Toc311113473 \h 3Kant arguments in relation to Capital Punishment PAGEREF _Toc311113474 \h 3Mill arguments in relation to Capital Punishment PAGEREF _Toc311113475 \h 5Religious and emotional arguments supporting capital punishment PAGEREF _Toc311113476 \h 6Utilitarian perspective on Capital punishment PAGEREF _Toc311113477 \h 7Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc311113478 \h 12References PAGEREF _Toc311113479 \h 14
Introduction
Capital punishment is a death sentence upon a person by the state as a punishment for the crime he or she has committed. Capital punishment has over the years been practiced by most societies, though the issue has raised controversy with many people arguing that capital punishment is morally wrong and each and every individual deserves to live as well as a second chance to correct his mistakes. On other hand other people favor capital punishment for murderers, saying that it is morally right to punish them for the crimes they committed without any sympathy or compassion.
Discussion
Kant arguments in relation to Capital Punishment
The recent decision by Kitzhaber, the Governor of Oregon on capital punishment where he publicly declared a moratorium on carrying out executions in his State can be termed as morally right from the human perspective. On other hand if we relate Kitzhaber decision to the arguments raised by theorists Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill's it is evident that the decision which Kitzhaber took was not in the best interest of the society. Ethically a morally wrong action is unjustified violation of a morale rule. Morality therefore can be defined as the principles of right and wrong. Human beings being moral creatures, they deserve compliment for good deeds and punishment for bad deeds (Kant, 2002).
Immanuel Kant is one of the greatest philosophers of ethics who formulated the first and one of the most scientific approaches to the death penalty part of the categorical Imperative. From Kant`s perspective society and individuals must act in such a way that their actions can become a universal law for all to follow. According to Kant`s argument using his doctrines on crime and capital punishment is stated in his work "Metaphysics of Morals" (Part One), a society nor a state cannot exist without laws. In precise he states that if there is no law then there is no society as well as state (Kant, 2002). According to Kant law enforcement is significant for a society`s protection as well as the state hence any person violating the law loses the right to be a society`s member, opposes social order is deemed guilty and must be punished hence Kant`s insists that capital punishment for murderers. Whoever commits murder must die hence any society which does not sentence murderers to death penalty can be deemed to be accomplices to crimes (Kant, 2002).
Taking Kant`s arguments, capital punishment is morally right for murderers since everyone has a right to live and no one has a right to take the life of the other. Murderers do take others` lives hence pardoning murders can be deemed to be an action controversy to the public opinion which can cause a conflict between the public and legislation (Kant, 2002). Kant on other hand gives exemption for pardon only of insults have been directed against the head of state himself .Looking at the arguments posed by Kant, though Kitzhaber, the Governor of Oregon acted morally in the best interest of humanity, his decision is not justifiable because murders don`t deserve a pardon rather they deserve to die (Richardson, 2011). On other hand John Stuart supports capital punishment only in certain situations hence he emphasizes that immediate death may actually be a far less harsh punishment than lifelong confinement to a prison cell (Mill, 2004).
Mill arguments in relation to Capital Punishment
Mill is one of other ethical theorists whose most insightful and utilitarian defends capital punishment in the society. According to Mill`s argument capital punishment should be retained rather than being abolished because the greatest crime known to the law which an individual can ever think of committing is aggravated murder. According to Mill punishment has a significant impact on the deterrent of criminal behavior as well as it is means of penal justice. Though, Mill does favor capital punishment his arguments are tailored towards respect for life (Mill, 2004).According to Mill (2004), immediate death is far much less harsh than lifelong punishment or confinement to a prison cell hence capital punishment is humane compared to lifelong imprisonment with hard labor. Although, I agree that immediate death is far less harsh punishment compared to lifelong imprisonment with hard labor and struggles, it should not be the measure upon which approval or disapproval of capital punishment should be decided as stated by Mill.
Both Mill and Kant argue that, it is of a great importance to implement punishments in the society sufficient enough to deter crime. The punishments in place should be subsequent equal to the crime offence committed hence if an individual commits murder, then the punishment for that person should be murder too (Wright, 2000). Though, both Kant and Mill do support capital punishment in situations of heinous crimes, they give exemptions in situations where the motivational act of committing the offence was from their own personal character defects rather than external pressures or self defense. If the crime was committed in self defense or as a result of other external factors both Mill and Kant proposes a laser punishment since the criminal act was motivated as well as necessitated by the situation at hand which was uncontrollable to the concerned individual (Wright, 2000).
From my perspective, though all murderers deserve death penalty it be should be applied depending on the reason behind the crime. An exemption could be killing in self-defense, under such circumstances it could be unfair for this individual to be punished using capital punishment. This is because killing is justified if it`s done in self-defense hence killing can be described as an action meant to cause death. On other hand murder is unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of a human being by another. Though, many individuals` argues that killing is always wrong, the question which rises here is what should be done in case someone wants to shoot you and in self-defense one takes a gun in self-defense. Does this person deserve capital punishment yet the action was done in to protect his or life. Under such a situation, the argument posed by Kant and Mill is legible thus capital punishment should not be exercised rather the person should be given an opportunity to defend himself in the court (Lane, 2011).
Religious and emotional arguments supporting capital punishment
From the religious perspective, the bible does favor death penalty not only for murder but also for several other crimes. Arguing from the Christian point of view, capital punishment is justifiable for individuals who commit murder for their own personal interests. Using this perspective, if religion means anything and the bible is still valid then death penalty has to be maintained rather than being abolished (Wright, 2000). The other argument is related to emotional argument which favors capital punishment with mere fact that victims and family who have been aggrieved have a right to vengeance. Letting this individuals scot free or even sentencing them to life imprisonment may create emotional trauma to the aggrieved individuals. In such circumstances death penalty is the only way to express justice to the aggrieved family members as well as prevent other cruelties from being committed. Therefore, this implies that punishing criminals is the only way to prevent horrendous crimes from being committed (Wright, 2000).
Giving murderers a second chance even through life imprisonment as stated by Kitzhaber, the Governor of Oregon has done is committing an injustice to the society because it acts as a bad example to youngsters. If capital punishment is abolished, youngsters will not get an opportunity to learn and correct their behavior as well as prevent them from committing such brutal acts. By executing murderers through capital punishment, the executed criminals cannot again get an opportunity to commit the acts again which is a valid reason to defend capital punishment.
Utilitarian perspective on Capital punishment
From the utilitarianism argument, a crime committed should be punished in relation to the law because; punishment is a justified means of promoting happiness to the victims offended by the crime. Therefore, according to utilitarian there four justified reasons punish crime offenders thus; to prevent them crime offenders especially murderers from committing another crime or causing further harm to the society cell (Mill, 2004). Secondly, its serves the purpose of deterrence thus it can be considered as an act of preventing recidivism and discouraging other potential offenders from committing the same crime or even committing murder again. The third reason for punishment according to utilitarianism is to give satisfaction to victims/society and lastly is ensure that there is law and order within the society by punishing crime offenders.
Arguing from the utilitarian point of view crime offenders especially murderers should be punished accordingly since by doing that the society is maintaining law and order, ensuring safety of the society, deterring other crime offenders from committing the same as well as ensuri...