Does One Who Kills Another “Deserve” to Die? Essay Example

Does one who kills another “deserve” to die? Why or why not? Are there circumstances that would change your answer?

While many people believe that one who kills another “deserves” to die, it is essential to understand that ethical values indicate that this answer is different for each unique case. The person who was murdered, the reason, the timing, and the location, among others, are all important factors when deciding crime and punishment and are unfortunately overlooked in many court rooms who believe that a blanket approach to this type of crime is appropriate. Firstly, it is essential to consider that killing a criminal for a death that they committed is not always the best punishment. In this type of situation, it is necessary to discover why the crime was committed and if the murder is remorseful. If the murderer is remorseful, it is possible that he or she will never commit the crime again and can be released back into society with the goal of demonstrating the anguish that committing such a terrible crime could cause a person and persuade others not to make the same mistake. Although the murder wouldn’t be punished by the penal system, the internal thoughts and feelings he or she has about the crime will be enough. This is an excellent example of utilitarianism because this situation creates the most good; the murderer will be spared and positively persuade others to not commit the same act, protecting even more lives.

In situations in which a murderer is not remorseful however, it would be useful to send him or her to prison for rehabilitation. If prisoners are forced to spend time alone thinking about the crime, they may eventually recognize the error of their ways and be able to be released into society. However, if this is not achieved, it may be useful to either keep them in prison for life or to put them to death for their crime. It is important to note however, that either action at this point will be made primarily to make an example out of the criminal in order to prevent future crimes. If a lifelong sentence is prison is substantial enough for civilians to recognize that murder is not worthwhile of the sentence, then it would be useful for the prisoner to remain in jail and to preserve his or her life. On the other hand, if a death sentence is necessary to serve as an example to others, then the death sentence should be allowed. Ultimately, whatever decision is made by the penal system should work in a way that considers all of the potential lives involved and minimizes the amount of life lost in the population as a whole.

While other aspects of the situation should be considered, such as qualities of the killer, previous circumstances or actions of the victim, qualities of the intention behind the act, and features of the society in which the killing takes place, the murderer’s life should be respected. Only in situation where the death of the murderer would prevent future deaths would it be moral to end the murderer’s life. It is unfortunate that the murder victim had no freedom to decide when he or she would die, but it is our choice as a society to decide whether it is acceptable for the murderer to die. In many situations, the death of the murderer would be meaningless. This will not bring the victim back and may only serve to appease the victim’s family to some extent. However, revenge should not be the main intention of the death penalty and should therefore only be enacted in rare situations.

This exercise indicates that is it better to rely on utilitarian reasoning in the case of the penal system rather than deontological reasoning. Deontology defines morality based on adherence to rules, and in this situation it is clearly demonstrated that there can be exceptions to certain rules. While ancient penal codes such as the Hammurabi Code states that “an eye for an eye” is just punishment, humanity has evolved to consider each unique situation that can occur, and believe that actions in the penal system should benefit all, not just appease the few. This exercise also led me to understand that considering a criminal’s appropriate sentence is far more complex than a checklist. It would be more beneficial to consider a combination of events when deciding the best action to either punish or rehabilitate a criminal rather than consider each quality of the situation or the criminal as independent.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Ed. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

Newton, Lisa H. Ethics in America, Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson, 2003. Print.