The Penalty Of Death Mencken Analysis

In the article “The Penalty of Death”, written by H. L. Mencken, utilitarian principles are used to cover up for a system that wants results. All of the reasons that Mencken gives as justifications do not give concrete evidence of why the death penalty should continue as a means of punishment. The article states, “Any lesser penalty leaves them feeling that the criminal has got the better of society...” This statement alone demonstrates how he believes the death penalty brings justice and satisfaction to the people. Mencken creates the points he makes in his article in order to give society a way to make the death penalty seem less intrusive on moral principles and more of a necessary act.
Mencken compares the death penalty to things that

He compares the job of the executioner to “that of the plumber, that of the soldier, that of the garbage man, that of the priest hearing confessions, that of the sandhog, and so on.” He goes on to explain how many other jobs are essentually just as “unpleasant” as the job of an executioner but those jobs do not face the possibility of being abolished. Though it is true, some of the jobs mentioned by Mencken do require individuals to take lives, it is not their sole purpose. The job of the soldier, for example, is to complete a task that is given by a higher authority, which occasionally is required to use force when absolutely necessary. The job of the hangman can not be so simply justified. In an article written by Semon Frank Thompson, a former superintendent and executioner, he states “...my mission has been to persuade people that capital punishment is a failed policy.” A man who executed two men

“One of the primes objects of all judicial punishments is to afford the same grateful relief to the immediate victims of the criminal punished.” (Mencken), this quote plays on his point that the taking of a life can be defended and even promoted in a search for justice; Mencken likes to refer to this “need” for revenge as ketharsis. Although execution could be misconstrued as a relief for the victims, it in fact draws a line for criminals who commit the most haneous of crimes. Even this, however, does not seem to justify taking a life. The “ultimate punishment” should not be for man to decide. We do not know enough about death and the possibilities of afterlife to administer executions. Thompson states, “After much contemplation, I became convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn’t.” This supports that it is impossible for man to be able to decipher who is to live or die because we really are not even positive what life is. If we have grey areas between what is right and wrong how can we adequately decide the fate of