Capital Punishment
1
PHI 274
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Capital Punishment
The modern form of the death penalty is coming closer and closer with its date at the gallows. Due to the inconsistency, rarity, and regulation of the drugs used in lethal injection, the outrageous expenses that are required to maintain death row prisoners, and moral justification; the death penalty has faced a sharp increase in adversity towards its legality and support nationwide. As of 2014 “only seven states carried out executions” (DPIC 2) when over 30 states have the right to follow through with capital punishments. In 2014 there were only 35 executions compared to the nationwide death row list, which in 2014 consisted of 3035 inmates (DPIC). This stagnation of execution leads to the over burdening of expenses, which could be spent elsewhere if the death penalty was abolished. However, capital punishment is a system that is legal and justified by both Rousseau and Locke. The system needs major reformation if it is going to continue as a policy in the United States. Success depends on the improvement of technology, reforms to the legal system, and improvement of efficiency to save taxpayers money. If these reforms happen; the death penalty will be legal, efficient, and maybe even beneficial to society.
To begin, let’s prove the legality of the death penalty. It can be proven on two different bases from two different political and social philosophers; from which our country based our government upon: John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Before justification can be seen from both Locke and Rousseau, a general understanding of what their ideas and thoughts were is necessary. Locke, for example, based his ideas within the state of nature where the sole purpose of government is protection of property and individual rights. The union of men into a society, and further into a legislative or supreme power is solely created for: “the great end of men’s entering into society, being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety…is the preservation of the society” (Locke 69) and “secondly, the legislative, or supreme authority…is bound to dispense justice…by promulgated standing laws, and known authorized judges” (Locke 71). This knowledge of Locke’s idea about government transfers into the proof that capital punishmentis justified within the state of nature.
Locke says “In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity…and so he becomes dangerous to mankind” (Locke 10). He further says “by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law…and thereby deter him…from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature” (Locke 10). This statement helps prove legality of capital punishment because if an individual breaks the laws and murders a person – which is destruction of individual property – then in the state of nature every man has the right to act. Locke doesn’t suggest death to anyone who commits a crime, however if it’s an absolute destruction of property, then justice for the victim must be solved out. This concept is similar to Rousseau’s theory.
Rousseau isn’t speaking from a state of nature, but rather from the general will of the society. In order to protect the society, “the death penalty inflicted on criminals may be seen in much the same way: it is in order to avoid becoming the victim of a murderer that one consents to die if one becomes a murderer oneself” (Rousseau 79). It is all about protecting the society and making sure that the social pacts that have been made by everyone within the society are not broken. Rousseau’s justification is similar to Locke’s – in a way – because he mentions the criminal is against the community and is practically a traitor. “Since every wrongdoer attacks the society’s law, he becomes by his deed a rebel and a traitor to the nation; by violating its law, he ceases to be a member of it; indeed, he makes war against it. And in this case, the preservation of the state is incompatible with his preservation; one or the other must perish; and when the guilty man is put to death, it is less as a citizen than as an enemy”(Rousseau 79). Rousseau almost states that the death penalty is necessary, and without its deterrence, peaceful society would not exist.
Together these social philosophers defend the use of capital punishment through the neglect of a social contract. Social contract theory happens for Locke when personal rights and distribution of justice are secured by the creation of a legislature; whereas the contract happens for Rousseau when people give up their personal beliefs in orderto create a society that is based on the general will of people within the community. This also correlates to the concept of ancient liberty, by way of trying to realize rational, higher order goals that govern everybody. Rousseau fits into the category of ancient liberty perfectly; Locke, however, is a stretch. In this cases, where the purpose of his legislative power has a sole duty of protecting personal rights and distributing justice, it’s justified under the ancient liberty realms. Both Locke and Rousseau, as previously stated, do not say death is the answer to all but when necessary it is justified. Locke states “each transgression may be punished to that degree and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender” (Locke 12). Rousseau’s statement is a little harder to digest; “No man should be put to death, even as an example, if he can be left to live without danger to society” (Rousseau 79), but he basically means that if a crime is something that can be forgiven, like stealing, he should not be put to death. If the death penalty can be justified by renowned philosophers, then why is the modern form of capital punishment failing as a whole in America.
Foremost, thereis a hodgepodge of issues that are dragging capital punishment to its grave. The preferred method of capital punishment is lethal injection. The major problem with this method is the inconsistency of the toxic slew of chemicals that the pump the inmate with. For example “in Arizona on July 23, prison officials needed nearly two hours to complete the execution of the double murderer Joseph Wood” (Drehle 4). This is only one example of the drugs that were administered turned out to have prolonged effects on the subject resulting in a drawn out death. Another problem with lethal injection is that the availability of the drugs that are used for the procedure are either illegal according to FDA laws, cost ridiculous amounts of money to buy, or suppliers like pharmaceutical companies avoid selling the drugs due to legal issues that could result from failed operations. Consequentially, cases that involve these long drawn out deaths allow supporter to rally behind a moral cloak and that it violates the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishments.
Further, the overwhelming expenses that surround the entire process of death row inmates are absurd. According to a study in 2011 “California had spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978—about $308 million for each of the 13 executions since then” (Jones, Eder 3). Also, for death row prisoners, the cost of housing is more than twice that of an inmate with a life sentence with no chance of parole. The reasoning behind this is because those sentenced to death row need more security and are housed in single cells instead of double cells like the other inmates. While increased security and special housing needs lead to higher prices, the overall time that inmates sit on death row is the real reason why the modern version of capital punishment is failing. As of May 24th, 2015, of the 14 inmates that have been executed “five spent from 20 to 30 years on death row, five more languished from 15 to 19 years, and not one spent less than a decade awaiting execution. On May 24, Nebraska death-row inmate Michael Ryan died of cancer, nearly 30 years after he was sentenced to be executed by the state” (Drehle 4-5). This is due to the flaws in the justice system that provides countless opportunities for lawyers to keep appealing to the courts for their clients on death row.
A trend that can be easily picked up, if any research is done on this topic, is that most politician and news sources are against capital punishment; mostly because of the reasons that are previously stated above. This makes supporting the opposite side, pro-death penalty, very tricky. Fortunately there are a few politicians that support the pro-side. Kent Scheideggar has been the fore-runner in pro death penalty politics for thirty years and has provided many ways to solve the dying of the death penalty. One of his initiatives to reform his home state of California “would limit the time spent reviewing capital cases, thereby increasing the rate and number of executions. It would also lower the cost of the state’s death row, which currently hovers around $180million a year” (Caplan-Bricker 8). Another solution that Scheideggar offers is something that is common sense to most but is considered unacceptable within the modern era of capital punishment, why does the death penalty have to be painless. One of the drugs used in the drug cocktail during lethal injection is a sedative so the inmate does not feel anything. Kent says “I don’t think a murderer has the right to a painless death…we need to be careful not to impose torturous deaths on people, but we don’t need to be so squeamish as to say a person needs to feel no pain at all. I mean, it is punishment” (Caplan-Bricker 4). This is practically saying that if a convicted murderer is being put to death, why does he receive a painless death?
What does this all mean? Well, despite the common opinion in the political realm, capital punishment is a legal practice that is verified by social contract theory and the push for the greater good. If somebody breaks the social contract, either from Locke’s view or Rousseau’s view, both become enemies of the legislative branch and are therefore allowed to either force the suspect to conform, for the safety of your rights and the greater good, or risk being put to death; depending on the case. As stated above, there is a long list of grievances that bring down the modern system of the death penalty, but unlike any other controversial issue within our government, nobody really supports the death penalty. John Blume of Cornell Law School’s death penalty project once said “with most people that would say they’re in favor, it’s just sort of a reflexive opinion. You don’t meet a lot of people who wake up in the morning and say ‘Ok, let’s go get some people executed” (Caplan-Bricker 2). For the few that have supported reforms to the death penalty, reformation of the current system is a must if they want to see the process live on. Small steps to change the modern system have been set in place already, like certain states that have reverted to different systems of killing; like gas and the electric chair if the drugs for lethal injection are not readily available. “In 2014, Tennessee authorized prison officials to use the electric chair if lethal injection drugs were unavailable” (Fernandez 3).
Hypothetically, if the capital punishment system reverted away from lethal injection and went back to firing squad, along with a limit of number of years that is allowed for capital punishment cases to be reviewed, as Scheideggar suggested, almost all of the main reasons to eliminate the death penalty would be gone. Think about it! The amount that the U.S. government spends on weapons and ammunition for the Department of Defense, sparing a set of five rifles and ammunition per state for executions would be close to no cost whatsoever. This would eliminate not only the pricy drugs that are used in lethal injection, but also remove any possibility of botched execution that are caused by both lethal injection and the electric chair as well. Morally, even though it is already proven legitimate by Locke and Rousseau, the execution would be the most humane compared to the other two forms of execution which in existence now. Also the imposition of limits on appeals and time spent reviewing cases, let’s say to five years, and would save tax payers an exponential amount of money compared to the 35-60 years that an inmate with life without parole would accumulate. But this is nothing but a hypothetical situation that will probably never happen.
In conclusion, the death penalty is something that needs to remain in modern civilization in order to deter future criminals and to provide justice to victims of these heinous crimes. Every citizen is a part of the social contract when you become an adult. When you go against this social contract you are subject to punishment depending on the crime. If personal property is destroyed, which includes the taking of a life, is committed you are subject to capital punishment which could result in death. This is a fundamental part of two of the most influential writers in both American and European social and political philosophy. If the hypothetical system that is stated in the paragraph before were actually in place, would the public and government officials have negative views against it. Yes, it is going to cost something in, but doesn’t everything cost something in modern era of consumerism, but definitely less then what it is now. Not to mention justice is something that is key to the government. How can someone commit such heinous crimes such as raping a pregnant woman and then killing her and her unborn baby, or abducting and killing Christopher Newson and his girlfriend as they were traveling just be justified with life in prison? The death penalty is more than just a tool to use to receive justice from terrible crimes, but it is a deterrent to crime in general. If change is enacted, then the current problems will cease and a perfectly legal punishment will be in place. “God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Locke 12).
Works Cited
Caplan-Bricker, Nora. “Mr. Death Penalty – Meet Capital Punishment’s Chief Defender” National Journal.N.p. 5 Sept 2014. Web. 25 Oct 2015.
Drehle, David Von. “The Death of the Death Penalty” Time Magazine.Time Magazine. 8 June 2015. Web 25 Oct 2015.
Fernandez, Manny. “Delays as Death-Penalty States Scramble for Execution Drugs”. New York Times.New York Times. 8 Oct 2015. Web. 25 Oct 2015.
Jones, Ashby. Eder, Steve. “Costs Test Backing For Death Penalty” Wall Street Journal.Wall Street Journal. 5 Oct 2015. Web. 25 Oct 2015.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Ed. C. B. Macpherson. Indianapolis. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 1980. Print.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.The Social Contract. Trans. Cranston, Maurice. London. Penguin Books. 1968. Print.
“Searchable Execution Database”.Death Penalty Information Center.Death Penalty Information Center.N.D. Web. 25 Oct 2015.
”The Death Penalty in 2014: Year End Report”.Death Penalty Information Center.Death Penalty Information Center. 1 Oct 2014.Web. 25 Oct 2015.
Vaidyanathan, Rajini. “Voices from the Tennesse Death Penalty Debate”.BBC World News. BBC News. 25 July 2014. Web. 25 Oct 2015.