Lesson video

Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone, and I'd like to welcome you to this RS lesson today on ethical arguments related to the death penalty.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain different ethical arguments about the death penalty.

Key words that we'll be using are death penalty, deterrence, and justice.

Death penalty, otherwise known as capital punishment, is the execution of a criminal, which is sanctioned by the state.

Deterrence is an aim of punishment; the threat of punishment as a way to put a person off committing crime.

For example, knowing they could go to prison if they steal.

And justice is fairness; working to fix an unfair situation.

Today's lesson will form two parts.

We'll be looking at the death penalty, and we'll be looking at arguments about the death penalty.

So let's get started on the death penalty.

Also known as capital punishment, the death penalty is the legal ending of a person's life as punishment for a serious crime.

There are two main types of death penalty methods: lethal injection, which is the most common method used in countries such as the United States; execution by shooting or hanging, which is still used in some countries, including China, Iran, and North Korea.

In the UK, the death penalty is banned.

It was abolished in 1965 for murder and fully abolished for all crimes in 1998.

The law on the death penalty varies around the world.

In some places, it's fully abolished.

In others, there are mixed laws, and there are still some places where it is regularly used.

In some places, there are mixed laws.

So, for example, in the United States of America, the death penalty is legal in some states and banned in others.

And in some countries, like Russia, it's retained in law, but hasn't actually been used in many years.

There are also places where it's regularly used.

So countries like China and Iran actively carry out executions for quite a wide range of crimes.

So let's check your understanding.

Is this statement true or false? All states in the United States have the same death penalty laws.

Take a moment to think about your answer and also to think about why it is true or false.

Pause the video if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you put false.

But why is it false? Well, it's because each state in the United States has the power to set its own laws, so some allow the death penalty whilst others do not.

There are many questions to think about when considering the death penalty.

Does a person who has committed a serious crime still have a right to life? Does the state have the right to take life as punishment? Do extrinsic factors, so external factors, like the severity of the crime or the cost of appeals matter? Do the consequences, such as deterrent or safety, matter more than individual rights? Whose rights are more important: the victim's family or the offender's? How certain can we be that an innocent person has not been executed? Which of the following is a key ethical question when considering the death penalty? A, how many countries still use the death penalty, B, whether the death penalty is cheaper than imprisonment, C, whether justice can be achieved without taking a life, or D, what method of execution is used most often? Take a moment to think about your answer, pause if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you put C, whether justice can be achieved without taking a life.

For our Task A, Aisha has started writing an introduction to an essay on the death penalty.

She's written: "The death penalty is the legal ending of a person's life as punishment for serious crime.

In the UK, it is banned for all crimes and has been fully abolished since 1998.

Laws vary worldwide.

For example, China and Iran regularly use the death penalty, the US allows it in some states, but not others, and most European countries have banned it completely.

There are lots of questions which affect someone's view on the death penalty." So you can see Aisha's introduced what the death penalty is.

She's talked about its use worldwide, and she's now moving on to think about questions.

So I'd like you to continue her work by explaining what questions are raised by the death penalty.

Pause the video, think carefully about what we've been learning, write your answer up, and then come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said: There are lots of questions which affect someone's view on the death penalty.

People may ask whether the state has the right to take a life, or if justice can be achieved without killing.

Others question whether it truly deters crime, or raises concerns about innocent people being wrongly executed.

Some also consider whose rights matter more, the victims' or the offenders'.

So well done if you managed to put across some of those key ethical questions.

Let's move on to the second part of our lesson: arguments about the death penalty.

A YouGov poll in May 2025 asked 1,714 British people: Would you support or oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty for all cases of murder? And we can see there on the chart that 35% would, 46% would oppose, and there were 18% who didn't know.

So what does this data tell us about public opinion on the death penalty in the UK? Pause the video, have a think about the data, talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can turn and talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So you might have noticed that the data shows us more people oppose the death penalty than support it.

A smaller group are unsure.

So public opinion is quite divided, but tends to lean against its use.

There's an ongoing debate about whether the death penalty is a fair and effective form of justice, and we have two organisations that we are going to use here to illustrate that: Amnesty International, which is a global human rights organisation, and a US-based advocacy group called Justice for All.

So firstly, Amnesty International is against the death penalty as a fair and effective form of justice, but Justice for All is in favour of it.

Now, the reason is that Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases because it's cruel, irreversible, so in other words, you can't go back on it, and it's often used in ways that are unfair or discriminatory.

The organisation therefore campaigns for its complete abolition across the whole world.

In contrast, Justice for All, which is the US-based group, supports the use of the death penalty.

It believes it delivers justice for victims, it deters serious crime, and it protects society.

The organisation argues that it is a morally justified response to the most severe offences.

Complete this sentence: Amnesty International and Justice for All hold opposing views on whether the death penalty delivers (silence).

So take a moment to think about your answer, pause the video if you need to whilst you write that down, and then come back when you're ready to see what you should have written.

So the answer is justice.

Well done if you got that correct.

So one way to decide on whether the death penalty is ever justified is to apply an ethical theory.

Kantian ethics ask whether an action in itself is right.

Kant himself supported retributive justice, so he might actually accept the death penalty for serious crimes like murder.

But Kantian ethics would say that if innocent people are ever executed, the action cannot be universalized and fails to respect human dignity.

So Kantian ethics is about actions in themselves and whether they're right or wrong.

One of the things it says is that an action has to be universalizable, which means that it has to be possible for it to be completed everywhere.

And in this case, if there's a possibility of an innocent person being executed, Kantian ethics would suggest that we can't universalize the death penalty because what we could end up with is lots of people being executed unjustly.

Utilitarianism works in a different way.

It looks at the outcome or consequences of an action.

The principle of utility could be used to support the death penalty if it deters people from crime, if it protects society, because utilitarianism is about the best outcomes, the greatest good for the greatest number.

But at the same time, you could also argue against it on the basis that it causes more harm than good.

So which of the following best explains why a utilitarian might reject the death penalty? Is it A, the principle of utility shows it causes more harm than good, B, it fails to respect the sanctity of life, C, it cannot be universalized if there's a risk of executing the innocent, or D, it fails to deter crime in most countries.

Pause the video, take a moment to think about your answer, jot it down, and come back when you're ready to move on.

Well done if you chose A, it causes more harm than good.

Here are some of the arguments for the death penalty: It provides justice.

It ensures that the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime.

Many people believe it deters others from committing serious offences, so it puts them off.

The death penalty also brings closure to the victims' families, and it reinforces the authority of the law, so people respect the law.

Alan, who's a humanist, is responding to those arguments for the death penalty with a counter-arguments.

Let's look at the first.

The death penalty provides justice by ensuring the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime.

Alan says, "Justice is about fairness and respect for human rights, not just about matching the severity of the crime." A second argument for: Many people believe the death penalty deters others from committing serious crimes.

Alan responds: "Many studies show the death penalty does not deter crime any more effectively than other punishments." And a third argument for: The death penalty brings closure to victims' families.

Alan responds: "Not all families feel closure.

The death of the convicted person does not necessarily help with loss and emotional responses should not determine legal punishments." Let's check your understanding.

What are the missing words? Some people claim that the death penalty provides justice by ensuring the (silence) fits the seriousness of the crime, but others argue that justice is not just about matching the severity of the crime, but about fairness, consistency, and respect for (silence).

So take a moment to think about what words might fit in those two gaps.

Pause the video, jot down what you think, and then come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So well done if you put down punishment for the first one and for the second, human rights.

You could have said something like dignity as well for the second one.

Here are some of the arguments against the death penalty: The death penalty denies the offender basic human dignity and reduces justice to killing.

Many people believe the death penalty does not effectively deter serious crime, and there is evidence that life imprisonment can protect society just as effectively without taking a life.

Warren, who's an atheist, is responding to the arguments against the death penalty with a counter-argument.

So the first argument against: The death penalty denies the offender basic human dignity and reduces justice to killing.

Warren says: "The death penalty recognises that offenders deserve to face the consequences of their actions through a proportionate punishment." Second argument against: Many people believe the death penalty does not effectively deter serious crime.

Warren says: "While evidence is debated, it cannot be proven that the death penalty doesn't deter crime.

It shows the most serious offences have the harshest consequences." And for the third argument against: Life imprisonment protects society just as effectively.

Warren responds: "Life imprisonment still carries risks.

The offender could escape or act violently in prison.

The death penalty ensures public safety and it achieves justice." So which of the following is an argument against the death penalty? A, it ensures justice by matching the seriousness of the crime, B, it brings closure to victims' families, C, life imprisonment can protect society without taking life, or D, many people believe it deters serious crime? Take a moment, pause if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put C, life imprisonment can protect society without taking a life.

For task B, Alan and Brandon are discussing the statement: "The death penalty is a fair and effective form of justice." Brandon is arguing for the statement and Alan is arguing against.

Complete the tables by filling in the missing arguments.

So for part one, we have fill in the missing argument for.

So Brandon is arguing for the death penalty, that it's fair and effective.

Alan's counter-argument is: Justice is not just about severity, but about fairness, dignity, and protecting human rights, which the death penalty undermines.

So take a moment to think about what Brandon may have said before Alan replied with that counter-argument.

Pause the video, jot down Brandon's likely argument for, and then come back when you are ready to see what you could have said.

You could have said for Brandon: "The death penalty provides justice by ensuring the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime." And Alan's counter-argument will clearly go against that.

So well done if you managed to put in something about the punishment matching the crime.

For part two of our task, you're going to be filling in the missing argument against.

So here we have Alan arguing against the statement, and Brandon is making the response that the death penalty gives dignity to the victims of crime as it recognises offenders deserve to face the consequences of their actions.

So think carefully about what Alan may have said before this to bring about Brandon's counter-argument.

Pause the video, take your time to think about what Alan's argument against the death penalty would be, and then come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

For Alan's argument against, you could have said: "The death penalty denies the offender basic human dignity and reduces justice to killing." So it would be a good point for Brandon to counter with that the death penalty gives dignity to the victims of crime.

Well done if you got something along those lines.

In today's lesson, we've looked at the fact that death penalty is no longer used in the UK, but it does remain legal and active in countries such as China, Iran, and parts of the United States.

It prompts important ethical questions about justice, the value of life, deterrence, and the authority of the state.

Ethical theories disagree.

We could have some prioritising duty and fairness, and others thinking about the outcome or overall impact of the death penalty.

Arguments in favour of the death penalty include deterrence and public safety, while those against stress dignity, error, limited effectiveness.

In the UK, public views are mixed, but more people oppose bringing it back than support it.

So well done for working with me today on this lesson on ethical arguments relating to the death penalty.