There are only 196 countries in the world. 139 of them have eradicated capital

punishment either by introducing legislation or in practice. The United States is the only western

industrialized country that continues to use the death penalty (Andre & Velasquez). In 2014,

there were 3, 054 people on death row in the United States (DPIC, 2015a). Everyone believes

that human life is valuable but some people believe the only way to deal with certain criminals is

to take away their right to live. Others believe that even the worst murderers should not be

deprived of the value of their lives. Capital punishment has always been a hot topic and many

have deliberated the ethical and moral grounds of the practice. I do not think capital punishment

law in the United States is moral because innocent people can be killed, it is applied unfairly, and

the retribution is morally flawed. We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing people. That is

not justice, it is hypocritical and vengeful. Consequentialists usually argue the morality of the

death penalty by debating the effects of its use while non-consequentialist focus on what the

criminal deserves (Wilkinson, 2009). This paper is going to be about….

Consequentialists believe that a moral act is one that will produce the most happiness for

the most people who are affected by the decision. In short, the consequences of act determine

whether something is right or wrong, not the intention. Act consequentialism evaluates actions

one at a time and focuses on the specific event in question (DB, 2014). Rule consequentialism is

more rigid and interprets right or wrong actions depending on an agreed rule (DB, 2014). Would

the action be right if it was always permitted? Act Consequentialism sees the consequence of an

action in itself while rule consequentialism looks at the consequences as if it will be repeated

over again. Because consequentialism would be looking at specific consequences of the crime

there may be times that the death penalty will be seen as moral and times when it is not. Jeremy

Bentham, the philosopher who founded Utilitarianism was known for opposing the death penalty

because he believed that it resulted in more harm than good (Bedau, 1983). He believed that

nobody ever benefitted from the death penalty and that other forms of punishment would bring

more positive results (Bedau, 1983). John Stuart Mill, a student of Bentham, was for the death

penalty. He thought there was no crime worse than murder and that a criminal did not deserve to

live (McBrien, 2010). He felt that abolishing the criminal would help grieving families move on

and that alternate punishments would only keep their wounds fresh and prevent recovery

(McBrien, 2010). There are many levels of consequentialism and within them are many

differences. Consequentialism is unique because it treats every case uniquely and seeks to benefit

the greater good. While, not a perfect theory for judicial justice, it seems to be moderately fairer

than other ethical theories.

Sooner or later, innocent people will be unjustly put to death because of flaws made in

the justice system. Since 1973, one-hundred and thirty people sentenced to death have been

found innocent (BBC, 2014). Mistakes happen all the time in court: a witness could have

remembered a detail incorrectly, the defense attorney could have forgotten evidence, or maybe

the defendant reminded a juror of someone they didn’t like. The fact is, humans are not perfect.

Jurors are not making their judgments based on all the facts, only the evidence available to them

at the time. Poor evidence has resulted in the convictions of many innocent people, such as

wrong identifications in police line-ups. DNA test technology in forensic crime investigations

have drastically reduced these mistakes. 201 men have now been exonerated as a result of DNA

tests and have served 2,496 years between them (IBDNA, 2014). Many fear that there are

countless more innocent prisoners subjected to death or life behind bars because only 10% of

crimes leave evidence suitable for DNA tests (IBDNA, 2014). If we have proved over 200

people innocent with DNA tests alone, imagine how many more innocent inmates we will find

with improved technology.

While following a specific philosophical theory can help you determine how and when to

punish someone it cannot help guarantee fault. Sometimes not enough evidence is available at

the time and people’s biases can influence their judgment. Thankfully, in our justice