Two Views of Capital Punishment Essay

For Mill life is not intrinsically valuable, therefore he is able to justify the death penalty. In response to fears that an innocent person could be wrongly convicted of murder and condemned to an irreversible reprimand, Mill says that the very irreversibility of the penalty will assure that in “enlightened countries” the courts will become, “more scrupulous in requiring the fullest evidence of guilt.”

Capital Punishment is a moral controversy in today’s society. It is the judicial execution of criminals judged guilty of capital offenses by the state, or in other words, the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws can date back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. and the ethical debates towards this issue have existed just as long. There is a constant pro-con debate about this issue, and philosophers like Aristotle and Mill have their own take on this controversy as well. Aristotle is against capital punishment, while Mill believes it is morally permissible.

One of the points that Kant tries to make is to never treat “humanity”, whether it be yourself or another person, as a means the same time as an end (Wells-Quash, 2010). On the topic of capital punishment, it can be viewed that just simply killing someone out of revenge for a heinous act is against the notion of Kant’s system.

Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.

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.

The implementation of these laws are very significant as they are the foundation of a nation or a society. Therefore, whoever violates these laws and opposes the social order of that society must be deemed guilty and must be punished. For Kant, punishment is retribution in its legal form. John Stuart Mill as well supported the capital punishment but his view is different from Immanuel Kant. According to Mill, the death penalty is instrumental in a society, and it is the least cruel mode of punishment to deter crimes. Mill believed the severity of a punishment is intended to cause fear, therefore preventing crimes. Therefore, both the theory of utilitarianism and deontology permit capital punishment to be morally

Many people believe that capital punishment is morally impermissible. They believe that several forms of punishment other than the capital punishments are available for serious offenders. Debate on the application or award of execution as capital punishment is rooted from the argument by Kant that; capital is sometimes morally permissible and required. Although it is mostly the most effective deterrent method. It suffers some setbacks, especially when the evidence presented is less. Little evidence leads to the execution of innocent people. It is therefore immoral to execute offenders with little and rough evidence (Sheldon, 1936).

On the other hand, those who are on the side of death penalty assert that death penalty is morally accepted and even required. Kant (n.d) once said that a society is immoral if it does not deprive murderers of their life. Sustain and Vermeule (2006) suggest that death penalty is morally required implying that it is imperative for states to support capital punishment.

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

Capital punishment has even been accepted by criminal justice experts who consider themselves humanist, concerned with the value, and dignity of human beings. As David Friedrichs, a noted humanist argues, a civilized society has no choice, but to hold responsible those who commit horrendous crimes. The death penalty does make a moral statement. There is behavior that is so unacceptable to a community of human beings that one who engages in such behavior forfeits his or her right to live. However, some might think that capital punishment is morally correct, and others believe that it is straight brutal. Society should not punish criminals by subjecting them to the same acts they committed. For an example, rapists are not sexually assaulted for their acts, and an arsonist does not get his house burned to the ground for burning someone house.

People in the society agrees that a person should be punished if he/she violates the laws and harm other people. However, there are different ways of punishment should give especially for those who committed heinous crimes. There are countries use death penalty as punishment to this although a lot of people disagree with it. For Kant, it is acceptable to use death penalty and he is in favour in punishing people by death sentence if they committed heinous crimes (Potter 2002).

Immanuel Kant, a pious Lutheran, thought the essence of morality was the Golden Rule: do on to others the way you would have them do on to you. Although this famous philosopher was not necessarily against the death penalty, his moral theories support the abolition of such a heinous act. Kant was well known for his versions of the Categorical Imperative which states that you should act in such

The book The Moral of the Story describes two views by two philosophers, John Locke and Immanuel Kant who were both in favor of capital punishment. Locke stated that if a person takes the life of someone then the criminal has given up their right to live. Locke keeps on saying that they can be hunted down like animals. He goes on and says that people who see the killing of a murderer will think twice about committing a murder and the killing of the murderer will balance out the killing they committed. His ways of thinking fit perfectly with people that are in favor of the death penalty. Especially when they think that this is all about justice. They committed the crime and now they must pay for it. This shows anybody who is thinking of doing

The Utilitarian does not have a set standard for every situation like Kant. Kant believes that a murderer should be punished with murder, an “eye for an eye” philosophy. The Utilitarian bases the course of action solely on the greatest good being achieved, that differs strongly from case to case. The Utilitarian is not concerned as to whether the criminal suffers for their crime, whereas Kant very well is, as long as the criminal inflicted suffering in committing their crime. Kant is motivated by each being treated as they would treat others in order to preserve human dignity. Kant does not care whether by putting a murderer to death, a greater pain is brought about. That is the most significant difference that a Utilitarian will site between the two frames of thought.

Approaching the topic of capital punishment is difficult when looking at society as a whole. In the opinion stated by my class group, capital punishment should be entirely abolished due to the possibility of mistakes while sentencing. This idea relies on the basis that capital punishment has absolutely no purpose or benefit. Members of my group mistakenly used a utilitarianist point of view to argue their case, even though this view can be stretched to fit almost any argument. This paper will explore the use of capital punishment through the view that it is acceptable only in the most severe cases. The death penalty needs to focus on the dignity and the respect of human life; therefore, society needs to fix the existing problems within the legal system. Finally, this paper will explore the views of Kant to help find a solution as to the future of the death penalty.