Morality of the Death Penalty

Morality of the Death Penalty

In "Death and Justice" (Koch, 1985), former New York City Mayor Ed Koch argues that the death penalty is not inhumane or morally inappropriate in a civilized society. According to the author, the traditional arguments used to oppose the death penalty are invalid. I would agree with the author on some of his points while disagreeing on several others. Specifically, I agree with the author that the U.S. is the only democracy that employs the death penalty while refuting the relevance of that distinction. I would agree with the author that the death penalty is not necessarily barbaric in principle while disagreeing on the basis of the fact that, in actual application, it may very well be. I disagree that the prospects of discriminatory and erroneous application are problems that have been solved, although I agree that biblical concepts should be irrelevant to modern secular law, that rightfully sanctioned capital punishment is not the same as murder, and that the death penalty does not necessarily cheapen human life.

Points of Philosophical Agreement and Disagreement

The author is correct when he suggests that the death penalty is not, in principle, barbaric. Assuming that it could be implemented in a manner that is completely devoid of suffering, administering the death penalty is no more barbaric than the administration of general anesthesia for scheduled therapeutic surgery. For that matter, I would even agree that other means of producing instantaneous death without suffering (such as a firing squad) are also immune to the criticism of barbarism simply because that standard must be considered only from the point-of-view of the convict rather than from the audience. In my opinion, only inflicting pain is cruel and barbaric.

The author rejects the opposition to the death penalty on the basis of the fact that the U.S. is the only democracy to impose it through a rationale with which I disagree although I accept the conclusion. In that regard, the point that the U.S. has a greater crime problem than other nations would, if it were sufficiently bad, also justify torture by the author's criteria. To my mind, the relevant issue is that many countries impose much more barbaric sanctions, such as cutting off limbs, stoning, and other brutal forms of cruel capital punishment. I would regard humane capital punishment as morally preferable, particularly in conjunction with the U.S. constitutional protections.

I would strongly disagree with the author's position that the death penalty is no longer (especially in 1985) routinely imposed in error, as well as with the author's position that the death penalty is no longer imposed in a discriminatory manner. Specifically, since this essay was written, the field of DNA science has demonstrated time and again that there is a definite risk of wrongful imposition and that is, perhaps, the strongest of all possible objections, especially given the profound importance of the presumption of innocence in this country. Similarly, while overt racial and social discrimination are no longer tolerated within the criminal justice system, the author ignores the fact that poor and minority individuals are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where they may become involved in crime and that once in the system, they are less likely to be represented by high-quality defense counsel. In that sense, the criminal justice system is still discriminatory in its effects if not in its design or intent.