The death penalty continues to be one of the most problematic issues that engage society of our days, mobilizing both supporters and opponents of this measure. This moral problem poses ethical and moral issues by admitting state-sponsored executions as capital punishment for serious crimes. Some key terms associated with the dilemma are the death penalty deterrence, justice, and human rights. Questions regarding the principles of retribution and rehabilitation and the right to life and justice demands come into sharp focus. Furthermore, individuals in professions such as medicine are confronted with ethical dilemmas when they are called upon to take part in executions, which brings to mind the intersections between personal values and professional duties. In addressing the complex ethical considerations associated with the death penalty, taking into account professional codes of ethics and diverse moral frameworks is the foundation on which a principled and rational view on the death penalty problem can be arrived at.
The issue of the death penalty is whether the state should be allowed to execute people who have been found guilty of committing serious crimes. The supporters see it as an appropriate punishment for horrible crimes, and it can deter potential criminals from doing wrong deeds. At the same time, opponents deride it with regard to the infringement upon human rights and the cause of false convictions. The dilemma is that some of the most crucial main principles, such as retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and even the right to life, can be rejected in favor of an alternative principle (Oliphant, 2023). Moreover, many physicians are faced with the ethical question of whether they should join executions or not since they have to find the balance between the purpose of killing and the duty of saving lives in the eyes of professional ethics. Additionally, the death penalty, which is the place of conflict between the community’s sentiments for justice and the moral values of each individual, is where the community’s cry for justice is found. As a result, these people find it hard to balance behaving according to the social norms and their principles. While society is facing these difficulties, it has to consider the ethical questions of the death penalty in the light of justice, human rights, and the values of society.
The use of the death penalty creates widespread controversies and conflicts within a society. Retribution versus rehabilitation philosophy understandably becomes another core area of disagreement; the proponents believe that capital punishment is the right retribution for the most horrendous of crimes, and the opponents insist on a restorative approach that involves rehabilitating offenders. Associated with this, the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent is another point of contention, with some claiming that potential criminals are discouraged and others saying that its deterrent effect is ambiguous. The other controversial aspect is the possibility of miscarriages of justice where innocent people are sentenced to death, and it reflects the flaws in the legal system (Derrida, 2020). Through such conflicts, one can see the multifaceted character of the death penalty conflict and the ethical issues related to its implementation.
The ethical dilemmas arise due to the duty to maintain societal norms and the moral right to ensure life protection and public safety. Furthermore, healthcare workers also encounter ethical conundrums when they are expected to be involved in executions, as this goes against the principle of preserving life and promoting healthy living that is expressed in the AMA Code of Ethics (Varkey, 20210. These codes help educate health professionals in developing strategies that could guide their actions in the cases of ethical issues that may arise and practices that are against their values (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2019).
Furthermore, disputes may arise when professional duties and family commitments clash as caregivers make a priority out of patient care, which contradicts their personal opinions and responsibilities. Moreover, the battles between allegiances of self or loyalty to community or nation are the cases in which people reckon the ethical values of their actions, either supporting or opposing the death penalty. The most morally correct position concerning the death penalty is to argue for its abolition (Oliphant, 2023). This position shows sensitivity to moral values, including respect for human dignity, the right to life, and harm prohibition. Precisely, the death penalty is suppressed to avoid the miscarriage of justice by executing innocent ones and upholding the human principles of mercy and justice (Derrida, 2020).
Implementing Aristotle’s golden mean in the death penalty problem embraces finding the middle path between extremes. In this context, the Golden Mean means doing a moderation that admits the role of fairness and simultaneously sees life’s intrinsic worth. Supporters of the death penalty might say that exact retribution is good enough for all serious crimes, while opponents may highlight the need for mercy and rehabilitation. Nevertheless, finding the growth point of these two views is difficult because opinions on capital punishment are also quite different.
Utilitarianism provides a consequentialist way of thinking that emphasizes maximizing the overall happiness or the common good. In utilitarian terms, the morality of the death sentence depends on its ability to prevent crime and advance the general good. Supporters can claim that it contains possible offenders and benefits the victims’ families, thus promoting and advancing happiness. Yet, the opponents may point out that the probability of wrongful convictions and the psychological impact of executions exceed any claimed benefits.
Natural Law Ethics, on the other hand, focuses on immanent moral principles coming out of human nature, including the natural right to life. Abolishing the death penalty rests with Natural Law ethics in the protection of life and securing the common good. On the other hand, supporters may consider that there are a number of offenses that deserve such a harsh criminal sentence, which puts the concept of capital punishment under Natural Law morality into question.
Out of these theories, the abolitionist ideology is the closest to the Natural Law ethics, containing the underlying aspects of respect for human life and the combination of justice with mercy. While Aristotle’s Golden Mean and Utilitarianism give valid standpoints with regard to this issue, they might be insufficient in analyzing the fundamental moral principles with which the death penalty scenario is related, like the right to life and the prevention of irreversible harm. Natural Law ethics offers a more complex and principled approach to resolving this intricate ethical problem. This stance is consistent with what I said is moral, reflecting an ethical approach prioritizing ethical considerations over utilitarian or retributive concerns.
Derrida, J. (2020). The death penalty, volume II. University of Chicago Press.
Oliphant, S. (2023, April 6). RESEARCH: Halting the Use of the Death Penalty Did Not Result in an Increase in Homicide Rates. Death Penalty Information Center. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/research-halting-the-use-of-the-death-penalty-did-not-result-in-an-increase-in-homicide-rates
Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2019). Is capital punishment morally required? Acts, omissions, and life tradeoffs. In Deterrence (pp. 317-364). Routledge.
Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17-28.