There are two traditional rationales regarding the death penalty, which include the utilitarian rationale and the retributive rationale. Governments can use the theories to either support or repeal this form of punishment in the society. In the present paper, utilitarian arguments against the death penalty and the retributivist argument in support of the punishment are presented. A recommendation of the best approach is offered after an evaluation of the two theories.
Retributivist Arguments for the Death Penalty
The Just Retribution Principle
The retributivist arguments justify the death penalty as retribution for a crime. In support of the death penalty, retributivists argue that the death penalty is justified based on the principle of just retribution (Murphy, 2006). They state that criminals should not be allowed to outlive their victims at the society’s expense. Serving justice entails forfeiting the lives of the criminals (Kant, 2018). The death penalty is a punishment that criminals should be given because of their crimes. Punishment imposition, thus, is justified to punish the crime.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Proportionate of the Punishment
Retributivists also argue that all criminals who have committed legal crimes should be punished in proportion to the importance of their crimes (Kant, 2018). The underlying assumptions of this argument are that a criminal is punished after voluntarily committing a crime and that the punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes, which is morally sound because criminals suffer the voluntarily committed crime (Murphy, 2006). A crime like murder, for example, requires a harsh punishment because it involves taking the life of another individual, and is, thus, more serious. The death penalty is a proportionate punishment in this case. Retributivists consider the death penalty in the case of murder to be one of the options, but not the only option.
The Just Requital Principle
Another argument in support of the death penalty is based on the just requital principle that focuses on the justification of individual punishments (Kant, 2018). Retributivists disagree that punishment is justified by specific future goods that it may cause to the society through rehabilitation, deterrence or through compensating the victim. Regardless of any future loss or benefit, punishments should be justified only on the basis that they are morally good (Kant, 2018). Punishment is morally good because it aims to protect the legitimate rights of both the offender and society. For example, the society respects the criminal’s free will through punishment while punishment allows the criminal to settle a debt with the society and return later to the society.
Utilitarian Arguments against the Death Penalty
Utilitarian disagree with retributivists by arguing that punishment should only be used if it is beneficial to society by protecting it from the criminal, deterring other people from engaging in criminal activities or rehabilitating the offender.
Protection of the Society
The first argument suggests that punishment should only be allowed if its objectives and outcomes are to protect society from a greater evil (Bentham, 1823). Protection of society from offenders may entail formulating laws that promise punishment for any criminal behavior. The objective of the laws should be to maximize the well-being of the society, which entails reducing the rate of both punishment and crime (Murphy, 2006). It is impossible for a society to be free of crime, which necessitates the application of measured punishment to protect society from future crimes. Punishment, however, should be limited and its good outcomes should be greater than the committed evil (Bentham, 1823). For example, if a prisoner has a chronic disease and may die, continued confinement may not serve the society because the criminal will be incapable of engaging in criminal activities.
Deterrence
Utilitarian also argue against the death penalty by stating that punishment should be used to deter crimes (Bentham, 1823). Deterrence has three aspects that affect the rate of crimes. They are swiftness, certainty, and severity (Bentham, 1823). Punishment will deter ordinary people from engaging in crimes if the criminals are punished swiftly, certainly and severely, and once people learn that any criminal acts will be punished the same way (Murphy, 2006). Deterrence should also be specific to hinder the same individual from engaging in further crimes (Bentham, 1823). In turn, this may entail jailing criminals to physically hinder them from engaging in crimes for a certain time and using unpleasant incapacitation to discourage the criminal from repeating the crime.
Rehabilitation
Utilitarian also supports rehabilitation as a form of punishment with the objective of preventing future offences. Rehabilitation gives criminals the chances to change under the restrictions of the law (Bentham, 1823). Most crimes occur under the influence of an illegal substance, due to unmanageable rage, or due to mental problems (Murphy, 2006). Criminals are unable to manage their actions because of the outside influence, and, thus, they never think about the possibility of the death penalty before committing a crime or after the crime. They can, thus, be rehabilitated, for instance, by treating them for issues such as severe violent behavior, chemical dependency, and mental problems. Educational programs can also be used to teach criminals the required skills to be competitive in the job market.
Conclusion
In conclusion, given the arguments for and against the death penalty, it is vital to emphasize that the criminal system is not entirely perfect. History has demonstrated that some people can be sentenced wrongly to capital punishment while innocent people can be executed mistakenly. It is impossible to amend these mistakes once they happen. Extended incapacitation can, thus, be an effective way of dealing with serious crimes instead of using capital punishment. Retributivists also do not demonstrate the utility of the death penalty. Utilitarian arguments, thus, offer a strong justification against capital punishment.
References
Kant, I. (2018). The science of right . Charles River Editors via PublishDrive.
Bentham, J. (1823). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 2 . W. Pickering.
Murphy, M. (2006). Philosophy of Law: The Fundamentals . Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell
