Death Penalty

In the U.S. there has been a debate whether or not the death penalty should be used. It continues to be a controversial issue in the world today. Some are for the death penalty, believing that a punishment should fit the crime and it is the only necessary way to reprimand those who have committed a terrible offense. Others believe that the death penalty violates human rights and that it is inhumane, merciless, and cruel. In Kenneth Jost’s article “Death Penalty Controversies”, he explains that critics and adversaries of the death penalty are warning that capital trials and sentencing hearings are extremely flawed and inadequate that they risk resulting in the execution of innocent people (Jost 785). “Supporters of capital punishment discount the warnings, emphasizing that opponents cannot cite a single person in modern times who was executed and later proven to have been innocent” (786). Because DNA testing can permit inmates to confirm their innocence years after convictions, the debate over mistaken and faulty convictions has increased in recent years. “The Supreme Court recently opened its term with two closely watched cases pending on rules allowing state inmates to use newly discovered evidence to challenge their convictions in federal courts, based on actual innocence as well as constitutional violations” (786). There is now currently a debate whether or not states should enforce a freeze on executions. Many Americans do indeed support the death penalty. “Nearly three out of four Americans are advocates of the death penalty, but only sixty-one percent believe that it is applied fairly in this country. Americans believe that innocent people have been executed within the past five years, but the percentage who feel that way declined between 2003 and 2005” (786). Support for capital punishment dropped somewhat in the early years of the 21st century, seemingly in response to the work of death penalty critics and opponents (786).

Thought and ideas of men such as Thomas Hobbes, John Mill, Thomas Aquinas, and Pope John Paul II can be incorporated when considering and addressing this issue. Hobbes believes that all men are equal and also men can claim the same right and benefits. In Leviathan Thomas Hobbes said, “The right of nature, which writers commonly call Jus Naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto” (Hobbes 91). Hobbes believes that naturally every man has a right to everything (91). Hobbes believes that nothing is unjust in the state of nature. He says in Leviathon, “For where no covenant hath preceded, there hath no right been transferred, and every man has right to everything and consequently, no action can be unjust. But when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust is just” (Hobbes 100). Hobbes also feels that when everyman is against everyman there is no common ground for justice to be established (100).

John Paul II believed that by nature, men are endowed with “universal, inviolable, and inalienable rights” (John Paul II 1). He explains in “From Justice of Each Comes Peace for All” that humans’ rights belong to every individual. He does not believe humans should seek revenge. John Paul II said that “justice is rooted in love, expressed in mercy, active, life giving virtue and one should not pass over the evil of corruption in society” (1). He describes justice as an “active and life-giving virtue” (1). Pope John Paul II illustrates that “justice and peace seek the good in one and all, and for this reason demand order and truth. When one is threatened, both falter, when justice is offended, peace is also placed in jeopardy” (1). He feels that justice and peace go hand and hand, for we cannot obtain peace without having justice. John Paul II also says that he thinks that the poor, marginalized, and sufferers of all types of exploitation are being subjected to the absence of peace and awful results of injustice (1).

In Summa Theologia Thomas Aquinas terms justice as giving each their due. . He felt that humans act for an end which is the highest good (Aquinas 5) . Also, man cannot obtain happiness without God. He thought happiness was divine and that man cannot obtain happiness through own powers because God is incomprehensible (7). Aquinas holds a belief in stewardship where all people have the duty to be charitable and help those who are in need (4). He said that stealing is ok but it is only justified if you are in need (5). In Summa Theolgia he also said, “Further, mortal sin deserves to be punished with death. But in the Law theft is punished not by death but by indemnity,