ethics

DUE IN 20 HOUR! 
Capital  punishment, or the death penalty, is punishment by execution of someone  officially judged to have committed a grave and capital crime BY THE STATE. I  say this because the “State” is an abstract entity, it is not like an  individual killing another individual (although in the ONION video this  is alluded to in that no one actually kills the criminal, the machine  takes care of it). Over the years, this has ranged from firing squads,  hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, or lethal injection. What is up for  debate currently is whether lethal injection itself is cruel and  unusual as well, so the question here turns to methods as well as the  act.
Key terms:
Abolitionists:  Those who are for complete abolishment of the death penalty, based on  human rights in violation of the 8th Amendment “cruel and unusual  punishment” clause.
Retentionists: Those who wish to retain the death penalty as a viable legal option, but use it sparingly and for the worst of cases
Retributivism:  Those who argue offenders deserve to be punished, or “paid back” for  their crimes and punished in proportion to the severity of their  offenses. In other words, justice,or retribution.
The  death penalty has also been banned in most countries in the world based  on human rights arguments. It is not illegal here and certain criteria  must be fulfilled in order to even be considered for the death penalty  in the United States, defined as: 
1.) First degree murder (killing with premeditated intention)
2.) Committed while during another crime, such as rape or robbery
3.)  Involving multiple victims or special circumstances, like children or  state officials; particular heinous nature of the crime, treason and  terrorism. (As a side note, multiple victims in capital punishment  include pregnant women in any tri-mester, so the fetus is considered  legally a person here but not under abortion).
Legal Framework:
Furman  V. Georgia: (1972) The Court ruled that capital punishment as practiced  in certain states was unconstitutional, in violation of the 8th  Amendments “cruel and unusual” clause. They ruled, not that the death  penalty was intrinsically unconstitutional, but the methods were  violative. This in effect put a stop to all executions.
Gregg  v. Georgia: (1976) The Court again rules that death penalty laws that  followed “proper guidelines” were constitutional. States have to take  reasonable measures to ensure protection under the 8th Amendment. This  is effect re-instated the death penalty and the law has been upheld ever  since with certain modifications.
1.)  Execution of the mentally retarded is unconstitutional because they  lack the competence – this has become the insanity defense over the  years. 
2.) Minors (under 18) can not receive the death penalty for  the same reasons. Before this, the majority of states had no minimum age  or it was as low as 14 years old.
3.) All other methods of the death  penalty are banned, ushering the age of lethal injection.  Some states  today still retain firing squad as an option. 
Utilitarianism argues strictly according to deterrence,  the notion that putting criminals to death will, in theory, deter other  criminals and therefore promotes more social welfare. Even life in  prison is not enough of a deterrent for the utilitarian. The problem  here is establishing deterrence as a non-moral statistical fact. It has  to be proven that a death penalty jurisdiction has less crime than a  non-death penalty jurisdiction and even that depends on many other  social factors.
I  want you to be careful with Kant – he himself in other writings defends  capital punishment based on notions of Justice – we respect people’s  natures as being free rational autonomous and equal BY PUTTING THEM TO  DEATH, because they had a choice not to kill and they did anyway. IN a  sense, Kant argues you lose LEGAL personhood, thereby allowing the state  to execute you.  But, that is different from using the framework of the  categorical imperative strictly.  Here, it is prohbited to kill and use  a person as a means to an end. 
After  reading your e-text chapter on capital punishment and watching the  following video links, please answer the following: (If the links do not  open, simply copy and paste into your browser)
Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfsMMVgIToA
Links: https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/c77u_9DB_JMZCukdtURkP9SUu0TFLlK8/from-the-archives-60-minutes-first-pelican-bay-report/
1.)  What is your belief about capital punishment? Do you find the  utilitarian argument pro-death penalty regarding deterrence convincing?
2.) Do you think the State has the moral and legal right to execute a convicted criminal? Explain using your moral theories. 
3.)  State your reaction to the Onion Video, i.e. the methods of the death  penalty.  (Note: the Onion is completely satirical, but the video does  force you to think about the humaneness of lethal injection and that  machines will be able to now do what prison officials used to have to  do, or at least sometime in the future.) 
4.)  What is your belief regarding solitary confinement?  Is this more “cruel and unusual” then the death penalty itself?