Capital punishment is the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. "Ethically acceptable,"" refers to the ability of such a punishment to benefit our society, and thus be accepted by mankind. Recently, 111 countries voted in favor of a United Nations resolution that would declare a global moratorium on executions. This brings forth the interesting conundrum of whether capital punishment is ethically acceptable. I think that capital punishment is not ethically acceptable as it is flawed, does not provide closure for the families of the victims, and fails in its purpose of deterring criminals.
But capital punishment is flawed. Humans involved in the decision-making process, such as the investigators, prosecutors, and judges, may make blunders at times, which can lead to the wrongful conviction and execution of the innocent. A specific example would be the case of CameronTodd Willingham. Willingham was charged with murdering his three children by arson. He was executed in 2004. However, a reexamination of evidence presented in the case by the Texas Forensic Science Commission revealed that the investigators had used flawed science in determining whether the fire was deliberately started. This led to the erroneous conviction of Willingham for arson and murder. Clearly, capital punishment brings harm to the society at times as it may be meted out to the innocent rather than the guilty, bringing about great suffering of the former. Therefore, capital punishment is not ethically acceptable as its flaws are detrimental to society.
One may argue that capital punishment is ethically acceptable as it provides the families of the victims with solace and closure. However, this is not the case. Capital punishment usually brings back memories of the crime for the families, and may cause them to focus on the punishment of the criminal as revenge for what they have done. This impedes the healing process for the families and prolongs their emotional suffering.