a.
Consequences of the Act
The act here is sentencing an innocent man to death. In Kirk Bloodsworth’s case, this led to
almost nine years in prison, including two years on death row, before DNA evidence finally
proved that he was innocent. This shows that the death penalty can result in an irreversible
injustice when the wrong person is convicted.
The consequences were not only physical but also psychological and spiritual. Bloodsworth
likely suffered emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and a deep loss of dignity while he was
imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. He may also have experienced a crisis of faith and
self-worth because of the trauma of being condemned by the justice system. Even after his
release, the damage did not end, since he still had to rebuild his reputation and recover from the
long-lasting effects of wrongful conviction.
b. Purpose / Reason (Intention)
The main purposes of the death penalty is deterrence and justice. Supporters believe that the
threat of execution may discourage people from committing serious crimes and help protect
society from future harm. In this view, the death penalty is meant not only to punish the offender,
but also to prevent other crimes from happening. They argue that for especially horrific crimes,
execution is a way to give the victim justice, bring closure to the family, and restore moral
balance.
c. Significant Circumstances
One major circumstance in this case was the justice system’s reliance on eyewitness testimony,
which is not always reliable. Another serious issue was that the state convicted the wrong
person, which means justice failed twice: first by punishing an innocent man, and second by
leaving the real offender unaccountable. The discovery of semen evidence in the judge’s
chambers also shows how fragile and flawed the handling of evidence was. These
circumstances make the death penalty morally troubling because a life-and-death decision was
based on uncertain and mistaken information.
THREE FONTS
The death penalty is morally unacceptable based on the three fonts of morality: the act itself, the
intention, and the circumstances. The act is wrong because it deliberately takes a human life,
and this goes against the dignity and value of every person. The intention may be to punish
crime and protect society, but even a good intention cannot justify an act that is irreversible and
harmful. The circumstances make it even worse because wrongful convictions can happen, and
once the sentence is carried out, there is no way to correct the mistake. In Bloodsworth’s case,
the fact that he was later proven innocent shows that the death penalty can cause grave and
irreversible injustice.
d. Basic principles of responsible parenthood and human sexuality if
applicable:
The death penalty is generally unacceptable because it is irreversible and can lead to
the death of an innocent person. It also goes against human dignity, since the state
should protect life instead of deliberately taking it away. Under the principles of
responsible parenthood and human sexuality, the focus is on preserving life, preventing
harm, and protecting vulnerable people. For this reason, a punishment that can
permanently destroy a family is hard to justify. Even if society seeks justice for serious
crimes, the death penalty is not the best response because it risks injustice, cruelty, and
violations of human rights.
Moral reasoning
This case made me realize that the death penalty is not just a punishment for crime, but
a serious moral issue. Once it is carried out, any mistake can no longer be undone.
Even if society seeks justice and safety, the punishment must still respect human
dignity, fairness, and the possibility of error. This case is troubling because an innocent
person can receive the most severe penalty while the real offender remains free. For
these reasons, the death penalty is hard to defend morally, since justice should protect
life and avoid irreversible harm whenever possible.