The death penalty. A debate of ethics that has taken different routes throughout history. Man has faced the conflicting idea of "an eye for an eye" for thousands of years. But setting aside the actual issue, and looking at some of the reasoning and belief of people's actual feelings toward the conflict prove extremely interesting. Like every other major debate, every argument is filled with personal beliefs, social construction, developed feelings, and other conflicting ideals. There are so many differing scenarios and stories that there can be no black and white answer between the decisions of so many. Some generalize it, coming down to the utilitarian vs. rights based philosophies. From one perspective you can presume that you are killing one to save many. The greatest good for the greatest number of people is taking place, therefore it would be unethical to allow someone who has committed such evil to remain alive. On the other end of the spectrum is the rights-based approach, focusing more on "would I make this act universal law".
Is it okay for one human to take another's life, even if it is for the good? Is it in our hands to decide who lives and dies? These two broad ways of thinking often mix with many other factors to form a personal decision on the topic.
There is so much complexity in an idea like the death penalty. How do people reach a decision on the topic, and where do their influences come from? What separates pro states from non states? A few common influences include religion, societal "norms", and general beliefs that develop throughout a family or community. But looking deeper into some of the politics also prove quite interesting. For example how has history influenced policy today. It used to be common, borderline entertainment, hanging criminals for the public to see. Different cultures used human sacrifice as a source of gratification to their gods. Did the people of these times face the same ethical dilemmas we face today? It is also interesting to look at the science and methods used. It is the prisoners own decision which method will be used. Does this make matters more "humane". There is also the firing squad method where one chamber is left empty, allowing shooters a clear conscious. The method seems slightly contradictory in ethics, giving the notion that what they are essentially doing is "wrong".
Then there is always the personal details of every story. Where did this person come from, who is a part of their life, and what is considered "significant". All of these things factor into the differing views on this age old debate. I am personally against the death penalty, and writing this blog was a good opportunity to reflect on exactly how I have reached this decision.
I think the death penalty was a very interesting topic to pick for this blog post. There are all sorts of moral questions at hand in this debate. I think what we need to do to better understand the reason why we execute people in the first place is to look at the structures of power in society. Why do we execute prisoners? We want to discourage others from committing similar crimes. The state has an amazing amount of power and even the power over our very lives. If there was no threat of losing our lives I think the state would lose a little bit of its power over the people. Granted, Minnesota does not have the death penalty and we have yet to descend into anarchy, but I think the fact that it still exists in this country is enough to hang over all of our heads. Every now and then we hear of a high profile case that involves an execution and it brings the very real idea that the state can take away one's life to the forefront of thought. Whether you think executing prisoners is right or wrong, it's a hell of an effective means of control.
ReplyDeleteThis post reminded me of a topic we debated on in high school: Should a just society use the death penalty as a form of punishment? One of the main arguments brought up was an individual's autonomy.
ReplyDeleteA person's autonomy should be respected. But this also means that a person should have to face consequences for his/her actions....but the problem here is what should these consequences be? However, another way to look at this is that the government may create a culture of violence through the use of the death penalty. If the government starts killing people, then the general public may follow the example and start doing the same.
The death penalty is an interesting topic in my mind. I teeter back and forth between the two sides. Part of me thinks that it's practical; we shouldn't have to support someone who can never be trusted to be free so we may as well kill them. On the other hand my compassionate and emotional side just can't accept that as being okay. It's a tricky issue and I can fully understand and support both sides (and probably more too). I can't think of many other issues that I can say that about; I may understand the different viewpoints but I usually have an opinion about what side is right.
ReplyDelete