The Ethics of Execution

 When we talk about capital punishment we are always having a discussion about much more than just whether or not any crime should be punishable with execution. We are having a discussion about religion, morality, the legal system, and who gets to decide who dies, how, and when. In my opinion the topic of capital punishment goes hand in hand with the topic of euthanasia, and when we do compare the two we find some curious contradictions regarding how our society handles both.

Those who argue against capital punishment largely lean on the religious/moral side of the discussion. Taking a life is always wrong, and therefore no matter the crime, even if the crime was murder, there should never be a death sentence as punishment. This argument is simple, but effective. Most religions don't mince words regarding murder or execution, and they state very plainly that killing another person is unacceptable. There is very little wiggle room to argue against this point.

Those who argue for capital punishment, then, will generally argue that the alternative, life in prison, is a worse sort of punishment that makes no sense for the imprisoned or for society. I tend to agree with this camp. I believe that prison should be an opportunity for reform, not a punitive measure designed as a deterrent. If you think in this way, then sentencing someone to living in a center for reform, knowing full well that they will never be reformed in the eyes of society, is nonsensical. The person is then hidden away from the larger world, yet kept around to the benefit of nobody.

The way this ties back into euthanasia comes in at this point. When the state determines that a dog, for instance, is too dangerous to be allowed to live in society, they are "put to sleep" (executed). We appoint ourselves fair judges in this matter, and in a sense judge over all dog lives. However, if we wish to die ourselves and are able to obtain the help of a third party who will make that happen, society does not allow it. However! Should we fall into a coma, then someone else has the ability to speak for us and say whether we wish to live or die. They have the ability, at that point, to "pull the plug" so to speak.

So, following this logically, we aren't allowed to have someone killed for committing a crime, and we can't ask to be killed, but if we cannot speak for ourselves then someone ELSE is allowed to have us killed, and of course we are able to determine when anything non-human lives or dies. This raises a number of fascinating ethical questions which I definitely plan to explore in the finakl presentation.