Argument Against The Death Penalty

1247 Words Dec 29th, 2014 5 Pages
In the wise words of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, “a society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral.” When considering the issue of capital punishment, many arguments are made in favor of proponents and abolitionists. There are utilitarian arguments, retributive arguments, and egalitarian arguments.
Utilitarian arguments argue against the death penalty, for they look to punish criminals for the benefit and the “lesson learned” from the punishment. They believe that this is the most effective form of deterrence, because the criminal will learn their lesson and the public will benefit from safety from having the offender incapacitated. In conclusion, utilitarian arguments consider the costs and benefits of different forms of punishment.
From the retributivist perspective, the future benefit that might be gained from punishment is irrelevant; all that matters is that the offender is given what he deserves. In this case, kindness begets kindness, and crime begets an appropriate punishment. The ultimate aim of retributivists is to do the right thing regardless of the consequences.
And finally, the egalitarian arguments are based on the principle that people should be treated how they treat others. This is correct in the logic that people do in fact deserve to be treated fairly, but in the context of death penalty, the egalitarian arguments differ greatly from retributive arguments in the sense that it isn’t…
Open Document