CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Is the execution of people, by the state, morally right?

A question debated about for centuries, capital punishment remains a topical issue. A quick Google search can direct you to a variety of pro and anti-death penalty organisations, the most notable anti-death penalty organisation being Amnesty International. There exists a myriad of arguments supporting both sides of the debate: some of which have been used for centuries; other arguments reflect more recent ideas and beliefs.

Retributive justice is a theory that considers proportionate punishment an acceptable response to crime. Cicero stated, in De Legibus (written during the last years of the Roman Republic), “Let the punishment match the offense”. Most people find that this argument agrees with their intrinsic sense of justice. The retributivist theory of punishment leads to Kant's insistence on capital punishment. In his Metaphysics of Morals (1797), Kant argues that the only punishment possibly equivalent to death is death. However, there are issues of regarding proportionality as the justification for punishment. Firstly, you wouldn’t advocate sexual assault upon rapists as a means for justice! Additionally, the existentialist philosophers Dostoevsky and Camus comment on the uniqueness of death penalty in retribution: in that the anticipatory suffering of the criminal prior to their execution outweighs the anticipatory suffering of their victim, thus revealing a flaw in the retribution argument – a notion of ‘double punishment’. 

John Stuart Mill (Speech in Favour of Capital Punishment, 1868) believed that, in the case of murder, punishing someone by their own crime is acceptable; but even he acknowledged that if a mistaken person is convicted to death then there is no reprise. Unlike those who have been sentenced to life in prison, it is impossible to compensate executed prisoners should they later be proven innocent. There is absolutely no possibility of correction or compensation. This reality is as true today as it was in 1868! 

In the world today, the death penalty is at the focus of international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), adopted by the United Nation’s General Assembly, recognises each person’s right to life: “no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (article 5). As Amnesty International points out on its homepage, the existence of the death penalty violates these rights! However, some may agree with the Kantian argument that a person forfeits their right to live if they instigate a murderous attack.

The great Enlightenment thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated in his infamous Social Contract (1762): “No man should be put to death… if he can be left to live without danger to society”. In many modern democratic institutions, life sentences have been deemed more favourable than capital punishment. The intention of incarceration is to remove criminals from society, thus eliminating their threat.

These are but a few of the many examples justifying why the death penalty is morally right or wrong. However, I believe that the reality of the potential execution of an innocent person alone provides the most compelling argument against the death penalty.

PHILOSOPHY DEMYSTIFIED

Philosophy.

The very mention of the word would no doubt conjure up images of dusty old Greek men lounging around in togas, for some. There is a stigma about philosophy as a subject – that it is merely a dry academic subject, containing the musings of countless pompous intellectuals. 

The term "philosophy" is derived from the Greek 'philosophia', which literally means ‘a love of wisdom’. But to properly define “philosophy” and all that it encompasses… well, this is no easy feat! One of the reasons why there is not a universally accepted definition is that philosophy has no particular subject matter, so it cannot be defined in regard to an individual topic.

However, in a broad sense, philosophy as an academic subject is a study of abstract questions, which are unanswerable by science. These problems are concerned with the nature of existence, knowledge, morality, reason and human purpose. For example, the question of existence – where did the universe come from? Of course, many physicists would cite the Big Bang theory. The philosophical question would be: why was there a Big Bang? The simple answer, explained by quantum mechanics, is that something is more stable that nothing. But why is this the case?

This example, the ultimate question of existence, has too eluded philosophers for centuries. Another reason why “philosophy” is challenging to define is that philosophy is often more concerned with questions than answers. The purpose of philosophy is not necessarily to give answers to pre-existing questions, but in fact to challenge and query existing ideas.

This ‘querying’ involves a logical method. Philosophical investigations often follow four main steps: clarifying the ideas used to express a question; hypothesizing what theories may help to answer the question; testing to see whether there are any counterexamples or hidden contradictions within the question; evaluating which theory seems to make most sense (having looked at all available evidence). In this way – philosophy takes an approach similar to that of science!

I’m certainly no expert, but I truly believe philosophy helps to sharpen one’s critical thinking skills. Philosophy uses and encourages critical thinking. Critical thinking is a tool by which one can reach reasoned conclusions, through a reasoned process. Through reading philosophy, we are not only digesting information, but being prompted to ask ourselves questions that stimulate thinking – this is crucial to the construction of knowledge.

However, it is not necessary to study philosophy academically in order to think philosophically. Let’s remind ourselves of the literal definition of philosophy: ‘a love of wisdom’. In this way, philosophy refers to a state of mind! As humans, we are innately curious beings, constantly questioning things in the hopes of understanding, and we seek to justify beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Therefore, I believe that we are all philosophers at heart!