The judgment of capital punishment

你同意死刑吗？它是残忍还是合理？如果是合法的，在何种情况下，应该有一个死刑判决？社会应该是完全地被法律所控制，还是应该与一个小小的美德元素相结合？原谅一个可以容忍的错误是有道理的吗？哪种惩罚法能更好地满足公众的要求？在道德与法律之间，存在着一种过于模糊和有争议的界限，任何穿越都是危险和有争议的。有没有可能双赢的局面？答案是肯定的，但它需要来自各个领域的努力。死刑是广泛存在于许多国家，自古以来，任何囚犯犯严重罪行将遭受痛苦的刑罚方法，它剥夺了生命权。然而，死刑始终是最具争议性的刑罚方法。

Do you agree with capital punishment? Does it cruel or reasonable? If it is just and lawful, in which case and under which condition should a capital punishment judgment be made? Should the society totally controlled by law or should be combined with a little bit virtue element? Would it be justified to forgive a tolerable error? Which penalty method will better satisfy the general public? There is a too vague and controversial dividing line between virtue ethics and law, any crossing is dangerous and controversial. Is there any possibility of win-win situation? The answer is sure, but it needs efforts from all the fields.

Capital punishment is widely existing among many countries since ancient times, any prisoner who commits serious crime will suffer the painful penalty method which deprives of the right to life. However, capital punishment has always been the most controversial penalty method. 

From the theory of virtue ethics, no one is perfect, everyone can do wrongful things which violate virtue standards (Maria, 369). One confirmed fact is that people’s action is influenced by personality and the personality is quite changeable. The third fact is that we act in a stable way. And even if there is a virtue standard existing, it is not as easy as we had imagined and no one can meet the virtue standard. It seemed the capital punishment is inhuman and cruel, if it is even an unjust capital punishment, the consequence is really unimaginable and horrible because it would lead to more protest and riot. The essential part is that life cannot be redeemed again. Capital punishment is too arbitrary and leaves no room and opportunity for the prisoner to repent and verify the error. Additionally, the cases in which people were unjustly charged will never be accounted for. 

The law official cannot promise every investigation and judgment is one hundred percent right in case the process of investigation and collecting evidence occurs any error, under this circumstance, the capital punishment judgment was made and the prisoner has been executed long before we figure out the truth, the outcome is truly tragic and regrettable.

On the other hand, from a pure law level, capital punishment is just a penalty method to maintain the peaceful operation of harmonious society. Is there a necessity of blending virtue ethics with the rules of law? May be we need to take a look at specific cases to find out the truth.

In August 2005, the parole commission located in Atlanta asserted that it would make an official apology to a woman who was the only person being charged with capital punishment in Atlanta during the last century. In 1945, the African woman was charged with killing her white female employer. At that time, the grand jury who are composed of are all white male judges and they judge the death sentence while completely ignored her self-defense with prejudice harbored in heart. On the contrary, the truth is that her employer locked her in the mill and threatened her with a steel tube. Today the Parole Commission in Atlanta finds out her action is not an intentional murder but just an ordinary killing. The photo of Lena Baker and electric chair which executed her were displayed in the museum in George prison and visited by people as a shame to unjust capital punishment system. 

The wrongful and unjust capital punishment made all the society pity and provoked the thought of judicial spirit, of course, which put forward a high demand for the judges who bring in a verdict. Will the result become different if the jury can be more informed about the details of the case and be more responsible for the life of the black people?

We will never forget the name “Brown” who was a young black man shot to death unarmed by the white policeman Darren Wilson. (Lindsey) He only met with Darren Wilson for less than 3 minutes before he died. The police man Darren Wilson said he was only called on to help arrest the robber Brown but the later investigation showed they never talked about the robbery during the 3 minutes. More strangely, Wilson has been employed in the police station for 4 years without violating laws and even be commented devoted to the work.

Last year, in November 24, the jury made a judgment towards this case that they will not charge the white policeman Wilson.

Once the news released, the protest broke out in Ferguson immediately and it evolved into violent conflicts finally, the New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston all broke out protests. The news indeed enraged a huge number of American people.

But according to the principle of judicial independence, public mood and opinion of administrative department and the big bug can never get in the way of normal judicial procedures.

The prosecutor and the jury can not violate judicial spirit under any condition. Otherwise, it will lead the country into a legal mess, which will be a mess more thorny and difficult to control.

We have to admit the outcome is not very unexpected, the rules of law are more complicated than we have imagined. According to the law of Missouri, if the policeman feels the life being threatened during the legal fight, he can use the deadly way to protect himself. And the Police Union pointed out 70 policemen dead in the law enforcement, and the United States never sent official to attend the funeral of the police who died on duty. History was always shockingly similar and repeated over and over, the judicial dilemma lurches from crisis to crisis.

The Baltimore riot is a case in point. The story followed that a young black man Gray was arrested on the patrol wagon by policemen. Gray was in handcuffs but not been belted up according to rules which leads to severe injury, at the same time the police involved did not take necessary measures to help Gray after he asked for medical aids. And Gray slipped into unconsciousness and died after a week.

The prosecutor Mosby stated," The legal medical expert and investigation evidence revealed that Gray’s case is an intentional murder. Additionally, Gray brought with him a fruit knife rather than so called forbidden object, so the arrest is not legal. After endless independent and comprehensive investigation, the conclusion is in accordance with the identification result from the legal medical expert. So we think we have sufficient reason to institute criminal litigation towards policemen involved in."

The American president also responded in the first time that respected the authority of judicial procedures. Whether the outcome of this case will be similar to the Brown’s is not yet sure, but we do hope the truth can emerge and justice can be upheld.

What we now are waiting is a just judgment which can make all the American society peaceful and make all the protest and riot stop and avoid more innocent life lose for it.

It is truly a tough choice for the jury. They have to observe the sacred and inviolable judicial spirits, meanwhile, they are demanded too much by the supporter of virtue ethics. The interests of different groups is not so easy to satisfy, what the jury should do is to reveal the truth and uphold just without any reservation.

Bibliography
Merritt, Maria. "Virtue Ethics and Situationist Personality Psychology." Ethical Theory & Moral Practice 3.4(2000):365-383.
Lindsey Bever. “Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson is nowhere to be found”. 2014.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/21/ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson-is-nowhere-to-be-found/

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。