Is the Death Penalty or “Capital Punishment” ever Morally Justified?

Is the Death Penalty or “Capital Punishment” ever Morally Justified?Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Is the Death Penalty or “Capital Punishment” ever Morally Justified?1.0. Introduction
Capital punishment also termed as ‘death sentence’ has always been surrounded by controversies. This paper also intends to delve into the contrasting arguments focused on the morality of the death penalty. Each argument is analyzed using the techniques and methods of critical evaluation to arrive at a reasonable verdict.
2.0. Pro-argument
In his article, titled as “How to Give Capital Punishment a Reprieve”, Gorden (2017) is of the view that the death penalty is morally justifiable. According to the author, the real problem is not with the death penalty, but it is the cumbersome process of conviction and execution that challenges its effectiveness. The article has a flashback to the history of death punishment with reference to the impact that its presence had on the crime rate during the nineteenth century.
However, the author holds that the death penalty needs to be executed during a short time from conviction which has not been the case in the past few decades. The convicts keep appealing and judicial system allows for delaying tactics. Delays in the execution of the death penalty have resulted in the reduction of its effectiveness. The author is convinced that there is nothing immoral in applying the death penalty because there are crimes the enormity of which makes it a justifiable punishment. Hence, Gordon has a clearly positive stance in favor of the death penalty on the basis of which he emphasizes the need for removing the concessions granted to the convicts.
3.0. Counter-argument
Meyr (2017) has challenged the argument set by Gordon by referring to his article in his own post on the Wall Street Journal, in which he strongly criticizes the death penalty on different grounds. Firstly, the author is critical about the cost attached to each death penalty. Secondly, he has found no evidence of how the death penalty can be a deterrent to the crime rate. Instead, he gave an example of a state where the death penalty is non-existent and still the crime rate is lower than the states with the death penalty.
The author goes on to make a point against the death penalty by referring to its far-reaching implications as perceived by him. To him, punishment should be based on rehabilitation rather than retribution. Since, to him, fear of death does not correspond to the crime rate, it is pointless to keep it in the legal system despite its detrimental implications. He concludes on a point that the death penalty is condemnable because it is the worse alternative of rehabilitation i.e. a revenge based justice (Meyr, 2017). His article presents the case against the active legal status of capital punishment.
4.0. Evaluating the Arguments
4.1. Evaluating Pro-argument
As for the pro-argument, it is based on the premise that fear of death is a deterrent to the crime rate. The interaction between argument and premise is logical because any effort to reduce the crime rate is appreciable from a social and legal perspective (Bennett, 2015). However, the author uses vague lin...