Introduction
Society is engaged in ongoing debates about whether the death penalty is acceptable. The reasons behind the argument are diverse. They include ethical, religious, practical, and sociological details that influence people’s decisions regarding the moral acceptability of the death penalty.
From the sociological point of view, there is significant controversy regarding the equality of all community groups in the legal system (Oliver, Straub 9). It is impossible to discuss equality of opportunities for all members of society, and similar and fair access to justice. As a result, the number of ethnic minorities among people accused of crimes that deserve capital punishment is disproportionately high (Brown, Barganier 108). It represents the unequal legal persecution of ethnic minorities by law enforcement officials in general. Thus, social inequality is a significant aspect that leads to injustice in the legal system, making the death penalty decisions immoral and therefore worth abolition.
Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished
Ethical Injustice in Legal Decisions
The first vital aspect to discuss is the fundamental injustice in legal decisions due to the formal mistakes in the law enforcement system. There is controversy regarding the relationship between the ethical and legal components of the persecution of criminals and decisions regarding the death penalty. There are many instances in life where an activity is morally wrong even though it is permissible legally (Osie 33).
For instance, even if the death sentence is permitted in a few states, it does not necessarily mean it becomes ethical. Even from a religious perspective, the permission of the government to put offenders to death fails to render taking another person’s life ethical (Osie 33). This real-world illustration from the justice system field demonstrates that although something is legal, it cannot be justified from a moral standpoint.
Lack of Awareness and Unequal Representation in Law
Not all people are aware of the laws when they break them, and the number of immigrants, people from poor socioeconomic backgrounds who lack education, and ethnic minorities is high among them. The social contract theory’s “veil of ignorance” assumes that individuals know they are entering an implicit agreement with the state and agree to abide by the law (Osie 34). When people break the rules, they know they have breached the social compact they accepted.
However, not everyone knows about these regulations, and not all social classes are represented by them (Osie 34). For instance, regardless of attempts by the criminal justice system to provide interpreters to offenders who do not speak English, there is no preliminary work that instructs people concerning the rules in the country (Brown, Barganier 109). As a result, the number of immigrants with no opportunities to integrate adequately into society disproportionately suffers from breaking the law. It demonstrates that individuals never have access to information, which renders the contract ambiguous.
Socioeconomic Inequality in Capital Punishment
Numerous factors behind the crimes people commit belong to their socioeconomic background. For instance, the number of persecutions of African Americans or Latin Americans in the United States is higher compared to the number of cases where white Americans are accused of offenses (Brown, Barganier 110). People who belong to these ethnic minorities cannot typically afford private, professional advocates who will protect them in court (Brown, Barganier 110). As a result, the number of non-white offenders accused of crimes that deserve death penalty is also higher (Brown, Barganier 110).
Racial Bias in Sentencing
Another peculiar detail is that judges and the jury typically share racial prejudices concerning the offenders, and African Americans and Latin Americans often receive more severe punishment than white Americans (Brown, Barganier 111). If most individuals in society were aware of all that lies beyond the veil of ignorance, they would disapprove of the death sentence. These details show that social aspects and inequality of people based on ethnicity are vital in court decisions regarding similar cases. It might demonstrate to others that the knowledge they have has constraints. Therefore, they cannot judge if another person has the right to life. As a result, the death penalty is unacceptable in a society where justice does not follow the principles of equality.
Conclusion
Law is seen as a reflection of ethical standards, governing everyone’s life according to moral precepts. Since numerous individuals are unlikely to act ethically when there is no consequence for breaking the rules, the legal restrictions strive to support order in the community. If offenders are not held accountable for their wrongdoing, it leads to personal vengeance, which causes uncontrollable chaos. Therefore, from the formal point of view, the penalty deters disorder in society and rewards those who follow the law.
However, examples from real-world situations and law enforcement practice demonstrate how utopian this perspective is. Advocates frequently manipulate the laws to defend the people they represent in court by taking advantage of legal loopholes. The legal professional uses their expertise to assist the criminal in evading justice, which is unethical.
Consequently, not all legal practices are ethical, and the death penalty is among them. In their turn, vulnerable social groups become victims of mistakes and injustice in the legal system, which makes the entire law enforcement system unethical. In this case, the death penalty is connected with a high chance of mistakes based on implied social biases.
Works Cited
Brown, Elizabeth, and George Barganier. Race and Crime: Geographies of Injustice. University of California Press, 2018.
Oliver, Kelly, and Stephanie M. Straub. Deconstructing the Death Penalty: Derrida’s Seminars and the New Abolitionism. Fordham University Press, 2018.
Osie, Mark. The Right to Do Wrong: Morality and the Limits of Law. Harvard University Press, 2019.