Capital Punishment? Which essay is better?

This experiment is simple; as more and more AI technology has been thrown to the forefront of media I think it would be beneficial to show the differences between what ChatGPT and a human(myself) can create given the same topic. I wrote my essay for a school project in english and I think it’s a good baseline for what a human can create in comparison to a supercomputer, or AI. The prompt is this, The death penalty, or capital punishment, has long been a subject of debate in America. Can the death penalty be used and carried out in a way that provides for justice in society as well as morally appropriate consequences for both criminals and their victims?

Email me your thoughts, or comment below. I think this will help to ease a few concerns about AI taking over the digital workspace in the future, and maybe we’ll gain a bit of intellectual wherewithal in this experiment.

Essay 1.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the use of lethal force by the state as a punishment for certain crimes. This practice has been a controversial issue for centuries, and it continues to divide societies around the world. On one hand, some argue that capital punishment is necessary to deter crime and protect society from dangerous individuals. On the other hand, others argue that it is unethical, ineffective, and disproportionately applied.

One major ethical dilemma posed by capital punishment is the issue of retribution. Proponents of the death penalty argue that it is a just and appropriate punishment for heinous crimes, and that it serves as a means of retribution for the harm caused by the offender. Opponents, however, argue that retribution is not a valid justification for taking a life, and that it is wrong to intentionally cause harm to another human being, even if they have committed a crime.

Another ethical dilemma related to capital punishment is the possibility of executing innocent people. Despite advances in forensic science and the criminal justice system, the risk of wrongful convictions remains. There have been numerous cases in which individuals have been sentenced to death and later found to be innocent, and this raises serious concerns about the fairness and reliability of the death penalty.

In addition to these ethical concerns, capital punishment is also often criticized for being ineffective in reducing crime rates. Studies have shown that the death penalty is no more effective at deterring crime than other forms of punishment, such as life imprisonment. Furthermore, the high cost of pursuing and carrying out capital punishment cases can divert resources away from more effective crime prevention and rehabilitation efforts.

There are also concerns about the unequal application of the death penalty, particularly with regard to race and socioeconomic status. Research has shown that individuals who are poor or belong to racial or ethnic minority groups are disproportionately represented among those who are sentenced to death. This raises questions about the fairness and impartiality of the criminal justice system.

Another ethical dilemma related to capital punishment is the issue of human rights. Many argue that the death penalty violates the right to life, which is protected by international human rights law. Additionally, the use of the death penalty can be seen as a form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, which is also prohibited by international law.

In conclusion, capital punishment poses a complex ethical dilemma for our society. While some argue that it is necessary to protect society and hold offenders accountable for their actions, others argue that it is unethical, ineffective, and disproportionately applied. These concerns raise important questions about the values and priorities of our society and the role of the state in administering justice.

Essay 2.

When I was trying to figure out how I could best formulate my argument I kept coming back to this quote that I stumbled upon when I first read the book, and it’s stuck with me since. It’s this question from Stevenson (2014, pg. 260) in which he asks. “[it’s] not about whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The real question of capital punishment in this country is Do we deserve to kill?”  Over and over again it’s what drove my research and drove this essay. It's much deeper than a yes or no answer; it causes us to evaluate why we believe certain things to be intrinsically “good” or “evil”. Where we find our basis for good and evil is where I believe the answer to the question lies. The death penalty can’t be applied ethically if the morality behind it says it’s wrong, but if that morality is rooted in something that isn’t an innate truth then the basis of the belief itself crumbles.

The first issue that needs to be addressed is the question of the governments involvement in the death penalty. My first response to that question is, to simply say, why should the government be able to kill its own citizens? It seems as if the only way to trust a government is if the government makes the constituents feel safe. In killing its own citizens it seems to be counterintuitive. In asking those questions I think it brings up an important distinction that my first response failed to grasp. The government we live under in the U.S.A. is a government that’s most important aspect is three words we find in the preamble of the constitution. “ We the People.” Those three words are exactly what my question failed to understand. The state is only made possible by the people we elect in, and their decisions are supposed to be representative of our own. I think that’s why certain states still have the death penalty. The people who live there, for the most part, hold it to still be true and just. 

But this then begs the question, who decides right and wrong? In my opinion, the intrinsic nature of morality within humanity can only come from an arbiter of truth. Some ideas that stem from Nietzsche claim that humans are such a thing, (Hascal, 2013, pg. 11) “ In order for humans to be able to come to terms with what being human in a naturalistic sense means, we must be “intellectually contentious… on guard against wishful thinking – in our de-deified reinterpretation of human reality no less than of the world in which we find ourselves(Schacht, 2012, pg. 195-6)”. The naturalistic world attempts to claim that humanities morality, our own infinitesimal desires are only possible because of the biological and scientific growth humans have shown. It attempts to say that our desire for good and evil simply comes down to an innateness of growth within humanity to know what is right. The paper later talks about Nietzches’s thoughts on the idea of a Master vs. Slave. In this thought experiment the paper lays out the idea of a difference in perspective shaping how we view good and evil(Hascal, 2013 pg. 12). While I agree with the premise, as a slave owner believing himself to be “good” is the perfect example of this, it does discount where that innateness comes from. I don’t think humans can grow from something less than what we are now and still hold thoughts about morality in the way we do today. Even some philosophers and psychologists understand that perhaps there is something greater than our own understanding. This poem from Shel Silverstein’s A Light in the Attic ((1981),pg. 152) gives a perfect examination of this issue.

God’s Wheel

God says to me with a kind smile,

“Hey how would you like to be God awhile

And steer the world?”

“Okay,” says I, “I’ll give it a try.

Where do I set?

How much do I get? 

What time is lunch?

When can I quit?”

“ Gimme back that wheel,”says God,

“I don’t think you’re quite ready yet.”

I think Nieztche’s and Hascal’s thoughts on the godliness of humanity's own morality is concerning in the long run and Silverstein’s poem illustrates that. They discount the power God holds in our world. In the best case study of religion, Christianity stands tall. Fashioning a God that is merciful, just, and loving is something so outlandish to our human desires that the only possible way we could understand those things is if something greater was there to teach us. The power of the idea of something greater than ourselves being out there, even if it isn’t perfect, because our world certainly isn’t, is enough for me to say the innateness of knowing good vs. evil has to come from something like God. 

The foundation of my argument is this. If we can understand where morality and the decisions we make between what is “good” and what is “evil” come from then the intrinsic nature of humans can be evaluated in a manner that befits asking the questions about capital punishment. The idea that started this paper continued to come up in different fashions. From Deambrogio (2017) “Does the death penalty pose moral dilemmas that force us to commit uncritically to the preservation of life, irrespective of broader intellectual and practical implications?” I think this question is asking the same thing Stevenson asked in the epilogue of his book. Who has the right to take another person’s life? Is it the government? Is it us as a people? Perhaps because the government is the people as it claims, neither is fit to make that decision. In my view, truth can only be attained through the pursuit of Jesus. He provides my basis for what is good and what is evil. I find it hard to understand where some people can find that differentiation between those two ideas if they have no grounding in something, that is, by its definition, good. The forgiveness of Christ is what drives my ideal about the death penalty being wrong. Perhaps our modern world could do with taking a backseat to God’s judgement. Who are we as humans to decide whether someone should die? Instead, when we are all standing in front of God, that’s where the judgement on death should be made. 

Nietzsche, for all the things I disagree with him about, gets this right; Man’s perspective shapes how we view right and wrong(Hascal, 2013). We can’t condemn someone to death unless everyone is held to the same standard of morality, but because almost everyone in our world today has a different basis of morality it seems impossible to come to a decision on this. In allowing the future to decide the consequences of the past, victims can come to terms with the vexing nature of life itself. Instead of the death penalty, life in prison would suffice. Again, who are we to decide whether someone DESERVES to die? Our own desires and momentous decisions inform our daily lives, perhaps in spite of our own power, leaving something as precious as life itself to God is the best course of action. 

Final Thoughts.

Although AI is a major talking point as we move through the digital workspace right now, in the future I see it being more of a tool to aid in the growth of creativity within the human race, rather than something that will limit the scope of what we can accomplish. Maybe this will be insightful for you, as it was for me.