Analyzing Carmichael's Arguments Against The Death Penalty

According to Casey Carmical, capital punishment is a justifiable result to choosing to end another person’s life. In fact, Carmichael goes on to argue that should one decide not to execute on the grounds of murder, we the people would be committing a moral injustice to the deceased. Capital punishment can be seen as killing one human, in acknowledgement of their choice to end the life of another person; however murder, as defined by Carmichael is, “the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another.” The death penalty is defined within its name alone, a penalty given by a court of law as the result of a malicious or heinous crime. The murderer is not sentenced to death without cause; they are reaping the punishments

Carmical defines morality as, “the principles of right and wrong.” In this case, as humans are moral creatures, and as such they should receive positive recognition for good behavior and punishment for bad behavior. However, this punishment should not be decided upon with leniency because the equivalent penalty is questionably unjust. If the accused committed a heinous crime, they should be punished equally. While some abolitionists against the death penalty will argue if we are choosing to end the life of a criminal who chose to end the life of another human being, we must also “rape rapists, beat sadists, and burn down the houses of arsonists.” (Carmical) In this argument, one must ask what the value of returning these actions to the criminal will be. No one would benefit from raping another human being. In fact, following the original crime with this action would only be degrading the life of the person who was required to deliver the punishment. When a murderer is put to death, they are no longer free to commit future murders the executioner is essentially protecting the lives of other potential victims. In this case, the benefit of the accused’s death outweighs their loss of life.

If this is the case, if a woman is able to overtake an attacker during rape and kill them as a result, her decision to defend herself by fighting back in an effort to save her own life should also be punishable by law. However, most abolitionists refuse to side with their own opinions in this case. Their argument is more commonly in alignment with statements supporting their beliefs that the government does not have the right to end the life of another human being under any circumstance. In this case, one must question the parameters of policemen and women’s right to serve and protect. If a mass murder takes hold, to what levels are our government protectors in the eyes of the abolitionists free to save the lives of the innocent? If they are justified in killing the assailants to end an attack, then the question of if the government is justified in taking the life of a criminal is now changed to, when is the government free to take the life of a criminal to protect the innocent?