Capital Punishment: Utilitarian Vs Retributive Theory

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial topics in today’s world. Many people believe that it is morally wrong to have capital punishment as a sentence to a crime. People also do believe that it is morally permissible for a severe crime. Capital punishment is also known as the death penalty. It can be given as a sentence when somebody is convicted of an extremely violent crime. The biggest issue that can be seen with this is that somebody could be innocent and sentenced with the death penalty because of the nature of the crime that they have been accused of even if they didn’t commit it. I believe that there is a moral line between using the death penalty and using other forms of punishment.

Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, is a controversial subject which has been argued for decades due to the ethical decisions involved. People believe the death penalty is the right thing to do and that it is the perfect example of ‘justice’ while others believe that it is immoral and overly expensive. The death penalty is not a logical sentence for criminals, it doesn’t give them the right type of justice and it is immoral.

Capital punishment is a sentence that is given to someone that has committed a capital crime. This is a subject of great debate; some people agree and some do not. There are times when a crime is so heinous that the majority would seek capital punishment. Susan Gissendaner received this sentence for plotting to kill her husband, although her boyfriend actually killed her husband. Since being in prison, Susan has undergone a conversion and transformation. She is now a model prisoner. Due to Susan’s transformation, they are trying to have her sentence changed. Should Susan’s sentence be commuted to life in prison is the question being asked? This paper will answer the question by providing a moral judgment viewed by two non-consequentialist theories. The strengths and weaknesses of these positions will be assessed. Whether I agree or disagree will be answered and explained.

Since the earliest times, man has struggled with the concept of justice. The controversy of capital punishment has weighed on the minds of humans since the beginning. When we are wronged it is our natural instinct to demand compensation. This thirst for revenge can be seen in the earliest civilizations and societies. Ancient Hammurabi code states “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (History of the World). For many people this little axiom seems fair. Others however, think otherwise and warn of a blind and toothless community. What is it about capital punishment that divides so many Americans? Is it the possibility of an innocent man being executed too much of a risk? Should our current

With the idea of utilitarianism, the greater good for the greatest number of people is your best option always. If you must kill a killer to save potentially multiple other humans, then it is your best option. Imprisonment and rehabilitation both have room for error. With the death penalty, it is certain that killer will never murder again. This relieves the society from a specific threat, and gives the suffering families closure.

Death penalty means sentencing the convicted to execution as carried out by the state and the judicial system. Set it in stone that the definition of death penalty is much more deeper than this. The argument of the death penalty is something that might not see an end anytime soon. It is deemed controversial because at stake is the life of an individual,his values, his morals, and dignity. Whether he still obtains morals and dignity is in the eye of the beholder but nonetheless should be taken into account. Ideals of utilitarian as well as retributivism are taken into account when discussing the death penalty and whether it is morally just, or immoral as well as ethical. Retribution along with the key words previously stated are just as

As Cass R states… “Capital punishment may be morally required, not for retributive reasons, but rather to prevent the taking of innocent lives”. Death penalty is one of those extreme punishments that would create fear in the mind of any person. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

The utilitarian theory would view the death penalty as moral because they look at what would make most the people happy. Utilitarianism was founded by John Stuart Mills and Jeremy Bentham. By killing the person who took another person’s live, the victim’s family would be pleased that justice was served, and the rest of society would be happy knowing that the murderer would never be able to escape and harm them. This theory does allow life without parole as an alternative to the death penalty, since the murderer is still being punished and society’s happiness would

     Capital punishment should be viewed as the stripping away of humanity from a person. The death penalty itself should be "executed" because of racial inequities, the concept of murder, the possibility of error, lack of deterrence, the cost, and an overwhelmed legal system. "The goal of capital punishment is revenge" (Introduction 1). Capital punishment is simply an outlet for the bloodlust of the American people (Introduction 1).

Capital Punishment is not a fair choice to do and it violates the human right to life. Everyone is born with the human right to life, even those who commit any type of crime; sentencing a person to death and executing them violates that right ( ). Just because a murderer killed someone, it does not mean their life should be taken away for punishment. It is generally accepted that people should not be punished for their actions unless they are guilty ( ). Whether the person is guilty is guilty or not they should not be given a deadly punishment. He inmates should just be locked up in prison and die from natural causes. When the prisoner becomes executed it is painful and cruel.

Philosophy branch which streamlines, protects and guides the concepts of being correct or incorrect is referred as Ethics. People learn this concept from their parents who got it from their parents and it is a chain. However philosophers claim that it is people’s belief which decide ethics along with human intuition. An individual at singular level conscientiously decides what is right and wrong and define a limit of pushing ethical behaviour and morality in being. Moral acceptability of any action can be judged from the points if action is understood by an individual well, the consequences of that action on public, fair treatment of action with all people respectfully and the way action is being performed, the motivation of people for it.

Crime and punishment has made some tremendous changes since the early modern time of the 1600s. A period where a wife, could be found guilty of being a scold, in other words, nagging her husband. Punishments for this crime consist of the wife being duck into the river or pond using a ducking stool that is said to still exist in Canterbury in Kent. The Scold’s Bridle was another form of punishment us for a nagging wife, she was made to wear this bridle as a form of embarrassment for her actions against her husband. In early modern times the homeless made people uncomfortable and scared because of the change in the land that cause them to move from their traditional rural livelihood and became known as vagabonds. If the homeless

There is an ongoing problem in our society regarding punishment and responsibility. We, as a society, tend to look away when it comes to how criminals are being punished and maybe we should be paying more attention. Violence seems to be an integral part of our society, some raise their children with violence, we watch it on television, read it in newspapers and books and now we are even playing violent video games. When it comes to the judicial system the majority of citizens do not even know how individuals are being punished or if the punishment is too harsh, not severe enough or if the individual even needs punishment because what they may need is psychiatric help.

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment is a legal procedure in which a state executes a person for crimes he/she has committed. This punishment has been implemented by many states, and is normally used for atrocious crimes, especially murder. It is also used on crimes against the state such as treason, crimes against humanity, espionage, and violent crimes while other states use it as part of military justice. There are mixed reactions on capital punishment depending on one’s faith, and the state they come from. In my view, I am not in favor of death penalty, as I strongly believe that, death penalty is unacceptable and an inhumane practice for it denies one the right to live. Death penalty does not deter crime, it is an act