Capital Punishment

In my opinion the Retributivist approach to Capital Punishment is the more appropriate view. The Retributivist believes that evil done with a vengeance should be repaid with punishment in-kind. In order to protect society and prevent crime, the death penalty has to be the most severe form of punishment with the biggest impact on society. Persons who commit murder should suffer and be punished for their inexcusable action(s). The principles of retributivism suggest that a convicted murderer should be executed because they “deserve” and “have earned” the death sentence. The right of retaliation can only be made equal by balancing of the crime with the punishment even if it is the death penalty. Those opposed to the death penalty argue that on moral grounds, all lives are sacred and killing is always wrong, a society, which kills, is no better than the murderer’s being punished. The Retributivist maintains that the death must be kept free from all maltreatment that would cause suffering to be loathsome or abominable.

Punishment and more specifically “Capital Punishment” is a very controversial and sensitive subject. Not all countries actively enforce Capital Punishment as a punishment, for a person found guilty by a Judge and/or Jury. Punishment is repairing an injustice – “Making a wrong right”. However, the question is “once a person has been convicted and sentenced to the death penalty” who has the more appropriate point of view:

a) The Retributivist: Legal Retributivism says that if a law is broken, punishment must result, regardless of any moral effects. Moralistic retributivism is concerned with the wrongdoing itself; if pain and grief have occurred, the criminal should be compensated with an equal punishment to the crime. Convicted felons must be punished and suffer to the full extent of their crime. It is morally fitting that a person who does wrong should suffer in proportion to their wrongdoing. Society must inflict as much pain and suffering on convicted criminals as was inflicted during the commission of their crime(s).

b) The Utilitarian: A moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. Utilitarianism is applied to the proposition that the supreme objective of moral action is the achievement of the greatest happiness for the grea...

... middle of paper ...

...ed by it. The retributivist would point out that under this view, if punishment of an innocent person can be used to increase good or decrease harm, the utilitarian principle would be justified.

Although the retributivist and utilitarian views of punishment differ, I believe that both these ideas exist in the legal system. There are two positions to punishment: a judge follows retributivism, looking to the past event to determine punishment, whereas the legislators follow the utilitarian view, looking to the future at all possible general cases. There are problems with the apparent coexistence of these two views of punishment. A retributivist cannot allow utility to be too involved in determining punishment, since there guiding principle is that those guilty of wrongdoing must be punished, no matter what. Imagine a scenario where so many criminals get away with a crime, that a utilitarian viewing body of law might decide to punish a token innocent in order to calm public fears. Justice is the theory and practice of exacting the price for the action. Convicted murderers should be put to death because they deserve to die. Utilitarian and humanitarian considerations are irrelevant.