Anna Patterson

April 20, 2016

“Inhumanity of Capital Punishment”

As people commit crimes and are taken to court, some of them are sentenced to receive the death

penalty as they have been convicted of committing a capital offense. A portion of the population

believes in “an eye for an eye” and that people deserve to be executed for their actions; however,

this portion of the population is just seeking revenge and forgets about the inhumanity and error

that occurs with the death penalty. The negative consequences of the death penalty also fail to

meet Immanuel Kant’s philosophy that people should act in such a way that the maxim of their

action could be a universal law of nature and that all rational beings be respected as ends

themselves. The idea of capital punishment needs to be abandoned due to inhumane

consequences and its inability to follow the formulations of the categorical imperative.

Being sentenced to death by execution is a punishment received for being convicted of a

capital offense. Most people who are put to death did commit a vicious crime; however, there are

times where an error has been made and an innocent person is sentenced to death. Inside the

court room people can lie, evidence can be manipulated, and police, jury members, and other

court officials can be corrupt. These errors lead to the bloodshed of an innocent men and women.

There are times, after an innocent person has been executed, that evidence is found proving their

innocence. At this point it is too late because blood has already been spilled and justice cannot be

served. The families of the innocent victims can never truly have peace because a loved one was

wrongfully taken from them. These people were someone’s mother, father, son, daughter, or

friend and they will never return home to them.

 The case of Troy Davis, who was convicted of the murder of a police officer and

sentenced to death, is an example of an error that resulted in the execution of an innocent man

(Inwood 1100). During his wait, new evidence appeared that proved Davis’s innocence and

seven of the nine witnesses recanted their statements; however, Davis still did not receive justice

(Inwood 1101). After sitting on death row as an innocent man for half of his life, on September

21, 2011, Davis was executed and his wife and child lost their husband and father (Inwood

1101). Davis was murdered and even though people in the court room lied, which strengthened

the prosecution, his life still falls in the hands of the court. If capital punishment did not exist,

Davis would have sat longer in prison but he would have been alive. As more evidence

continued to prove his innocence, he would have been free.

People in favor of the death penalty speak of how an error in the court room that leads to

the death of an innocent person is rare and that there are many criminals who did commit their

crimes and deserved their execution. This side of the argument is not considering the

accumulation of deaths that will result after more and more people are added to the list of those

who are innocent and put to death. If one person is wrongfully executed, the execution of another

is easier to deal with because the situation has already occurred. This can be related to a

formulation of the categorical imperative, as Kant believes that people should act in such a way

that the maxim of their actions be a universal law of nature. Murdering the criminal because they

murdered someone else would lead to an endless cycle of killing. If everyone who killed

someone was killed by another group of people, that group of people would need to be killed as

well. The number of people who would need to die would grow exponentially. The exponential

growth of those killed and killing would lead to a world where no one was free of being labeled a
killer and the human population would simply not exist. Unfortunately, revenge can lead to more

harm than help.

Family members and friends of victims of a capital crime push to seek revenge on the

perpetrator as they feel that the perpetrator should die for causing the death of a loved one.

However, they fail to recognize that the outcome of the death penalty is another death and that

legally one man’s life is no greater or lesser than another. Using the death penalty is a human

rights violation: the right to life. Along with the death penalty violating the right to life, it also

violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution that states: “Excessive bail

shall not be required…nor cruel or unusual punishment.” Currently, one method of the execution

in the United States is lethal injection. The lethal injection is a combination of drugs which

causes unconsciousness, restricts the movement of the diaphragm which restricts breathing, and

stops the heart (Dresser 1). This procedure is inhumane in itself but is also inhumane as

sometimes an error can occur during the procedure and the criminal ends up suffering.

One situation where error occurred during the lethal injection series was with Clayton

Lockett (Greenberg 1). April 29, 2014 Lockett laid on a gurney and waited to be murdered by

lethal injection, which consisted of an untested drug mixture (Greenberg 1). Lockett was thought

to be unconscious but a change of plan occurred when he started moaning and eventually started

a series of convulsions (Greenberg 1). Locket was tortured from the effects of the untested drug

for forty-two minutes before he finally died of a heart attack (Greenberg 1). Lockett suffered

during this procedure and faced cruel and unusual punishment. Errors can occur at any time

because medication and injections are not always 100% affective. In addition, the human body

can always respond differently from individual to individual. As the procedure for the death
penalty cannot guarantee that there will be no suffering, the death penalty should not be used as

punishment as this clearly demonstrates a violation of human rights.

Those who are in favor of capital punishment believe that the criminal should die strictly

because they took the life of another. However, by killing the criminal, they are no better than

the criminal. Killing the criminal is only to help satisfy themselves, whether they are the family

members, friends, or merely supporters of the death penalty. This view is directly related to

another one of Kant’s formulations of the categorical imperative which states that people should

act in such a way that they respect all rational beings as ends themselves. The death penalty does

not follow the path of this formulation as people who want the capital punishment are treating

the criminal merely as a means to their own end, as murdering them will bring more closure.

Killing the criminal does not satisfy any of the wishes and most likely disagrees with the beliefs

of the criminal, which is not treating them as an end themselves. Even with the committing the

wrongful act, the criminals are still entitled to their human rights and to be treated as a rational

being.

The death penalty is a horrific punishment as it is inhumane and it violates the ethical

reasoning behind the categorical imperative. As some believe that the death penalty seeks justice

for those who were victims, it also strips the criminal of their human rights and has the risk to

murder innocent people. In relation to Kant, the death penalty is mapped out as not being able to

act as a universal law of nature and treats the criminals merely as a means. Capital punishment

needs to be abolished as no positive outcomes exist except for the temporary feeling of justice to

family and friends. Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye will leave everyone blind.” Similarly,

the death penalty is a life for life, which only creates an ongoing cycle of death.
 Works Cited

Dresser, Rebecca. "Drugs and the Death Penalty." Hastings Center Report 44.1 (2014): 1-3.

Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

Greenberg, Harvey. "Oklahoma’s Botched Execution." Psychiatric Times 31.8 (2014): 1-2. Web.

18 Apr. 2016.

Inwood, Joshua, and Melanie Barron. "Life and Death in the Racial State: Collateral

Consequences and the Execution of Troy Davis." ACME: An International E-Journal for

Critical Geographies 14.4 (2015): 1100-117. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.