In Lincoln Caplan’s writing The Random Horror of the Death Penalty he discredits the Supreme Court and claims that it has failed to ban the death penalty “as it should.” Throughout his article he focuses on Conneticut’s judicial system and cases that have happened in the individual state, claiming that capital punishment sentences have been given out haphazardly. He has backed up his claims with the research of John Donohue, but these in fact are not Caplan’s own personal studies and he is formulating an opinion based on someone else’s findings. This creates doubt in concerns of the plausibility of his claims.
The death penalty is a just punishment on the basis that if one can take another’s undeniable right to life away, they shouldn’t have access to that very right. The simplicity of that statement aggravates those who oppose capital punishment because they believe in those people turning their lives around or the fact that all type of killing is morally wrong. As morality comes into context when the death penalty is mentioned I can’t help but question why it is relevant when it undoubtably wasn’t involved in the original crimes that are receiving the punishment? Morality is thrown out the window when a murder is committed, so why have a sense of it when sentencing the defendant in a criminal court?
Throughout my personal studies and reading done on this topic I have formulated this opinion. My college level courses in philosophy and political science have gave me the grounds to provide reasoning behind my claims. Philosophy teaches that morals are objective in the sense that they are subjective to all; meaning that the subjectivity of others opinions is universally accepted and understood, making it objective. Therefore I understand the contrasting opinions on the topic but if morality isn’t considered in the first place, whether it be a subjective or objective view of the idea, how does the sense of morality come back for sentencing?
I think it is plausible to say that criminals who heinously commit murder, do not deserve the right to life because they so easily took it away from another being. I hope I’m supplying food for thought with this simple statement that evidently contains universal truth. When being counter argued I just can’t understand who could disagree with such an unbiased, blunt claim. I hope that this is taken into consideration by all who are intrigued by this ongoing issue in our judicial system, and that their opinions are formulated on a basis as simple as the one I have provided.