Kant's Role In Capital Punishment

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.

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

Many contend that the death penalty is morally impermissible due to some irreversible miscarriages of justices . However, capital punishment can be defended in both consequentialist and deontological terms. Kantian ethics claims that, for exceptionally heinous crimes committed with malice aforethought, the penalty of death is not only morally justifiable but is morally obligatory. Consequentialists can substantiate the use of capital punishment through the claim that the death penalty is more effective than other more moderate punishments in averting the murder of innocents through inducing the fear of consequences in

According to Fein “...some crimes betray a reptilian immorality and beastliness that only the supreme penalty of death can adequately answer. Anything less would trivialize the seriousness of humanity.” When in fact the human life is precious and this form of retribution does not provide any sense humaneness. According to Cuomo “...it lowers us all; it is a surrender to the worst that is in us; it uses a power---the official power to kill by execution---that has never elevated a society, never brought back a life, never inspired anything but hate.” Only taking away the individual’s time for self-realization which is noncompliant with the humanistic

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

The moral and ethical debate on the sentencing and enforcement of capital punishment has long baffled the citizens and governing powers of the United States. Throughout time, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and the vast majority beliefs of Americans, have been in a constant state of perplexity. Before the 1960s, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were interpreted as permitting the death penalty. However, in the early 1960s, it was suggested that the death penalty was a "cruel and unusual" punishment and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Many argue that capital punishment is an absolute necessity, in order to deter crime, and to ‘make things right’ following a heinous crime of murder. Despite the belief that capital punishment may seem to be the only tangible, permanent solution to ending future capital offenses, the United States should remove this cruel and unnecessary form of punishment from our current judicial systems.

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

Capital Punishment has been used in the United States justice system for many years now, yet one must question whether or not it should be used at all. This paper will look at the Deontological views of capital punishment through the works of Kant’s categorical imperative. Arguments such as the unethical misuse of medical practice by physicians, who swear an oath to do everything in their power to save the lives of the people they care for, while using their expertise on an individual for an execution. Another argument that can be made would be the understanding just what the role of both race and religion may play in making this particular moral issue and question if individuals have a “right to life” and its effect on future execution

Capital punishment has raised debate in America since 1608. Both the “pro-“ and “anti-“ sides of the issue have strong arguments. Some believe killing is simply wrong, and violates universal human rights, others seek the only justice they deem appropriate, equal justice. I will examine the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill, with regards to their stance on the death penalty.

How I view freedom is when we are truly given maximum capacity to do as we wish. And I believe that is proven through emotions or desires. He puts too many limitations on free will, as it should be more encompassing to include decisions made without morality. How would Kant explain murder? By placing a limitation on free will, and that limitation being morality, what about those who freely act in immorally ways.

The death penalty needs to be debated with the more rightness, where no one should be partisan. Therefore, the death penalty ought to be well described for a better understanding each another. Death penalty is one of the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. Whatever the definition has been given to death penalty, for some philosophers it has been considered as practical, utilitarian reasons others are still viewing the death penalty as another crime committed on someone else. How to believe that a philosopher as Kant believes that retributive justice alone justifies the death penalty in a capital punishment. The theory of the distributive justice argues that capital punishment is permissible

For example, Kant states, “If he has committed a murder he must die. Here there is no substitute that will satisfy justice. . . Accordingly, every murderer – anyone who commits murder, orders it, or is an accomplice to it – must suffer death; this is what justice wills in accordance with universal laws that are grounded a priori. . . This fitting of punishment to the crime is shown by the fact that only by this is a sentence of death pronounced on every criminal in proportion to his ‘inner wickedness’ (even when the crime is not murder but another crime against the state that can be paid for only by death)” (Kant, 1996). Here we see that Kant strongly believes in retribution (revenge). He believes that equality is established when legal punishment responds to guilt. He also strongly believes in the death penalty as a form of punishment and justice and believes it is the only proportional punishment to murderers and those who have wickedness inside of them. Kant (1996 b) believes that “in every punishment, there must first be justice”. Therefore he believes that all punishment (including the death penalty) is a way of giving justice, and a failure to punish, would be societies failure of giving justice. Not everyone has the right to give justice. Punishment must be given by someone in authority (either a single person or a group) and is either carried out under a system of law or in other social settings (such as within a family). Kant

There are two different kinds of crime that deserve capital punishment according to Kant and they are “murder and lese-majesty” which is any crime that would harm the state. He emphasizes that “this punishment is not just a personal retribution, but also a warning to other society members to avoid commit the same crime” (Immanuel). With the punishment being implicated, I believe that Kant is saying that when people see others getting the death penalty for a crime that they may have committed or may want to commit this may deter them from doing it again. When looking at Kant we can take a look at the categorical imperative. According to the Britannica encyclopedia it can be defined as “a moral law that is unconditional or

Kantian’s would disagree with “Mercy killing”, because they are lawful abiding citizens that value absolute duty to the laws, therefore; lying and especially killing is not acceptable to them because it is taking the life of someone else and they would view it as murdering them. It would set new precedence and new behaviors that murdering is okay, creating a new universal law. Because whatever you do or however you act, creates a new universal law. Even the golden rule fails here, because if we ask the question, what if everyone did that? It would lead to catastrophe because everyone would be killing everyone. Although, Kantian’s do believe killing is immoral, and wrong, and are against Mercy killing, Kant’s Lex talionis rule, an eye for an

Kant’s ideas that the ends do not justify the me and the means should be ends in and of themselves causes mediocrity decay, and suffering. While the perpetrates just say we meant well. That is why the road to hell is pa? With good intentions. The only proper way to judge an action is by the resulting reaction. This idea that living by the laws of causes and effect is beneath human beings because it would make us no different than animals. Kant asserts that since human beings are capable of comply thoughts and moral reasoning it is incumbent upon humans to disregard ? Of nature growing the rest of the