CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: THE ETHICAL DEBATE

A highly controversial topic that has caught many people’s attention for years now and still continues to do so is capital punishment. Is it or is it not right to kill someone who has killed another human being? Does this type of punishment act as a deterrent (сдерживающее средство, средство устрашения) to other would be killers, or are we telling this to ourselves to justify (обосновать, оправдать) the revenge? The questions continue to escalate (подниматься, обостряться), yet there’re no answers.

 The retentionist (сторонники сохранения смертной казни) is the name given to those who support capital punishment. This group consists of law enforcement officials(правоохранительные органы), judges and district attorneys (окружные прокуроры).

The abolitionists -  (сторонники отмены смертной казни) those who oppose capital punishment – are mainly humanitarian organizations, clergymen (священнослужители) and social scientists. Both continue to argue their points and try to make the courts hear their voices. Both sides make valid points and have strong arguments in opposition to their opponents’ views.

Killing someone who killed another person is certainly not a new concept. In primitive societies a murderer was killed by a member of the victim’s family and the state had no part in it. In a modern society capital punishment was being used for a large number of crimes. Due to the indiscriminate application individuals began to question the use of the death penalty (смертная казнь, смертный приговор).

The major purposes of punishment, historically, have been retribution (возмездие), expiation (искупление), deterrence (устрашение, сдерживание), reformation, and social defense. Throughout history, an eye for an eye, general deterrence of crime by exemplary punishment and specific deterrence of an individual offender, reformation of the individual and protection of society by detaining or imprisoning offenders have been the principal rationales for the disposition of criminal offenders. These views have not changed much. The areas of debate were narrowed down into two categories. The two categories are (1) in terms of giving people what they deserve, and (2) in terms of its desirable consequences. The first category includes retributive theories (карающие теории) of punishment, the second includes preventive, deterrent and reformative theories.

1. The first category, retribution, is defined as punishment given in return for some crime. It goes back to the eye for an eye analogy mentioned above. A crime is an act of aggression which is met with counter aggression. Many retentionists argue that some murderers leave prison on parole (освобожденный под честное слово/досрочно) and are put back in society to kill again, and even imprisoned for life they may kill in prison.

While such views are worthy of debate, abolitionists argue that no empirical research can tell us if the argument is correct. Abolitionists hold the view that "every human life has dignity and worth." They believe that life imprisonment without possibility of parole is sufficient punishment.

Capital punishment is morally unacceptable in today’s world according to abolitionists. Different religions have different views on the issue, but they tend to agree that killing a human being, even the one who has taken the life of another person, is not justifiable (допустимый, обоснованный).

2. The second category which includes preventive, deterrent and reformative theories, is even more controversial. The preventive view of punishment focuses on the idea that we should punish to ensure that offenders do not repeat their offense. It is one of the most common justifications (оправдания) for capital punishment, apart from deterrence which believes that punishment is necessary in order to keep others from committing similar offenses. Both of these theories aim at the reduction of crime.

The question that arises, and becomes the primary focus of the capital punishment debate, is: Does capital punishment succeed in deterring potential murderers?

Retentionists believe that the repeal (отмена) of the capital punishment laws would unleash criminals (давать волю преступникам) now restrained by the fear of execution. Abolisionists deny the deterrent value of the death penalty. They believe that capital offenses tend to be committed under impulse rather than after the calculated planning, therefore, the deterrent case has no validity (обоснованность, годность, вескость, доказанность). Their belief is that murderers are not likely to think of the consequences before they act.

Abolitionists point out that capital punishment interferes with efficient administration of justice and without the death sentence the jury is more likely to convict. Besides cases of capital punishment can take several years and the appeals (апелляции) are costly. According to the Department of Justice (Департамент Правосудия)  reports 42% of all death-row inmates (заключенные, приговоренные к смертной казни) are removed from death row (смертный приговор), primarily due to convictions/sentence reversals (аннулированиесмертного приговора) and commutation. This means that almost half of the convictions that resulted in the death penalty had serious constitutional flaws. This shows capital punishment is "a waste of money and resources in producing what turns out to be counterfeit death sentences in almost one out of every two instances ."

As presented above the arguments both for and against capital punishment are very strong. Each side has several valid points that must be considered by states when deciding to enforce the capital punishment laws. The ethical debate continues and the answers do not seem to be clear.

2.Give Russian equivalents for the underlined words and word combinations.

3. a) Use the material of the texts above to make a list of arguments for and against the death penalty. Add some arguments of your own.

b) Use the arguments in a dialogue discussion one of you acting as a proponent of the death penalty and the other being against it.

c) Get prepared with the speech either in favor or against the death penalty in Russia. Present your speech in a group discussion.

4. Conduct a survey in your group on the attitude to the problems of crime and punishment. Before conducting the survey formulate open-ended questions which will help you find out the opinion of the society on the following:

1) What is the primary justification for sentencing an offender (deterrence, punishment, reformation, social defense)?

2) Are there any other ways (apart from incapacitation) to prevent crimes?

3) What is the attitude of the society to the death penalty? For what felonies? Is it justifiable?

4) Does your group hold hope for rehabilitation of an offender?

Add some points of your own to your survey.

5. Work in pairs. Consider one of the cases from the list. Student A acts as a defender, student B acts as a prosecutor. Make an imaginary closing speech. You can add some details to the case but the facts presented by the two parties should not contradict each other.

1) The accused used social media to share a photo of a man she’d seen taking a picture near some children in a shopping centre. On Facebook she labeled him a “creep” and claimed police were investigating. The post was shared 20,000 times, and the following day came to the attention of the man himself. He immediately turned himself in. The slight catch was that he’d been taking a selfie of himself with a Star Wars poster – to send to his own children. Obviously, according to a friend interviewed in the Daily Mail, the man and his family are extremely hurt by the incident.

2) A man got killed by a whale at Sea world. To achieve his lifelong dream of swimming with a whale, he hid himself from the security guards of Sea World so he could stay at the park after closing. After his death, his parents sued Sea World on account of failure to display public warnings that the whale could actually kill people.

3) A woman won a local radio competition after answering questions on Radio Buxton. The local radio said she was going to get a Rennault Clio as a prize, but when she arrived at the radio station, she only got a toy car. She filed a case against the radio station.

4) A learner driver injured her instructor when they were involved in a car accident. The instructor claims against the driver in negligence, but the question is whether we expect learner drivers to be as careful as experienced ones.

5) A man broke into a house and tried to leave through its garage. Since the garage door was malfunctioning, he decided to use the house door. For some reasons, he got locked up inside the garage and had to stay there for eight days since the house owners were on a vacation then. He filed a case against the house owners, claiming that he had suffered from severe depression and mental damage for what happened.

6) Family members of the victims in the Columbine High School massacre sued 25 makers of video games, claiming that if it were not for their creations, the massacre would not have occurred.

Additional Reading

1. Read and give your comments.