by Rachel Grusin

Created on: July 02, 2010   Last Updated: July 03, 2010

I don’t know that there is really any question as to whether or not the death penalty is moral. By definition to be moral is to exercise the judgement in oneself that would perpetuate the most good, for yourself and others. The death penalty is putting a person to death, it is quite simple. There is very little hidden in this concept, there is no underlying meaning or alternative interpretation. The death sentence means what it says, a death sentence.

When we apply the concept of morality to the death penalty there is a distinct paradox that is not being fully addressed. Consider the purpose of the death penalty; it is to assess a punishment that society in cooperation with government, in the United States specifically, has deemed appropriate for certain crimes with the severest of consequence. Yet we question whether or not our approved methods of vindication are moral.

When one applies the concept of morality, which in itself is subject to the interpretation of the individual, to something as finite and established in its meaning and concept as the death penalty, one must question is this even a legitimate coupling of principles? Morality is a simple construct of the human condition that we impose upon ourselves.

Morality when rawly defined is ambiguous, it is simply a formula of principles that are used to gauge the rightness or wrongness of a given decision, or method of handling a situation. Given our current moral determinations in this world society, there is a general consensus that murder, the core act of taking another human life is in it of itself wrong. It is not moral, in fact it is the utmost antithesis to what we as a world society agree to be as moral.

Taking this into consideration, it is a tad baffling as to how we can attempt to dress up the death penalty as anything other than it actually is, death. The death penalty is immoral, it is taking the life of a human being against their will, unless killing became kosher over night, there is very little that could make the raw act of taking a human life moral. The real question is are the motivations behind the death penalty moral in nature?

Is it moral to emancipate the wronged of the injustice done to them by reciprocating the same fate upon the one who caused it? We must ask ourselves can we transmute the overwhelming need for objective justice into overpowering the stigma associated with the result of the death penalty, which is death. Is it possible that our concept of morality must in a sense acclimate to the ever growing capacity for evil that our species seems to continue to surrender itself to. I think so. Morality cannot remain stagnate, if we have found it necessary to establish a means of regulating our violences towards one another by executing those unable to control themselves; then we must in turn re-evaluate how moral our motivations are in doing so. 

Learn more about this author, Rachel Grusin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.