In the present times, most nations are determining in ensuring that the individuals live in peace and harmony. In order to achieve this, there are numerous laws that have been established relating on how to deal with individuals who commit crimes such as murder, robbery with violence, rape, physical assault among others. Individuals who are found guilty of either of these crimes are forced to face the full force of the law, including serving jail terms, paying fines, or both. However, in most developing and developed countries, individuals who are found guilty of murder are automatically subjected to death punishment. According to Emanuel Kant, an eye for an eye principle should be applied to murder cases in order to deter individuals from propagating murder in the society. According to this principle of equality, what one does to another does to himself or herself, in such a way that if one kills another, he kills himself, if he steals from another he steals to himself. This paper pays high attention to an argument that the death penalty should be abolished in contemporary society.
When the eye for an eye principle is applied to the murder cases, it gives wrong answers or no answers at all, and this is due to a number of reasons. For example, this principle requires the punishments to be strictly identical with the crime committed, and this cannot be easily quantified in a real-world situation. It is unfortunate that most of the individuals who support the application of this negate that the principle does not mean the similarity of the crime committed but the amount or level of suffering that the murder should be exposed to. Precisely, if an individual happens to kill another, he or she should be killed as well. Apparently, going with the arguments of the advocators of this principle, the amount of suffering that a murderer is exposed to by subjecting him or her to the death penalty cannot as well as measured. For example, if a person happens to kill another through shooting with a gun, the amount of pain that the victim experiences cannot be equated to mean that it is the same pain or suffering that the murderer will experience through capital punishment. According to the author of this article, we do not spy on spies or hijack aircraft belong to airline hijackers as this principle tries to advocate for (Stephen 133-134). Actually, the author of this article argues that reproducing the harm that is done to others by the offenders is barbaric, especially due to the fact that it does not solve the problem concerning why offender committed the crime. Even if we do not reproduce the barbaric actions exactly as they are by killing individuals who commit barbaric crimes like murder, any action that causes equal suffering to the offender would by itself be barbaric.
Though the argument about the eye for an eye principle is replicated in what is broadly referred as proportional retribution (the aspect of repaying criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes), most individuals have been calling for punishments that are proportional to the crime rather than punishments that are equal to the crime committed. Precisely, instead of calling for equal punishments, it is necessary to categorize crimes in terms of serious, less serious or minor crime, and in each category, there are established proportions of punishments that one should be subjected to in case he or she happens to commit the associated crime. Based on the proportionality principle, it does not mean that if one is found guilty of murder he or she should be executed. Instead, if murder is one of the serious crimes on the land, the best option is for such offenders to be subjected to the most severe punishment on the scale (Stephen 135). In this case, the most severe punishment should not be a death sentence since this would be equating the crime committed with the punishment but should be a severe punishment such as long-term prison term.
However, though the proportional principle plays a legitimate role in as far as thinking about punishments is concerned, it fails to clearly stipulate the extent to which murderers should be punished. This weakness concurs with Von Hirsch`s argument that if the lawmakers intend to implement the commensurate deserts principle, they must supplement it with sufficient information concerning the level of punishment that is needed to deter crimes. According to the author, a lot is needed to be done in order to establish the level of punishment that can be the most appropriate in deterring crimes in the society. This is due to the fact that the two retributive views (equality and proportionality principle) have failed to establish this, though the proportionality principle is far better than the equality principle, and this is due to a number of reasons. For example, the proportionality principle emphasizes and extends the sanctity of human life, and nothing is fundamental in the present times like the respect of human dignity. Precisely, one way of expressing respect for human life is by shunning away from depriving them of their lives even if they have committed terrible crimes (Stephen 137). In addition, this theory does not mean that criminals should not be punished but negates the aspect of not depriving them of everything like what the death penalty does. Nathanson acknowledges that murders have a chance of changing to the better even after committing such serious crimes. By implementing the death penalty to individuals who are found guilty of murder is equivalent to conveying the idea that by their deeds, such individuals are worthless and totally without human value. It is important to contemplate that though the society may condemn, hate and feel the deepest anger against an individual who has committed murder, the society ought not to take his or her life, especially if no longer poses a threat to anyone (Stephen 137-138). Moreover, individuals who commit murder or any other serious crime do not lose all their rights just because they have committed the crime but deserve some level of decent treatment since they remain living and functioning human beings.
Conclusion
It is, therefore, evident that the death penalty should be abolished since it extends the aspect of committing serious crimes rather than providing a solution to the problem. In addition, sparing the life of individuals who have been found guilty of murder is by itself a way of preserving the sanctity of human life. Moreover, the murders still have a chance of changing to the better, especially after serving the jail term since, in prison, they are counselling on how to mode their behaviors to the extent of becoming responsible individuals in the society. As long as a person who has been found guilty of murder does not pose any threat to the rest of the society members, other means of punishment can be applied, but his or her life should be spared.
Work Cited
Stephen Nathanson. An Eye for an Eye. North Eastern University. Rowman " Littlefield Publishers, 1987, pp. 72-77, 138-140, 145.
