for capital punishment essay

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Capital punishment.

Capital punishment, or “the death penalty,” is an institutionalized practice designed to result in deliberately executing persons in response to actual or supposed misconduct and following an authorized, rule-governed process to conclude that the person is responsible for violating norms that warrant execution.  Punitive executions have historically been imposed by diverse kinds of authorities, for an expansive range of conduct, for political or religious beliefs and practices, for a status beyond one’s control, or without employing any significant due process procedures.  Punitive executions also have been and continue to be carried out more informally, such as by terrorist groups, urban gangs, or mobs.  But for centuries in Europe and America, discussions have focused on capital punishment as an institutionalized, rule-governed practice of modern states and legal systems governing serious criminal conduct and procedures.

Capital punishment has existed for millennia, as evident from ancient law codes and Plato’s famous rendition of Socrates’s trial and execution by democratic Athens in 399 B.C.E.  Among major European philosophers, specific or systematic attention to the death penalty is the exception until about 400 years ago.  Most modern philosophic attention to capital punishment emerged from penal reform proponents, as principled, moral evaluation of law and social practice, or amidst theories of the modern state and sovereignty.  The mid-twentieth century emergence of an international human rights regime and American constitutional controversies sparked anew much philosophic focus on theories of punishment and the death penalty, including arbitrariness, mistakes, or discrimination in the American institution of capital punishment.

The central philosophic question about capital punishment is one of moral justification:  on what grounds, if any, is the state’s deliberate killing of identified offenders a morally justifiable response to voluntary criminal conduct, even the most serious of crimes, such as murder?  As with questions about the morality of punishment, two broadly different approaches are commonly distinguished: retributivism, with a focus on past conduct that merits death as a penal response, and utilitarianism or consequentialism, with attention to the effects of the death penalty, especially any effects in preventing more crime through deterrence or incapacitation.  Section One provides some historical context and basic concepts for locating the central philosophic question about capital punishment:  Is death the amount or kind of penalty that is morally justified for the most serious of crimes, such as murder?  Section Two attends to classic considerations of lex talionis (“the law of retaliation”) and recent retributivist approaches to capital punishment that involve the right to life or a conception of fairness.  Section Three considers classic utilitarian approaches to justifying the death penalty: primarily as preventer of crime through deterrence or incapacitation, but also with respect to some other consequences of capital punishment.  Section Four attends to relatively recent approaches to punishment as expression or communication of fundamental values or norms, including for purposes of educating or reforming offenders.  Section Five explores issues of justification related to the institution of capital punishment, as in America: Is the death penalty morally justifiable if imperfect procedures produce mistakes, caprice, or (racial) discrimination in determining who is to be executed? Or if the actual execution of capital punishment requires unethical conduct by medical practitioners or other necessary participants?  Section Six considers the moral grounds, if any exist, for the state’s authority to punish by death.

Table of Contents

• Historical Practices
• Philosophic Frameworks and Approaches
• Classic Retributivism: Kant and lex talionis
• Lex talionis as a Principle of Proportionality
• Retributivism and the Right to Life
• Retributivism and Fairness
• Challenges to Retributivism
• Classic Utilitarian Approaches: Bentham, Beccaria, Mill
• Empirical Considerations: Incapacitation, Deterrence
• Utilitarian Defenses: “Common Sense” and “Best Bet”
• Challenges to Utilitarianism
• Other Consequential Considerations
• Capital Punishment as Communication
• Procedural Issues: Imperfect Justice
• Discrimination: Race, Class
• Medicine and the Death Penalty
• Costs: Economic Issues
• State Authority and Capital Punishment
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources

1. Context and Basic Concepts

A. historical practices.

Much philosophic focus on the death penalty is modern and relatively recent.  The phrase ‘capital punishment’ is older, used for nearly a millennium to signify the death penalty.  The classical Latin and medieval French roots of the term ‘capital’ indicate a punishment involving the loss of head or life, perhaps reflecting the use of beheading as a form of execution.  The actual practice of capital punishment is ancient, emerging much earlier than the familiar terms long used to refer to it.  In the ancient world, the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (circa 1750 B.C.E.) included about 25 capital crimes; the Mosaic Code of the ancient Hebrews identifies numerous crimes punishable by death, invoking, like other ancient law codes, lex talionis , “the law of retaliation”; Draco’s Code of 621 B.C.E. Athens punished most crimes by death, and later Athenian law famously licensed the trial and death of Socrates; the fifth century B.C.E. Twelve Tables of Roman law include capital punishment for such crimes as publishing insulting songs or disturbing the nocturnal peace of urban areas, and later Roman law famously permitted the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.  Even in such early practices, capital punishment was seen as within the authority of political rulers, embodied as a legal institution, and employed for a wide range of misconduct proscribed by law.

Medieval and early modern Europe retained expansive lists of capital crimes and notably expanded the forms of execution beyond the common ancient practices of stoning, crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, or poisoning.  In the Middle Ages both secular and ecclesiastical authorities participated in executions deliberately designed to be torturous and brutal, such as beheading, burning alive, drawing and quartering, hanging, disemboweling, using the rack, using thumb-screws, pressing with weights, boiling in oil, publicly dissecting, and castrating.  Such brutality was conducted publicly as spectacle and ritual­—an important or even essential element of capital punishment was not only the death of the accused, but the public process of killing and dying on display.  Capital punishment was varied in its severity by the spectrum of torturous ways by which the offender’s death was eventually effected by political and other penal authorities.

In “the new world” the American colonies’ use of the death penalty was influenced more by Britain than by any other nation.  The “Bloody Code” of the Elizabethan era included over 200 capital crimes, and the American colonies followed England in using public, ritualized hangings as the common form of execution.  Until the mid-18 th century, the colonies employed elaborate variations of the ritual of execution by hanging, even to the point of holding fake hangings.  Stuart Banner summarizes the early American practices:

Capital punishment was more than just one penal technique among others. It was the base point from which all other kinds of punishment deviated.  When the state punished serious crime, most of the methods …were variations on execution.  Officials imposed death sentences that were never carried out, they conducted mock hangings…, and they dramatically halted real execution ceremonies at the last minute.  These were methods of inflicting a symbolic death …. Officials also wielded a set of tools capable of intensifying a death sentence – burning at the stake, public display of the corpse, dismemberment and dissection – ways of producing a punishment worse than death. (54)

In early America “capital punishment was not just a single penalty,” but “a spectrum of penalties with gradations of severity above and below an ordinary execution” (Banner, 86).

The late 18th century brought a “dramatic transformation of penal thought and practice” that was international in scope (Banner, 89). The dramatic change came with the birth of publicly supported prisons or penitentiaries that allowed extended incarceration for large numbers of people (Banner, 99).  Before prisons and the practical possibility of lengthy incarceration as an alternative, “the only available units of measurement for serious crime were degrees of deviation from an ordinary execution” (Banner, 70).  After the invention of prisons, for serious crimes there was now an alternative to capital punishment and to the practiced spectrum of torturous executions: prisons allowed varying conditions of confinement (for example, hard labor, solitary confinement, loss of privacy) and a temporal measure, at least, for distinguishing degrees of punishment to address kinds of serious misconduct.  Dramatic changes for capital punishment also came with the 1864 publication in Italy of Cesare Beccaria’s essay, “On Crimes and Punishments.”  Very influential in Europe and the United States, Beccaria’s sustained, philosophic investigation of the death penalty challenged both the authority of the state to punish by death and the utility of capital punishment as a superior deterrent to lengthy imprisonment.  Philosophic defenses of the death penalty, like that of Immanuel Kant, opposed reformers and others, who, like Beccaria, argued for abolition of capital punishment.  During the 19th century the methods of execution were made less brutal and the number of capital crimes was much reduced compared to earlier centuries of practice.  Discussions of the death penalty’s merits invoked divergent understandings of the aims of punishment in general and thus of capital punishment in particular.

By the mid-20th century, two developments prompted another period of focused philosophic attention to the death penalty.  In the United States a series of Supreme Court cases challenged whether the death penalty falls under the constitutional prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments,” including questions about the legal and moral import of a criminal justice process that results in mistakes, caprice, or racial discrimination in capital cases.   Capital punishment also became a global concern with the post-World War II Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders and after the 1948 Declaration of Universal Human Rights and subsequent human rights treaties explicitly accorded all persons a right to life and encouraged abolishing the death penalty worldwide.  Most nations have now abolished capital punishment, with notable exceptions including China, North Korea, Japan, India, Indonesia, Egypt, Somalia, and the United States, the only western “industrialized” nation still retaining the death penalty.

b. Philosophic Frameworks and Approaches

Capital punishment is often explored philosophically in the context of more general theories of “the standard or central case” of punishment as an institution or practice within a structure of legal rules (Hart, “Prolegomenon,” 3-5).  The philosopher’s interest in the death penalty, then, is embedded in broader issues about the moral permissibility of punishment .  Any punishment – and certainly an execution – intentionally inflicts on a person significant pain, suffering, unpleasantness, or deprivation that it is ordinarily wrong for an authority like the state to impose.  What conditions or considerations, if any, would morally justify such penal practices?  Following a framework famously offered by H.L.A. Hart,

[w]hat we should look for are answers to a number of different questions such as:  What justifies the general practice of punishment? To whom may punishment be applied? How severely may we punish? (“Prolegomenon,” 3)

These different questions are, respectively, about the general justifying aim of punishment, about the conditions of responsibility for criminal conduct and liability to punishment, and about the amount, kind, or form of punishment justifiable to address actual or supposed misconduct.  It is the last of these questions of justification – about the justified amount, kind, or form of punishment – that is foremost in philosophic approaches to the death penalty.  Almost all modern and recent discussions of capital punishment assume liability for the death penalty is only for the gravest of crimes, such as murder; almost all assume comparatively humane modes of execution and largely ignore considering obviously torturous or brutal killings of offenders; and it is assumed that some amount of punishment is merited for murderers.  The central question, then, is not often whether punishing murderers is morally justifiable (rather than rehabilitation or release, for example), but whether it is morally justifiable to punish by death (rather than by imprisonment, for example) those found to have committed a grave offense, such as murder.  Responses to this question about the death penalty often build on more general principles or theories about the purposes of punishment in general, and about general criteria for determining the proper measure or amount of punishment for various crimes.

Among philosophers there are typically identified two broadly different ways of thinking about the moral merits of punishment in general, and whether capital punishment is a proper amount of punishment to address serious criminal misconduct (see “ Punishment ”). Justifications are proposed either with reference to forward-looking considerations, such as various future effects or consequences of capital punishment, or with reference to backward-looking considerations, such as facets of the wrongdoing to be punished.   The latter approach, if dominant, has, since the 1930s, been called ‘retributivism’; retributivist justifications “look back” to the offense committed in order to link directly the amount, kind, or form of punishment to what the offense merits as penal response.  This linkage is often characterized as whether a punishment “fits” the crime committed.  For retributivists, any beneficial effects or consequences of capital punishment are wholly irrelevant or distinctly secondary.  Forward-looking justifications of punishment have been labeled ‘utilitarian’ since the 19th century and, since the mid-20th century, other versions are sometimes called ‘consequentialism’. Consequentialist or utilitarian approaches to the death penalty are distinguished from retributivist approaches because the former rely only on assessing the future effects or consequences of capital punishment, such as crime prevention through deterrence and incapacitation.

2. Retributivist Approaches

Retributivists approach justifying the amount of punishment for misconduct by “looking back” to aspects of the wrongdoing committed.  There are many different versions of retributivism; all maintain a tight, essential link between the offense voluntarily committed and the amount, form, or kind of punishment justifiably threatened or imposed.  Future effects or consequences, if any, are then irrelevant or distinctly secondary considerations to justifying punishments for misconduct, including the death penalty.  Retributivism about capital punishment often prominently appeals to the principle of lex talionis , or “the law of retaliation,” an idea popularly familiarized in the ancient and biblical phrase, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”  Forms of retributivism vary according to their interpretation of lex talionis or in their appealing to alternative moral notions, such as basic moral rights or a principle of fairness.

a. Classic Retributivism: Kant and lex talionis

  A classic expression of retributivism about capital punishment can be found in a late 18th century treatise by Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysical Elements of Justice (99-107; Ak. 331-337).  After dismissing Cesare Beccaria’s abolitionist stance and reliance on “sympathetic sentimentality and an affectation of humanitarianism,” Kant appeals to an interpretation of lex talionis , what he calls “ jus talionis ” or “the Law of Retribution,” as justifying capital punishment:

Judicial punishment… must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he committed a crime.… He must first be found deserving of punishment… The law concerning punishment is a categorical imperative. (100; Ak. 331) What kind and degree of punishment does public legal justice adopt as its principle and standard?  None other than the principle of equality….  Only the Law of Retribution ( jus talionis ) can determine exactly the kind and degree of punishment (101; Ak. 332).

Kant then explicitly applies these principles to determine the punishment for the most serious of crimes:

 If… he has committed a murder, he must die.  In this case, there is no substitute that will satisfy the requirements of legal justice. There is no sameness of kind between death and remaining alive even under the most miserable conditions, and consequently there is also no equality between the crime and retribution unless the criminal is judicially condemned and put to death (102; Ak. 333).

Kant then employs a hypothetical case to insist that any social effects of the death penalty, good or bad, are wholly irrelevant to its justification:

Even if a civil society were to dissolve… the last murderer in prison would first have to be executed so that each should receive his just deserts and that the people should not bear the guilt of a capital crime… [and] be regarded as accomplices in the public violation of justice (102; Ak. 333).

So, even if social effects are not possible, since the society no longer exists, the death penalty is justified for murder.  Kant exemplifies a pure retributivism about capital punishment: murderers must die for their offense, social consequences are wholly irrelevant, and the basis for linking the death penalty to the crime is “the Law of Retribution,” the ancient maxim, lex talionis , rooted in “the principle of equality.”

The key to Kant’s defense of capital punishment is “the principle of equality,” by which the proper, merited amount and kind of punishment is determined for crimes.  Whether the best interpretation of Kant or not, the idea behind this common approach seems to be that offenders must suffer a punishment equal to the victim’s suffering: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” a life for a life.  But as often noted, any literalism about lex talionis cannot work as a general principle linking crimes and punishments. It seems to imply that the merited punishment for rape is to be raped, for robbery to be stolen from, for fraud to be defrauded, for assault to be assaulted, for arson to be “burned out,” etc.  For other crimes—forgery, drug peddling, serial killings or massacres, terrorism, genocide, smuggling—it is not at all clear what kind or form of punishment lex talionis would then license or require (for example, Nathanson 72-75).  As C. L. Ten succinctly says, “it would appear that the single murder is one of the few cases in which the lex talionis can be applied literally” (151).  Both practical considerations and moral principles about permissible forms of punishment, then, ground objections to invoking a literal interpretation of lex talionis to justify capital punishment for murder.

Some retributivists employ a less literal way of employing a principle of equality to justify death as the punishment for murder.  The relevant equivalence is one of harms caused and suffered:  the murder victim suffers the harm of a life ended, and the only equivalent harm to be imposed as punishment, then, must be the death of the killer.  As a general way of linking kinds of misconduct and proper amounts, kinds, or forms of punishment, this rendition of lex talionis also faces challenges (Ten, 151-154).  Furthermore, it is also often noted that, even in the case of murder, there is no equivalence between the penal experience of capital offenders and their victims’ suffering in being murdered.  Albert Camus, in his “Reflections on the Guillotine,” makes the point in a rather dramatic way:

But what is capital punishment if not the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal act, no matter how calculated, can be compared?  If there were to be a real equivalence, the death penalty would have to be pronounced upon a criminal who had forewarned his victim of the very moment he would put him to a horrible death, and who, from that time on, had kept him confined at his own discretion for a period of months.  It is not in private life that one meets such monsters.  (199)

This inequality of experience claim is even more to the point since even Kant maintains that “the death of the criminal must be kept entirely free of any maltreatment that would make an abomination of the humanity residing in the person suffering it” (102; Ak. 333).

b. Lex talionis as a Principle of Proportionality

Most contemporary retributivists interpret lex talionis not as expressing equality of crimes and punishments, but as expressing a principle of proportionality for establishing the merited penal response to a crime such as murder.  The idea is that the amount of punishment merited is to be proportional to the seriousness of the offense, more serious offenses being punished more severely than less serious crimes.  So, one constructs an ordinal ranking of crimes according to their seriousness and then constructs a corresponding ranking of punishments according to their severity.  The least serious crime is then properly punished by the least severe penalty, the second least serious crime by the second least severe punishment, and so on.  The gravest misconduct, then, is properly addressed by the most severe of punishments, death.

To carry out such a general project of constructing scales of crimes and matching punishments is a daunting challenge, as even many retributivists admit.  Aside from these concerns, as a defense of capital punishment this approach to lex talionis simply raises the question about the morality of the death penalty, even for the most serious of crimes.   There is no reason to think that current capital punishment practices are the most severe punishment.  Consider medieval practices of death with torture, or death “with extreme prejudice”; and are there not possible conditions of confinement that are possibly more severe than execution, such as years of brutal, solitary confinement or excessively hard labor?  Such punishments would not likely now be on a list of morally permissible penal responses to even the most serious crimes.  But then what is needed is some justification for setting an upper bound of morally permissible severity for punishments, “a theory of permissibility” (Finkelstein, “A Contractarian Approach…,” 212-213).  But whether today’s death penalty is morally permissible is precisely the question at issue.  The retributivist proportionality interpretation of lex talionis simply assumes capital punishment is morally permissible, rather than offering a defense of it.

One general concern about appeals to lex talionis , under any interpretation, is that relying on “the law of retaliation” can appear to make capital punishment tantamount to justified vengeance.  But Kant and other retributivist defenders of the death penalty rightly distinguish principled retribution from vengeance.   Vengeance arises out of someone’s hatred, anger, or desires typically aimed at another:  there is no internal limit to the severity of the response, except perhaps that which flows from the personal perspective of the avenger.  The avenger’s response may be markedly disproportionate to the offense committed, whereas retributivists insist that the severity of punishments must be matched to the misconduct’s gravity.  Vengeance is typically personal, directed at someone about whom the avenger cares—it is personal.  Retribution requires responses even to injuries of people no one cares about:  its impersonality makes harms to the friendless as weighty as harms to the popular and justifies punishment without regard to whether anyone desires the offender suffer.  The avenger typically takes pleasure in the suffering of the offender, whereas “we may all deeply regret having to carry out the punishment” (Pojman, 23) or only take “pleasure at justice being done” (Nozick, 367) as a retributivist moral principle requires.  Even if desires for vengeance are satisfied by executing murderers, for retributivists such effects are not at the heart of the defense of capital punishment.  And to the extent that such satisfactions are sufficient justification, then the defense is no longer retributivist, but utilitarian or consequentialist (see sections 3 and 4).  For retributivists the morality of the death penalty for murder is a matter of general moral principle, not assuaging any desires for revenge or vengeance on the part of victims or others.

c. Retributivism and the Right to Life

Some forms of retributivism about capital punishment eschew reliance on lex talionis in favor of other kinds of moral principles, and they typically depart from Kant’s conclusion that murderers must be punished by death, regardless of any consequences.  One approach employs the idea of basic moral rights, such as the right to life, an expression of the value of life that seems to work against justifying capital punishment.   Yet John Locke, for example, in his Second Treatise on Government , posits both a natural right to life and defends the death penalty for murderers.  Echoing a line of reasoning exhibited in Thomas Aquinas’s defense of capital punishment ( Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 64, a.2), Locke claims that a murderer violates another’s right to life, and thereby “declares himself… to be a noxious creature… and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts… both to deter others from doing the like injury… and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal” ( Treatise , sections 10-11).  For Locke, murderers have, by their voluntary wrongdoing, forfeited their own right to life and can therefore be treated as a being not possessing any right to life at all and as subject to execution to effect some good for society.

This retributivist position notably departs from Kant’s extreme view in concluding only that a murderer may be put to death, not must be, and by invoking utilitarian thinking as a secondary consideration in deciding whether capital punishment is morally justified for murderers who have forfeited their right to life.  This form of retributivism—rights forfeiture and considering consequences of the death penalty—is also explicitly expressed by W. D. Ross in his 1930 book, The Right and the Good :

But to hold that the state has no duty of retributive punishment is not necessarily to adopt a utilitarian view of punishment.… [T]he main element in any one’s right to life or property is extinguished by his failure to respect the corresponding right in others.… [T]he offender, by violating the life or liberty or property of another, has lost his own right to have his life, liberty, or property respected, so that the state has no prima facie duty to spare him as it has a prima facie duty to spare the innocent.  It is morally at liberty to injure him as he has injured others, or to inflict any lesser injury on him, or to spare him, exactly as consideration of both of the good of the community and of his own good requires. (60-61)

The retributivist argument, then, is that murderers forfeit their own right to life by virtue of voluntarily taking another’s life.  Since a right to life, like other rights, logically entails a correlative duty of others (see Consequentialism and  Ethics, section 2b ), by forfeiting their right to life murderers eliminate the state’s correlative duty not to kill them; the murderer’s forfeiture makes morally permissible the state’s putting them to death, at least as a means to some good.  Thus, capital punishment is not a violation of an offender’s right to life, as the offender has forfeited that right, and the death penalty is then justifiable as a morally permissible way to treat murderers in order to effect some good for society.

This kind of retributivist approach to capital punishment raises philosophic issues, aside from its reliance on empirical claims about the effects of the death penalty as a way to deter or incapacitate offenders (see section 3b). First, though the idea of forfeiting a right may be familiar, it leaves “troubling and unanswered questions: To whom is it forfeited? Can this right, once forfeited, ever be restored? If so, by whom, and under what conditions” (Bedau, “Capital Punishment,” 162-3)?  Second, given that the right to life is so fundamental to all rights and, as many maintain, held equally by each and all because they are humans, perhaps the right to life is exceptional or even unique in not being forfeitable at all: the right to life is actually a fundamental natural or human right.  One’s actions cannot and do not alter one’s status as a human being, Locke and Aquinas notwithstanding; thus, the right to life is inalienable and not forfeitable.  Even killers retain their right to life, the state remains bound by the correlative duty not to kill a murderer, and capital punishment, then, is a violation of the human right to life.

Developed in this way, as a matter of fundamental human rights, the merit of capital punishment becomes more about the moral standing of human beings and less about the logic and mobility of rights through forfeiture or alienation.  The point of a human right to life is that it “draws attention to the nature and value of persons, even those convicted of terrible crimes.… Whatever the criminal offense, the accused or convicted offender does not forfeit his rights and dignity as a person” (Bedau, “Reflections,” 152, 153).   This view reflects at least the spirit of the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the right to life is universal, is rooted in each person’s dignity, and is unalienable (Preamble; Article 3).   But this view of offenders’ moral standing can be challenged if one considers the implication that, of equal standing with any of us, then, are masters of massacres or genocide (for example, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot), serial killers, terrorists, rampant rapists, and pedophiliac predators.  As one retributivist defender of capital punishment puts it, “though a popular dogma, the secular doctrine that all human beings have… worth is groundless.  The notion… [is] perhaps the most misused term in our moral vocabulary.… If humans do not possess some kind of intrinsic value… then why not rid ourselves of those who egregiously violate… our moral and legal codes” (Pojman, 35, 36).

d. Retributivism and Fairness

A recently revived retributivism about the death penalty builds not on individual rights, but on a notion of fairness in society.  Given a society with reasonably just rules of cooperation that bestow benefits and burdens on its members, misconduct takes unfair advantage of others, and punishment is thereby merited to address the advantage gained:

A person who violates the rules has something that others have—the benefits of the system—but by renouncing what others have assumed, the burdens of self-restraint, he has acquired an unfair advantage.  Matters are not even until this advantage is in some way erased….[P]unishing such individuals restores the equilibrium of benefits and burdens. (Morris 478)

The morally justified amount, kind, or form of punishment for a crime is then determined by an “unfair advantage principle”:

His crime consists only in the unfair advantage… [taken] by breaking the law in question. The greater the advantage, the greater the punishment should be.  The focus of the unfair advantage principle is on what the criminal gained.”  (Davis 241)

In justifying an amount of punishment, then, an unfairness principle focuses on the advantage gained, whereas the lex talionis principle attends to the harm done to another (Davis 241).

The fairness approach to punishment reflects recent uses of “the principle of fairness” as a theory of political obligation:  those engaged in a mutually beneficial system of cooperation have a duty to obey the rules from which they benefit (Rawls, 108-114).  As applied to punishment, though, its roots run also to ancient, archaic notions of justice as re-establishing an equilibrium, to Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics treatment of justice as requiring state corrective action to rectify the imbalances created by criminal misconduct (Book V, Chapter 4), and to G.W.F. Hegel’s claim in The Philosophy of Right that to punish “is to annul the crime… and to restore the right” (69, 331n).   Today’s popular parlance that punishment is how offenders pay for their crimes can also be seen as their paying for unfair advantages gained.

As a general approach to justifying the amount of punishment merited for misconduct, the fairness approach initially appears to work best for petty theft or possibly “free-loading” in cooperative schemes, such as penalizing tax evasion.   In such cases one can perhaps see unfair advantage gained and see the amount of punishment as tied to what is unfairly gained.  But for violent crimes such as murder, the fairness approach seems less plausible.  How does lengthy incarceration or even execution erase the unfair advantage gained, annul the crime, or  re-establish any prior balance between perpetrator and victim?  To the extent that punishment affects such things, it risks conflating retribution with restitution or restoration.  The unfair advantage principle also characterizes the wrong committed not in terms of its effects on a victim, but on third parties—society members who exercise self-restraint by obeying those norms the offender violates.  This oddly places the victim of criminal misconduct, especially for violent crimes: the person assaulted or killed is not the focus in justifying the amount of punishment, but third parties’ burdens of self-restraint are.  Additionally, taken by itself, the unfair advantage approach to establishing the proper amount of punishment can also have some odd consequences, as Jeffrey Reiman rather colorfully suggests:

For example, it would seem that the value of the unfair advantage taken of law-obeyers by one who robs a great deal of money is greater than the value of the unfair advantage taken by a murderer, since the latter gets only the advantage of ridding his world of a nuisance while the former will be able to make a new life… and have money left over for other things.  This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that such robbers should be punished more severely… than murderers.  (“Justice, Civilization,…,” note 10)

The death penalty for murder, then, would not obviously be morally justified if the general criterion for the amount of punishment is an unfair advantage principle.

A defense of the death penalty for murder has been proposed by employing another version of this general approach to punishment.  The key is seeing the kind of unfair advantage gained by a murderer.  As Reiman suggests in the spirit of Hegelian retributivism, the act of killing another disrupts “the relations appropriate to equally sovereign individuals;” it is “an assault on the sovereignty of an individual that temporarily places one person (the criminal) in a position of illegitimate sovereignty over another (the victim)”; then there is “the right to rectify this loss of standing relative to the criminal by meting out a punishment that reduces the criminals’ sovereignty to the degree to which she vaunted it above her victim’s” (“Why…,” 89-90).   So, if a murder is committed and a life taken, the idea is that the amount of permissible punishment is for the state, as the victim’s agent, to assert a supremacy over the criminal similar to that already asserted by the killer; and to do that it is permissible for the state to impose the death penalty for murder.  So, on this interpretation of the fairness principle, the death penalty for murder is morally justified, though, for other crimes, it may not be “easy or even always possible to figure out what penalties are equivalent to the harms imposed by offenders” (Reiman, “Why…,” 69-90, 93).  As with other forms of retributivism, the fairness approach, on either interpretation, is challenged by the plausibility of using a principle that adequately addresses both the merits of capital punishment for murder and also generates a system of penalties that “fit” or are equivalent to various crimes.

e. Challenges to Retributivism

Retributivist approaches to capital punishment are many and varied.  But from even the small sample above, notable similarities are often cited as challenges for this way of thinking about the moral justification of punishment by death.   First, retributivism with respect to capital punishment either invokes principles that are plausible, if at all, only for death as penalty for murder; or it relies on principles met only with reasoned skepticism about their general adequacy for constructing a plausible scale matching various crimes with proper penal responses.

Second, retributivists presuppose that persons are responsible for any criminal misconduct for which they are to be punished, but actually instituting capital punishment confronts the reality of some social conditions, for example, that challenge the presupposition of voluntariness and, in the case of the fairness approach, that challenge the presupposition of a reasonably just system of social cooperation (see section 5b).  Third, it is often argued that, in addressing the moral merits of capital punishment, retributivists ignore or make markedly secondary the causal consequences of the practice.  What if no benefits accrue to anyone from the practice of capital punishment?  What if capital punishment significantly increases the rate of murders or violent crimes?  What if the institution of capital punishment sometimes, often, or inevitably is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or even mistaken in its selecting those to be punished by death (see section 5)?  These and other possible consequences of capital punishment seem relevant, even probative.  The challenge is that retributivists ignore or diminish their importance, perhaps defending or opposing the death penalty despite such effects and not because of them.

3. Utilitarian Approaches

A utilitarian approach to justifying capital punishment appeals only to the consequences or effects of death being the penalty for serious crimes, such as murder.  A utilitarian approach, then, is a kind of consequentialism and is often said to be “forward looking,” in contrast to retributivists’ “backward looking” approach.   More specifically, a utilitarian approach sees punishment by death as justified only if that amount of punishment for murder best promotes the total happiness, pleasure, or well-being of the society.  The idea is that the inherent pain and any negative effects of capital punishment must be exceeded by its beneficial effects, such as crime prevention through incapacitation and deterrence; and furthermore, the total effects of the death penalty—good and bad, for offender and everyone else—must be greater than the total effects of alternative penal responses to serious misconduct, such as long-term incarceration.   A utilitarian approach to capital punishment is inherently comparative in this way: it is essentially tied to the consequences of the practice being best for the total happiness of the society.  It follows, then, that a utilitarian approach relies on what are, in principle, empirical, causal claims about the total marginal effects of capital punishment on offenders and others.

a. Classic Utilitarian Approaches: Bentham, Beccaria, Mill

A classic utilitarian approach to punishment is that of Jeremy Bentham.  In chapters XIII and XIV of his lengthy work, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , first published in 1789, Bentham addresses the appropriate amount of punishment for offenses, or, as he puts it, “the proportion between punishments and offences.”  He begins with some fundamental features of a utilitarian approach to such issues:

The general object which all law have, or ought to have in common, is to augment the total happiness of the community.… But all punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is evil.  Upon the principle of utility, if it ought at all to be admitted, it ought only to be admitted in as far as it promises to exclude some greater evil.  (XIII. I, ii.)

Bentham continues by noting the importance of attending to “the ends of punishment”:

The immediate principal end of punishment is to control action.… [T]hat of the offender it controls by its influence… on his will, in which case it is said to operate in the way of reformation ;  or on his physical power, in which case it is said to operate by disablement : that of others it can influence no otherwise than by its influence over their wills; in which case it is said to operate in the way of example . (XIII. ii. fn. 1)

So, there are three major ends of punishment related to controlling people’s action in ways promoting the total happiness of the community through crime reduction or prevention: reformation of the offender, disablement (that is, incapacitation) of the offender, and deterrence (that is, setting an example for others).   Of these three ends of punishment, Bentham says “example” – or deterrence – “is the most important end of all.” (XIII. ii. fn 1).  Since “all punishment is mischief [and] an evil,” any amount of punishment, then, is justified only if that mischief is exceeded by the penalty’s good effects, and, most importantly for Bentham, only if the punishment reduces crime by deterring others from misconduct and does so better than less painful punishments.  In other writings, Bentham explicitly applies his utilitarian approach to capital punishment, first allowing its possible justification for aggravated murder, particularly when the “effect may be the destruction of numbers” of people, and then, years later and late in life, calling for its complete abolition (Bedau, “Bentham’s Utilitarian Critique…”).

In his own writing about law, Bentham notably praises and acknowledges Cesare Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments , its utilitarian approach to penal reform, and its call for abolishing capital punishment. Beccaria called for abolition of the death penalty largely by appealing to its comparative inefficacy in reducing the crime rate.  In Chapter XII of his essay, Beccaria says the general aim of punishment is deterrence and that should govern the amount of punishment to be assigned crimes:

The purpose of punishment… is nothing other than to dissuade the criminal from doing fresh harm to his compatriots and to keep other people from doing the same.  Therefore, punishments and the method of inflicting them should be chosen that… will make the most effective and lasting impression on men’s minds and inflict the least torment on the body of the criminal. (23; Ch. XII)

He then argues that “capital punishment is neither useful nor necessary” in comparison to the general deterrent effects of lengthy prison sentences:

[T]here is no one who, on reflection, would choose the total and permanent loss of his own liberty, no matter how advantageous a crime might be.  Therefore, the intensity of a sentence of servitude for life, substituted for the death penalty, has everything needed to deter the most determined spirit.… With capital punishment, one crime is required for each example offered to the nation; with the penalty of a lifetime at hard labor, a single crime affords a host of lasting examples” (49-50, 51; Ch. XXVIII).

The idea here is that an execution is a single, severe event, perhaps not long remembered by others, whereas life imprisonment provides a continuing reminder of the punishment for misconduct.  In general, Beccaria says, “[i]t is not the severity of punishment that has the greatest impact on the human mind, but rather its duration, for our sensibility is more easily surely stimulated by tiny repeated impressions than by a strong but temporary movement” (49; Ch. XXVIII).

Beccaria adds to this thinking at least two claims about some bad social effects of capital punishment: first, for many the death penalty becomes a spectacle, and for some it evokes pity for the offender rather than the fear of execution needed for effective deterrence of criminal misconduct (49; Ch. XXVIII).  Second, “capital punishment is not useful because of the example of cruelty which it gives to men.… [T]he laws that moderate men’s conduct ought not to augment the cruel example, which is all the more pernicious because judicial execution is carried out methodically and formally” (51; Ch. XXVIII).  Thus, Beccaria opposes capital punishment by employing utilitarian thinking: the primary benefit of deterrence is better achieved through an alternative penal response of “a lifetime at hard labor,” and, furthermore, the cruelty of the death penalty affects society in ways much later called “the brutalization effect.”

Another major utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, also exemplifies distinctive facets of a utilitarian approach, but in defense of capital punishment.  In an 1868 speech as a Member of Parliament, Mill argues that capital punishment is justified as penalty for “atrocious cases” of aggravated murder (“Speech…,” 268).  Mill maintains that the “short pang of a rapid death” is, in actuality, far less cruel than “a long life in the hardest and most monotonous toil… debarred from all pleasant sights and sounds, and cut off from all earthly hope” (“Speech…,” 268).  As Sorell succinctly summarizes Mill’s position, “hard labor for life is really a more severe punishment than it seems, while the death penalty seems more severe than it is” (“Aggravated Murder…,” 204).  Since the deterrent effect of a punishment depends far more on what it seems than what it is, capital punishment is the better deterrent of others while also involving less pain and suffering for the offender.  Such a combination “is among the strongest recommendations a punishment can have” (Mill, “Speech…,” 269). And so, Mill says, “I defend [the death penalty] when confined to atrocious cases… as beyond comparison the least cruel mode in which it is possible adequately to deter from the crime” (“Speech…, 268).

b. Empirical Considerations: Incapacitation, Deterrence

A utilitarian approach to capital punishment depends essentially on what are, in fact, the causal effects of the practice, whether the death penalty is, in fact, effective in incapacitating or deterring potential offenders.  If, in fact, it does not effect these ends better than penal alternatives such as lengthy incarceration, then capital punishment is not justified on utilitarian grounds.   In principle, at least, the comparative efficacy of capital punishment is therefore an empirical issue.

A number of social scientific studies have been conducted in search of conclusions about the effects of capital punishment, at least in America.  With respect to the end of incapacitation, any crime prevention benefit of executing murderers depends on recidivism rates, that is, the likelihood that murderers again kill.  Recent studies of convicted murderers—death row inmates not executed, prison homicides, parolees, and released murderers—indicate that the recidivism rate is quite low, but not zero: a small percentage of murderers kill again, either in prison or upon release (Bedau, The Death Penalty , 162-182).  These crimes, of course, would not have occurred were capital punishment imposed, and, so, the death penalty does prevent commission of some serious crimes.  On the other hand, for a utilitarian, these benefits of incapacitation through execution must exceed those for possible punitive alternatives.  The data reflects recidivism rates under current practices, not other possible alternatives.  If, for example, pardons and commutations were eliminated for capital crimes, if atrocious crimes were punished by a life sentence without any possibility of parole, or if conditions of confinement were such that prison murders were not possible (for example, shackled, solitary confinement for life), then the recidivism rate might approach or be zero.  One issue, then, is how high or low a recidivism rate decides the justificatory issue for capital punishment.  Another issue is the moral permissibility of establishing conditions of confinement so restrictive that even murders in prison are reduced to nearly zero.

Since the mid-twentieth century, in America a number of empirical studies have been conducted in order to assess the deterrent effects of capital punishment in comparison to those of life imprisonment.  Scholars analyzed decades of data to compare jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, as well as the effects before and after a jurisdiction abolished or instituted capital punishment.   Such analyses “do not support the deterrence argument regarding capital punishment and homicide” (Bailey, 140).  Sophisticated statistical studies published in the mid-1970s claimed to show that each execution deterred seven to eight murders.  This exceptional study and its methodology have been much criticized (Bailey, 141-143).  Additional, more recent studies and analyses have “failed to produce evidence of a marginal deterrent effect for capital punishment” (Bailey, 155).  As indicated by Jeffrey Reiman’s succinct summary and numerous, cited literature surveys (“Why…” 100-102), nearly all relevant experts claim there is no conclusive evidence that capital punishment deters murder better than substantial prison sentences.

Determining the deterrent effects of capital punishment does present significant epistemic challenges.  In comparative studies of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, “there simply are too many variables to be controlled for, including socio-economic conditions, genetic make-up,” demographic factors (for example, age, population densities), varying facets of law enforcement, etc.  (Pojman, 139). Numerous variables may or may not explain the data attempting to link crime rates and the death penalty in different places or times (Pojman, 139). Second, as Beccaria notes, for example, deterrent effects plausibly depend importantly on the certainty, speed, and public nature of penal responses to criminal conduct.  These factors have not been much evident in recent capital punishment practices in America, which may explain the lack of evidence revealed by recent statistical studies.  Third, deterrence is a causal concept:  the idea is that potential murderers do not kill because of the death penalty.  So, the challenges are to measure what does not occur—murders – and to establish what causes the omission—the death penalty.  The latter element is even more challenging to measure because most who do not murder do so out of habit, character, religious beliefs, lack of opportunity, etc., that is, for reasons other than any perceived threat or fear of execution by the state.  Deterrence studies, then, attempt to establish empirically a causal relationship for a small minority of people and omitted homicides within a death penalty jurisdiction.  Finally, there are disagreements about the importance of the studies’ conclusions.  For example, abolitionists typically see that, despite numerous attempts, the failure to provide conclusive evidence strongly suggests there is no such effect: the death penalty, in fact, does not deter.  Defenders of capital punishment are inclined to interpret the empirical studies as being inconclusive: it remains an open question whether the death penalty deters sufficiently to justify it.  And all this is further complicated by the fact that some studies focus on the effects of capital statutes and others look for links between actual executions and crime rates.

c. Utilitarian Defenses: “Common Sense” and “Best Bet”

Regardless of the outcomes or probative value of statistical studies, justifying capital punishment on grounds of deterrence may still have merit.  It would seem, some maintain, that “common sense” supports the notion that the death penalty deters.  The deterrence justification of capital punishment presupposes a model of calculating, deliberative rationality for potential murderers.  What people cherish most is life; what they most fear is being killed.  So, given a choice between life in prison and execution by the state, most people much prefer life and therefore will refrain from misconduct for which death is the punishment.  In short, “common sense” suggests that capital punishment does deter.  But this kind of appeal to “common sense” ignores the essentially comparative aspect of appeals to deterrence as justification: though capital punishment may deter, it may not deter any more (or significantly more) than a long life in prison. We cannot equate “what is most feared” with “what most effectively deters” (Conway, 435-436; Reiman, “Why…,” 102-106).

Another way of looking at capital punishment in terms of deterrence relies on making the best decision under conditions of uncertainty.  Given that the empirical evidence does not definitively preclude that capital punishment is a superior deterrent, “the best bet” is to employ the death penalty for serious crimes such as murder.  If capital punishment is not, in fact, a superior deterrent, then some murderers have been unnecessarily executed by the state; if, on the other hand, death is not a possible punishment for murder and capital punishment is, in fact, a superior deterrent, then some preventable killings of innocent persons would occur.  Given the greater value of innocent lives, the less risky, better option justifies capital punishment on grounds of deterrence. But the argument crucially depends on comparative risk assessments: if there is capital punishment, then certainly some murderers will be killed, whereas without the death penalty there is only a remote chance that more innocent lives would be victims of murder (Conway, 436-443).  Furthermore, the argument openly assumes that not all lives are equal—those of the innocent are not to be risked as much as those who have murdered—and that, for some, is a fundamental moral issue at stake in justifying capital punishment (see section 2c; Pojman, 35-36).

d. Challenges to Utilitarianism

Utilitarian approaches to justifying punishment are controversial and problematic, perhaps most often with respect to possibly justifying punishment of the innocent as a means to preventing crime and promoting total happiness of a society.  Even ignoring this issue and focusing only on justifying the proper amount of punishment for the guilty and the death penalty, in particular, there are concerns to be considered about a utilitarian approach.  The objection is that a utilitarian approach to the death penalty relies on a suspect general criterion—deterrence—for establishing the proper amount of punishment for crimes.  It is often argued that, for purposes of crime prevention through deterrence, a utilitarian is committed, at least in principle, to excessively severe punishments, such as torturous and gruesome executions in public even for crimes much less serious than murder (for example, Ten, 34-35, 143-145).  The idea is that the pain of excessively severe and public punishments for minor crimes is more than counterbalanced by a significant reduction in a crime rate.  It is also argued that significant crime rate reductions could perhaps be achieved, in some circumstances, by disproportionately minor punishments:  if fines, light prison sentences, or even fake executions could deter as well as actual ones, then a utilitarian is committed to disproportionately mild penalties for grave crimes.  Utilitarians respond to such possibilities by indicating additional considerations relevant to calculating the total costs of such disproportionate punishments, while critics continue creating even more elaborate, fantastic counterexamples designed to show the utilitarian approach cannot always avoid questions about the upper or lower limits of morally permissible penal responses to misconduct.  As C. L. Ten summarizes succinctly, a utilitarian approach establishing a proper amount of punishment is “inadequate to account for both the strength of the commitment to the maintenance of a proportion between crime and punishment, and [to] the great reluctance to depart… from that proportion when required to so do by purely aggregative consequential considerations” (146).

Another common criticism of the utilitarian approach points to the very structure of justifications rooted in deterrence.  As evident in Bentham’s classic statements, for example, the purpose of punishment “is to control action,” primarily through deterrence (see section 3a).  Punishments deter and “control action” by example, by the demonstration to others that they, too, will suffer similarly should they similarly misbehave. Capital punishment, then, aims to deter actions of potential killers by inflicting death on actual ones: the technique works by threat, by instilling fear in others.  A fundamental objection to this way of thinking is to see that, in effect, persons are being used as a means to controlling others’ actions; capital offenders are being used simply as a means to deter others and reduce the crime rate.  Such a use of persons is morally impermissible, it is argued, echoing Immanuel Kant’s famous categorical imperative against treating any person merely as means to an end.  No gain in deterrence, incapacitation, or other beneficial effects can justify deliberately killing a captive human being as a means to even such desirable ends as deterring others from committing grave crime.  The argument, then, is that justifying capital punishment on grounds of deterrence is a morally impermissible way to treat persons, even those found to have committed atrocious crimes.

e. Other Consequential Considerations

In discussions of capital punishment, it is deterrence that receives much of the attention for those exploring a utilitarian approach to the moral justification of the practice.  There are, however, other significant consequences of the death penalty that are relevant, as noted even by classic utilitarians.  Beccaria, for example, asserts a brutalization effect on society: executions are cruel and are examples to others of the states’ cruelty.  The suggestion seems to be that capital punishment increases people’s tolerance for another’s suffering, their callousness about human suffering, a willingness to impose suffering on another, even the rate of violent crimes (for example, assaults or homicides).  In contrast, one recent defender of the death penalty, Jeffrey Reiman, argues that, for some developed societies, abolition of capital punishment for serious crimes shows restraint and thereby actually advances civilization by reducing our tolerance for others’ suffering.  Such claims are, in principle, empirical ones about the causal effects of the practice of capital punishment.  As with recent deterrence studies, there is no clear empirical evidence of any brutalizing or civilizing effects of capital punishment.

For classic utilitarian thinking, another important consequence of punishment is its effect on the offender.   According to Jeremy Bentham, one of the three ends of punishment is reform of the offender through “its influence on his will” (XIII.ii. fn. 1).  This penal aim of reform (or rehabilitation) may suggest capital punishment is not justifiable for any crime.  But that need not be the case.  The ancient Roman Stoic Seneca, for example, argues that proper punishment for criminal misconduct depends on its “power to improve the life of the defendant” (Nussbaum, 103).   But he also defends capital punishment as a kind of merciful euthanasia: execution is “in the interest of the punished, given that a shorter bad life is better than a longer one” (Nussbaum, 103, note 43).  Plato also defends capital punishment by looking to its impact on the offender.  In his later works and as part of a general theory of penology, Plato maintains that the primary penal purpose is reform—to “cure” offenders, as he says.  For crimes that show offenders are “incurable,” Plato argues execution is justifiable.  In his late work, The Laws, Plato explicitly prescribes capital punishment for a wide range of offenses, such as deliberate murder, wounding a family member with the intent to kill, theft from temples or public property, taking bribes, and waging private war, among others (MacKenzie; Stalley).  In a utilitarian approach to capital punishment, then, attending to the end of reforming offenders need not be irrelevant to possible moral justifications of the death penalty.

4. Capital Punishment as Communication

A cluster of distinctive approaches to issues of justifying punishment and, at least by implication, the death penalty, are united by taking seriously the idea of punishment as expression or communication.  Often called “the expressive theory of punishment,” such approaches to punishment are sometimes classified as utilitarian or consequentialist, sometimes as retributivist, and sometimes as neither.  The root idea is that punishment is more than “the infliction of hard treatment” by an authority for prior misconduct; it is also “a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and indignation, and of judgments of disapproval and reprobation….  Punishment, in short, has a symbolic significance ” (Feinberg, “The Expressive Function…,” 98).  Hard treatment, deprivations, incarceration, or even death can be, and perhaps are, vehicles by which messages are communicated by the community.  To see capital punishment as a deterrent is to see it as communicative:  the death penalty communicates to the community—at least potential killers—that murder is a serious wrong and that execution awaits those who kill others.  Various developments of punishment as communication, though, attend to other messages expressed, some emphasizing the sender and others the recipient of the message.

One version of this kind of approach emphasizes that, with capital punishment, a community is expressing strong disapproval or condemnation of the misconduct.  Sometimes called “the denunciation theory,” the basic contention is evident in Leslie Stephens’ late 19th-century work, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (a reply to J.S. Mill’s On Liberty ), as well as by the oft-quoted remarks of Lord Denning recorded in the 1953 Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment :

The punishment for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the object of punishment as being deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else.… The ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime; and from this point of view, there are some murders which, in the… public opinion, demand the most emphatic denunciation of all, namely the death penalty. (As quoted in Hart, “Punishment…,” 170)

In the United States, Supreme Court decisions in death penalty cases have more than once employed such reasoning:  a stable, ordered society is better promoted by capital punishment practices than risking “the anarchy of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law” as ways of expressing communal outrage (Justice Stewart, in Furman v. Georgia (1972), as quoted in Gregg v. Georgia (1976)).

As a defense of capital punishment, at least, this “denunciation theory” leaves multiple questions not adequately addressed.  For example, the approach presupposes some moral merit to popular sentiments of indignation, outrage, anger, condemnation, even vengeance or vindictiveness in response to serious misconduct.  There are significant differences between expressing such emotions and punishing justly or morally (see section 2b).  Secondly, the structure of the thinking seems entirely consequentialist or utilitarian: capital punishment is justified as effective means to communicate condemnation, or to satisfy others’ desires to see someone suffer for the crime, or as an outlet for strong, aggressive feelings that otherwise are expressed in socially disruptive ways.  Such utilitarian reasoning would seem to justify executing pedophiles or even innocent persons in order to communicate condemnation or avoid an “anarchy of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law.” On the other hand, even Jeremy Bentham argues that “no punishment ought to be allotted merely to this purpose” because such widespread satisfactions or pleasures cannot ever “be equivalent to the pain… produced by punishment” (Bentham XIII. ii. fn. 1).  Third, it leaves unanswered why the expression of communal outrage—even if morally warranted—is best or only accomplished through capital punishment.  Why would not harsh confinement for life serve as well any desirable expressive, cathartic function?  Or on what grounds are executions not to be conducted in ways torturous and prolonged, even publicly, as means of better communicating denunciation and expressing society’s outrage about the offenders’ misconduct?  And does not the death penalty also express or communicate other, conflicting messages about, for example, the value of life?  As a justification of capital punishment, even for the most heinous of crimes, a “denunciation theory” faces significant challenges.

Other uses of the idea of punishment as communication focus not on the sender of the message, but on the good of the intended recipient, the offender.  Punishment is paternalistic in purpose: it aims to effect some beneficial change in the offender through effective communication.  In Philosophical Explanations Robert Nozick, for example, holds that punishment is essentially “an act of communicative behavior” and the “message is: this is how wrong what you did was” (370).  Wrongdoers have “become disconnected from correct values, and the purpose of punishment is to (re)connect him” (374).  The justified amount of punishment, then, is tied to the magnitude of the wrong committed (363): “for the most serious flouting of the most important values… capital punishment is a response of equal magnitude” (377).  But, Nozick maintains, the aim of punishment is not to have an effect on the offender, but “for an effect in the wrongdoer: recognition of the correct value, internalizing it for future action—a transformation in him” (374-5).  This paternalistic end seems to preclude the death penalty being imposed for any kind of wrongdoing; however, in “truly monstrous cases” (for example, Adolph Hitler, genocides) there seems to be perhaps the highest magnitude of wrong, a disconnection from the most basic values, and acts worthy of the most emphatic penal expression possible.  As Nozick himself admits and others have noted, this approach to punishment as communication provides “no clear stable conclusion… on the issue of an institution of capital punishment” (378).

Some employing a similar reliance on punishment as communication are less ambivalent about its implications for the death penalty.   The “moral education theory of punishment,” its proponent maintains, precludes “cruel and disfiguring punishments such as torture or maiming,” as well as “rules out execution as punishment” (Hampton, 223).  This argument for death penalty abolition takes seriously the expressive, communicative function of punishments: as aiming to effect significant benefits in and for the offender and, through general deterrence and in other ways, as “teaching the public at large the moral reasons for choosing not to perform an offense” (Hampton, 213).  Punishment as education is not a conditioning program; it addresses autonomous beings, and the moral good aimed at is persons freely choosing attachment to that which is good.  Executing criminals, then, seems to require judging them as having “lost all their essential humanity, making them wild beasts or prey on a community that must, to survive, destroy them” (Hampton 223).  Furthermore, it is argued, capital punishment conveys multiple messages, for example, about the value of a human life; and, it is argued, since one can never be certain in identifying the truly incorrigible, the death penalty is morally unjustified in all cases.   As R.A. Duff puts the abolitionist point in Punishment, Communication, and Community (2001), “punishment should be understood as a species of secular penance that aims not just to communicate censure but thereby to persuade offenders to repentance , self – reform, and reconciliation” (xvii-xix).

Approaches to capital punishment as paternalistic communication are challenged on several grounds.  First, as a general theory of punishment, such expressive theories posit an extraordinarily optimistic view of offenders as open to the message that penal experiences aim to convey.  Are there not some offenders who will not be open to moral education, to hearing the message expressed through their penal experiences?  Are there not some offenders who are incorrigible?  On these approaches to capital punishment, the reasons against executing serious offenders are essentially empirical ones about the communicative effects on the public of executions or the limits of diagnostic capabilities in identifying the truly incorrigible.  Second, with respect to capital punishment, perhaps for some offenders, the experience of trial, sentencing, and awaiting execution does successfully communicate and effect reform in the offender, with the death penalty then imposed to affirm that which effected the beneficial reform in the offender.  Third, as with other approaches to punishment, the moral education theory renders it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to “fashion a tidy punishment table” pairing kinds of misconduct and merited penalties (Hampton, 228).  Focusing on reforming or educating a recipient of a message suggests very individualistic and situational sentencing guidelines.  Not only may this not be practical, such discretion in sentencing risks caprice or arbitrariness in punishing offenders by death or in other ways (see section 5); and it challenges the fundamental, formal principle of justice, that is, that like case be treated alike.  Finally, the implications of these approaches to punishment are quite at odds with the system of incarceration employed so universally for so many offenders.  The implications of punishment as communication aimed at the offender would require radical revisions of current penal practices, as some proponents readily admit.

5. The Institution of Capital Punishment

Much philosophic focus on punishment and the death penalty has been rooted in theoretical questions and principles.  A result is that philosophers have mostly ignored more practical matters and moral facets of the institution of capital punishment.  That historical tendency began to change in the mid-twentieth century with a decidedly American concern: whether the practice of capital punishment is legally permissible, given the United States Constitution’s eighth amendment prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.”  Scholars and lawyers investigated the history and continuing death penalty practices in America, producing evidence of racial discrimination in the institution of capital punishment, especially in southern states.  By the early 1970s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions established especially elaborate criminal procedures to be followed in capital cases: bifurcated trials (one for conviction and one for establishing the sentence), a finding of at least one aggravator for a murder to be a capital crime, automatic appellate review of all sentences to death, guidelines for jury selections, etc. The aim of such “super due process” is to improve criminal procedures employed in capital cases so as avoid arbitrariness in administering the death penalty in America (Radin).

After implementation of these Court-mandated procedures for death penalty cases, a number of empirical studies indicated continuing concerns and problems with the practice of capital punishment in America.  For example, studies of capital cases conducted in some southern states showed that disproportionately large numbers of convicted murderers received death sentences if they were black, a disproportion even greater when the convicted murderer was black and the victim was white (Bedau, The Death Penalty , 268-274).   Also, especially with the advent of new, scientific sources of evidence (for example, DNA matching), studies suggest that numbers of persons innocent of any crime have been wrongly convicted, sentenced, and even executed for committing a capital crime (Bedau, The Death Penalty , 344-360).   Morally justifying punishment in theory is distinguishable from whether it is justified in practice, given extant conditions.  For some, even though questions of theory and practice are distinguishable, they may not be unrelated. As Stephen Nathanson asks, “does it matter if the death penalty is arbitrarily administered?”

a. Procedural Issues: Imperfect Justice

Moral arguments about the death penalty based on procedural issues attend to the outcomes and steps of a long and involved process “as a person goes the road from freedom to electric chair” (Black, 22).  Such a process involves an “entire series of decisions made by the legal system”:  whether to arrest; what criminal charges to file; decisions about plea bargaining offers, if any;  a criminal trial, with jury selection, countless tactical decisions, possible employment of a defense like insanity; sentencing that requires juries find and weigh statutory factors of aggravation and mitigation; post-conviction appeals and possible remedies decided; clemency decisions, to commute a sentence or even pardon the convicted (Black, 22-26).  It is apparent, then, “that the choice of death as the penalty is the result of not just one choice… but of a number of choices, starting with the prosecutor’s choice of a charge, and ending with the choice of the authority… charged with the administration of clemency” (Black, 27).  At each one of these points of decisions, it is argued, there is room for arbitrariness, mistakes, even discrimination.  Furthermore, it is impossible and undesirable to remove all latitude, all discretion, in order to allow each of these decisions to be properly made in light of the particularities of the case, person, situation.  And so, the institution of capital punishment, even as practiced in America, brings along with it “the inevitability of caprice and mistake” (Black).

A criminal trial and, more broadly, criminal procedures in toto are exemplars of what John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice , characterizes as imperfect procedural justice.   There is an independently defined standard external to the procedure by which we judge outcomes of the process; and there is no procedure “that is sure to give the desired outcome” (Rawls 74-75).  For criminal procedures, the aim is “to impose deprivations on all and only guilty convicted offenders because of their wrongdoing”; and for capital punishment, the aim is to impose the death penalty on all and only those guilty of committing crimes for which the merited amount of punishment is execution (Bedau, Reflections 173).  In capital procedures, too, it is “impossible to design the legal rules so that they always lead to the correct result” (Rawls, 75).  Whether due to inherent vagaries of legal language, the necessity of discretion to judge properly complex, particular cases, the fallibility of human beings, or political pressures and other factors affecting decisions made within the system, such as clemency, the risk of error is not eliminable for the institution of capital punishment.  Given unavoidably imperfect criminal justice procedures, at issue, then, is the moral import of any arbitrariness, caprice, mistake, or discrimination in the institution of capital punishment.

The appeal to procedural imperfections is often employed by those opposed to capital punishment and who seek its complete abolition on the grounds that its institution is intolerably arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory in selecting who lives and who dies. This abolitionist reasoning is challenged in various ways.  Given the fact that there are imperfections in the system or practice of capital punishment, what follows is not abolition of the death penalty, but justification only for procedural improvements in order to reduce problematic outcomes.  A second issue, aside from disputes about the actual frequency of problematic outcomes, is a question of thresholds: how many imperfect outcomes are tolerable in the institution of capital punishment?  Abolitionists tend to have near-zero tolerance, whereas some defenders of capital punishment argue that some arbitrariness is acceptable.  For a utilitarian approach to capital punishment, assessing the total consequences—benefits and “costs”— of the death penalty must include the inevitable arbitrariness of its institution.  And in as much as any deterrent effects are linked to certainty of punishment, any degree of arbitrariness in administering capital punishment does affect a central utilitarian consideration in determining whether the institution is morally justified.  For retributivist approaches, the question is whether some arbitrariness in the institution violates requisite pre-conditions for morally justifying the institution of capital punishment (see section 2c).  Jeffrey Reiman, for example, argues, on retributivist grounds, that capital punishment is justified in principle; however, “the death penalty in… America is unjust in practice,” and he therefore favors abolition (see 5b).

A third issue for appeals to procedural imperfections involves limiting the scope of the argument for abolition.   Since all criminal cases are administered through unavoidably imperfect procedures, if arbitrariness justifies abolishing the death penalty for murder, then it would seem also to justify abolishing lesser punishments for less serious criminal misconduct.  In short, the imperfect administration of capital punishment matters morally only if the death penalty is distinctive among punishments.  Punishment by death is often said to be distinctive because, unlike incarceration, death is irrevocable.  But years spent imprisoned, for example, can also not be revoked, once they have been endured.  The idea must be that incarceration, if found to be mistaken, can be ceased: by executive or judicial action the imprisoned can be released and receive remedies, even if only gestures.   On the other hand, a death sentence, once executed, has none of those qualities: death is permanent; punishment by death has finality.  “Because of the finality and the extreme severity of the death penalty, we need to be more scrupulous in applying it as punishment than is necessary with any other punishment” (Nathanson, Eye , 67).

Another major issue involves distinguishing the kinds of imperfect outcomes resulting from the criminal procedures employed in capital cases.  For example, the arbitrariness evident in the procedures may be one of selectivity : among all the convicted killers who merit a death sentence, some of those are actually sentenced or executed and others are not.  As Ernest van den Haag argues, that some who merit the death penalty escape that punishment does not make morally unjustified selectively executing some who do merit that punishment (Nathanson, 49).  Analogies with selective ticketing for excessive speed support this kind of reasoning: justice is a matter of each individual being treated as they merit, without regard to how other, similar cases are treated.  But this argument makes what is just or justified entirely non-comparative, when substantive comparative considerations often are also necessary when arbitrariness or discrimination is at issue (Feinberg, “Noncomparative Justice,” 265-269).  Justice requires treating similar cases in similar ways, and this kind of arbitrary imposition of the death penalty violates that requirement.  Furthermore, it may matter morally what are the grounds of selecting only some convicted killers to receive death sentences or to be executed.  If the selectivity is based on race, for example, then the moral import of the arbitrariness might be far greater, whether for traffic tickets or the death penalty for murder.  Aside from the moral import of arbitrariness as selectivity, there is also an arbitrariness that issues in mistakes , where persons who did not commit a capital crime (or perhaps did not commit any crime at all) are wrongly convicted, sentenced and executed.  This sort of imperfect outcome would seem far more problematic morally than the selective execution of only some of those who merit the death penalty.  As Stephen Nathanson states it with respect to executing the innocent, “this is the moral force of the argument from arbitrary judgment” ( Eye , 53).

b. Discrimination: Race, Class

Criminal justice systems that administer the death penalty operate in the context of a society that may or may not itself be entirely just.  The procedures employed in capital cases, then, can be imperfect due to external social factors affecting its outcomes, and not only due to features internal to the structure of a legal system itself.  Various sources of data suggest to many that American criminal justice procedures produce disproportionately large numbers of capital convictions and death sentences for the poor and for African-Americans.  In short, it is claimed, the institution of capital punishment is imperfect, capricious, or arbitrary in a particular way: it discriminates on the basis of economic class and race.   Poverty and race, it is argued, have “warping effects” on the long, involved process whereby “a person goes the road from freedom to electric chair” (Black, 22).   At numerous decision points, a lack of funds affects how the process proceeds for a poor person charged with a capital crime: the quality of legal counsel for plea bargaining, investigation, and conduct of a trial; financial resources needed to build a strong evidentiary case through crime scene investigation, forensic testing, and expert testimony at trial;  money for background investigations, professional examinations, and expert testimony in the crucial sentencing phase of a capital trial; securing attorneys for legally required and elective appeals; accessing those political offices and officers with the legally unlimited authority to commute a sentence or even pardon a convicted offender.   Given the high correlation in America between poverty and race, any disproportionate outcomes with respect to economic class parallel those with respect to race.  Also, as described above, the “entire series of decisions made by the legal system” in capital cases provides numerous opportunities for unconscious racial bias or blatant discrimination in the exercise of discretion by those administering the process.  Opponents of the death penalty, then, see factors of race and poverty as increasing the likelihood of error in capital cases, and see such discriminatory outcomes as especially problematic from a moral point of view.

This line of reasoning invokes the specter of discrimination in the institution of capital punishment.  The basic empirical claim is that, by race and economic class, America’s imperfect procedures produce disproportionate outcomes.  The issue is not necessarily one of intentional racial discrimination, though that may occur, as well.  Considerations of perhaps unintended discriminatory outcomes, however, need not support abolition of the death penalty.  Aside from disputes about the data supporting the basic empirical claim of disproportionate outcomes, responses parallel those reviewed above with respect to the internal structures of criminal justice procedures in capital cases (see section 5a).  In particular, it is argued that disproportionate outcomes support reforms to mitigate such discrimination, such as quality legal representation being provided for the poor, increased budgetary allegations for defense of the indigent in capital cases, etc. And given that what explains the disproportionate outcomes are social conditions external to the process itself, it would seem that discriminatory outcomes are not inevitable in the way that the effects of ineliminable discretion might be.  The issue, then, becomes the moral import of problematic social conditions that “warp” the institution of capital punishment.  How does such “warping” affect any justification of the death penalty?  Does it matter morally that the institution of capital punishment exists amidst a society insufficiently just regarding matters of economic class or race?

For a utilitarian approach to capital punishment, the issue is addressed in terms of total consequences for the society.  As with other kinds of arbitrariness previously reviewed, any discriminatory outcomes of the institution of capital punishment are part of the total cost of the practice and are to be considered along with all other costs and benefits.  Depending on the causal consequences of the practice in a society at a given time, then, capital punishment is or is not morally justified.  For some retributivists, however, the relevance of current social conditions can be quite different for whether capital punishment is morally justified.  For example, the fairness approach to punishment and the death penalty presupposes a society with reasonably just rules of cooperation that bestow benefits and burdens on its members. Whether America today, for example, satisfies such a pre-condition is, for some, doubtful; and thus, it is argued, even if justified in theory, capital punishment is not justified under current social conditions (for example, Reiman).  Also, retributivists typically presuppose punishment is to address misconduct that is voluntary, a matter of free choice.  But Marx, for example, maintains that such a presupposition of free will is simply false, a delusion:

Is it not a delusion to substitute for the individual with his real motives, with multifarious circumstances pressing upon him, the abstraction of “free will”…?  Is there not a necessity for deeply reflecting upon an alteration of the system that breeds these crimes, instead of glorifying the hangman who executes a lot of criminals to make room for the supply of new ones?

Though Marx is himself sympathetic to a retributivist justification of punishment, theory and practice cannot be divorced.  Marx and many Marxists oppose capital punishment because it is inapplicable to the actual conditions of society where criminality is rooted in structural inequalities of wealth (Murphy).  Thus, for some retributivist and utilitarian approaches to capital punishment, the death penalty may be morally unjustified because of inherently imperfect legal procedures, morally problematic outcomes, or the social conditions surrounding the institution.

c. Medicine and the Death Penalty

In recent years, issues of medical ethics have been a facet of philosophic focus on the institution of capital punishment, especially in America.  Health care professionals—including physicians—can be active participants in the actual execution of a death-row prisoner.  Medical expertise needed for an execution itself can include administering medicines or psychiatric treatments to calm the condemned, judging whether intramuscular or intravenous techniques are best, or actually injecting a lethal dose of drugs to bring about a death (Gaie, 1).  Even if not directly participating in executions and regardless of the method of execution employed, health care professionals can be involved by providing capital trial testimony related to findings of guilt or punishment, such as competency to stand trial, possibly exculpating mental illness, or forensic analyses of murder scene evidence.  Physicians are needed to certify death following a successful execution, and they may have a role in possible organ donations arranged by the deceased (Gaie, 2).  All such participation requires relevant expertise and is important to contemporary death penalty practices.  An important question, however, is whether it is morally permissible for health care professionals to be involved or participate in the institution of capital punishment.

A common assumption is that health care professionals—physicians, at least—have significant moral duties to those they treat or administer to.  Many, like Gaie, address such issues of professional ethics as independent of the morality of capital punishment itself.  Thus, for example, since physicians have a duty to minimize suffering, it would seem to follow that medical professionals’ participation is morally justified for that purpose, perhaps especially in executions by lethal injection.  Others maintain that, analogous to relieving the suffering of a torture victim so that they can be further tortured, physicians ought not participate in executions in order to reduce the suffering of the condemned (Dworkin).  Physician participation in an unjust practice, such as capital punishment, makes them complicit and, so, they ought not be involved. Thus, it is argued, one cannot separate the ethics of physicians’ participation in capital punishment from the moral merits of the institution itself (Litton).

Since the early 1980s, lethal injection has almost completely replaced electrocution as the preferred method of execution for those convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death in the United States.  This recent, novel method of execution has itself generated considerable controversy.  First, unlike other constitutionally permissible modes of execution in America (that is, electrocution, hanging, firing squad, gas inhalation), a lethal injection requires medical expertise in order to be administered properly.  Thus, health care professionals must be direct participants in executions: for example, by preparing the lethal drug dosages, by establishing suitable sites for an injection, and by actually administering the drugs that cause the death of the convicted.   In comparison to other methods of execution, such participation is more essential, more direct, and ethically more problematic.  Execution by lethal injection makes more acute and controversial the ethical issues surrounding the involvement of health care professionals in the institution of capital punishment.  Second, whether employing the typical three-drug “cocktail,” or some variant of that process, acquiring the designated pharmaceuticals has often become difficult or impossible.  Some foreign-based companies face legal restrictions on exporting drugs for such uses, and some foreign and domestic drug companies, for reasons of public image or ethical considerations, for example, choose not to manufacture or supply their pharmaceutical products for use in executions.  This sometimes delays execution or leads governments to employ alternative drugs for which there may not be sufficient evidence of their effectiveness in effecting a human death.  Third, whether any formulas for lethal injections are a humane way (or a more humane way) of causing death is itself controversial, with disputes about the science (or lack thereof) behind the drug formulas and protocols used, disagreements about the evidentiary significance of physiological data from autopsies used to assess the humanity of death by lethal injection, etc.  Finally, so-called “botched executions” are still not entirely avoided by using lethal injection rather than electrocution or hanging, for example.  Cases do occur where the condemned endure an extended process of dying that sometimes suggests lingering sentience, discomfort, or suffering.  As with other facets of the institution of the death penalty, there is disagreement about the import of such practical challenges for the moral justification of capital punishment.

d. Costs: Economic Issues

At least in popular discourse, if rarely among philosophic discussions, considerations of monetary cost are adduced with respect to morally justifying capital punishment.  As Stephen Nathanson rightly recognizes, in its bald form it is a simple economic argument:  the state ought to execute murderers because it is less costly than imprisoning them for life ( Eye , 33).  Even among proponents, though, cost considerations are perhaps plausibly relevant only as secondary, subsidiary supplements to some anterior justification for executing murderers: if murderers merit death as punishment for criminal misconduct, then economic cost is perhaps relevant to justifying their execution over a sentence of life spent in prison.

The argument depends crucially on the empirical claim that, in fact, it is less costly to execute murderers than it is to imprison them for life.  But the facts do not support this supposition.  The costs are not only those of a single execution, but for a system of due process and an infrastructure of facilities and personnel needed for the institution of capital punishment (Nathanson, Eye 36).  A possible reply is that such costs could be reduced, especially if we were to replace America’s elaborate “due process” for capital cases with something much more minimal: fewer appeals and appellate reviews, for example (Nathanson, Eye 38).  Such an approach may save some economic costs but increase the cost of thereby perhaps increasing the frequency of mistakes or arbitrariness.  Furthermore, reliance on comparative costs in determining who is executed potentially introduces a novel, morally suspect kind of arbitrariness.  Given that the cost of life imprisonment would be a function of a convicted murderer’s health and age, younger, healthier persons would be selected for the death penalty, while older, or more feeble, unhealthy killers would be sentenced to life in prison as the cheaper alternative.  The costs argument risks introducing a kind of age and medical status discrimination into the imperfect procedures employed to determine who merits the death penalty for murder.

6. State Authority and Capital Punishment

Exploring fully whether capital punishment is morally justified leads to considering a normative account of the modern state, its foundations, proper functions, and penal powers.  The modern practice of capital punishment presupposes a state which has the authority to make, administer, and enforce criminal law and procedures and then, if merited, impose the death penalty to address serious misconduct.  On what basis does the state possess the authority to punish by death?  This question of justification seems to raise issues about capital punishment that are “more squarely within the province of political philosophy” (Simmons, 311).

Contractarian accounts of the state share the feature that authority is derived from or constructed out of the authority granted to it by individuals that have or would “contract” to create it (see Social Contract Theory ).  Any authority of the state to punish by death is, then, consent-based.  Thus, for example, as with others in the natural rights tradition, John Locke’s contractarian approach grounds state authority in individuals transferring their pre-political right to punish (including by death) those who have violated another’s basic rights by killing.   As Locke maintains in his Second Treatise on Government , the purpose of the state is to protect individuals’ basic rights, and individuals each grant the state the authority to protect rights through laws and punishments that are effective and comply with natural law principles about the amount of punishment (that is, lex talionis ).  Though invoking such a pre-political right of individuals to punish is common in the natural rights tradition, and though there are some recent defenders of such an approach among libertarians (for example, Nozick), Locke himself admits that the notion of a natural executive right to punish “will seem a very strange doctrine to some men” ( Treatis e, sec. 9).

The classic contractarian theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes also justify state authority to punish by death on grounds of individuals’ consent.  In the Leviathan , the pre-political state of nature is famously characterized by Hobbes as a life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (89; Ch. 13).  This life in the state of nature is so insecure that each person, as a means to self-preservation, authorizes the created sovereign power—the state—to punish by death criminal misconduct “to the end that the will of men may thereby better be disposed to obedience” (214; Ch. 28).  Rousseau, in On the Social Contract , holds that “the social treaty has as its purpose the conservation of the contracting parties,” each of whom wills the means to end of preserving his life.  “And whoever wishes to preserve his own life at the expense of others should also give it up for them when necessary….  It is in order to avoid being the victim of an assassin that a person consents to die, were he to become one” (35; Book II, Ch. v).  And so, Rousseau maintains, the political society has the right to put to death, even as an example, those who cannot be preserved without danger to others or the society itself.  In the case of all the classic social contract theories of the state, individuals’ consent to the practice of capital punishment is included in the created authority of the state to rule and to punish.

Some more recent contractarian accounts of state authority to punish are explored in the spirit of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice , with its Kantian conceptions of rationality and basic human goods (for example, liberties, autonomy, dignity).  The general idea is that a system of social cooperation is just if it would be consented to by rational, mutually disinterested individuals making their choice while ignorant of particularities about themselves and their own place in the system.  Such contractarian approaches typically support a penal system which merges both retributivist and utilitarian approaches in establishing a just system of punishment.  Whether such contractarian approaches justify capital punishment depends, as do classic social contract theories, on the details of the conditions under which a rational choice would be made.  A recent proponent of a contractarian theory of punishment, for example, argues that individuals would consent to an institution only if it would leave individuals better off than they would be in its absence.  This “benefit principle,” it is argued, justifies a system of punishment, as each would be better off with punitive sanctions than without.  As to capital punishment, though, “[c]an a person who receives the death penalty… regard himself as better off… than he would have been had he never agreed to the contract in the first place” (Finkelstein, “A Contractarian Approach…,” 216)?  There is a paradoxical air to individuals consenting to a system whereby they may be executed.  Finkelstein argues that, even if the death penalty deters, the benefit principle is not satisfied by a system of punishment that includes the death penalty.  On this contemporary contractarian theory, then, capital punishment is not justified because it would not be agreed to by rational individuals choosing the social institutions under which they would live.

A quite different approach to justifying state authority to punish by death appeals to the idea of societal self-defense or self-protection.  In a short piece, “On Punishment,” John Stuart Mill says, “the only right by which society is warranted in inflicting any pain upon any human creature, is the right of self-defense…. Our right to punish, is a branch of the universal right of self-defence”(79).  One recent development of this approach argues that a societal right of self-protection entails the right to threaten punishment for misconduct, and that a right to impose punishments follows from the society’s right to threaten sanctions (Quinn).  Whether a society has a right to threaten or impose a death penalty for murder, then, is based on its efficacy for deterrence and incapacitation, that is, as a protector of society.  A second, slightly different argument appeals more directly to the model of individual self-defense as a right.  Just as an individual has a right to use deadly force to address imminent, unavoidable aggression against self or other innocent parties, so society, as a collective, has a right to employ deadly force to address violent aggression against innocent third parties within that society.  The amount of punishment that society has the right to employ is constrained as it is for an individual’s moral right of self-defense: the response must be proportionate to the threatened loss.  So, given a moral right of individuals to employ deadly force in defense of their own or other innocents’ lives, by analogy society has such a right to use death as a punishment for murders of innocent third parties in the society.  Whether as an exercise of a right of self-protection or self-defense, the state then has the right to institute capital punishment for serious crimes such as murder.

7. References and Further Reading

A. primary sources.

• References to this extensive work are by number of question and article in the second part of part two (i.e., II-II), available at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18755/pg18755.html.
• Quotations and references are by page number and chapter number to this translation and edition.
• References to this classic text are by chapter and section number.
• Camus, Albert. “Reflections on the Guillotine.” Resistance, Rebellion, and Death. Trans. Justin O’Brien. New York: Knopf, 1966. 175-234.
• Hegel, G.W.F. The Philosophy of Right. (1821) Trans. T. M. Knox. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
• References to this text are by pagination in this edition, followed by chapter number, to allow reliance on various translations and editions available in print or on-line.
• Quotations and parenthetical references are from this translation and edition, followed by the standard AK pagination, to allow reliance on various translations and editions available in print or on-line.
• Quotations are from this recent scholarly edition; all references are to section number of The Second Treatise, to allow reliance on various other editions available on-line or in print.
• Marx, Karl. “Capital Punishment.” New York Tribune. 1853. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/18.htm.
• Mill, John Stuart. ”Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment 1868.” The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. XXVIII.: Public and Parliamentary Speeches. Eds. John M. Robson and Bruce Kinzer. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988. pp. 266-273. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mill-the-collected-works-of-john-stuart-mill-volume-xxviii-public-and-parliamentary-speeches-part-i.
• Mill, John Stuart. “On Punishment.” The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. XXI: Equality, Law, and Education. Ed. John M. Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984, pp. 77-79. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mill-the-collected-works-of-john-stuart-mill-volume-xxi-essays-on-equality-law-and-education.
• Plato. The Collected Dialogues. Ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.
• Ross, W.D. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930.
• Quotations and references are to this translation and edition, using page number followed by book and chapter number, to allow reliance on various translations and editions available in print or on-line.

b. Secondary Sources

• Bailey, William C. and Ruth D. Peterson. “Murder, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence: A Review of the Literature.” The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. Ed. Hugo Adam Bedau. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. 135-161.
• An excellent, thoughtful, and readable rendition of the long history of death penalty law and practice in America, from colonial beginnings through the end of the 20th century.
• Bedau, Hugo Adam. “Bentham’s Utilitarian Critique of the Death Penalty.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 74 (1983): 1033-1065.
• Bedau, Hugo Adam. “Capital Punishment.” Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy. Third edition. Ed. Tom Regan. New York: Random House, 1980. 160-194.
• Despite its publication date, this anthology is still quite useful. It is the best, basic reference for primary and secondary source materials related to American death penalty law, constitutional issues, Supreme Court decisions, public attitudes, social scientific studies of deterrence, and explorations of procedural problems with capital punishment, including matters of race.
• Bedau has long been a prominent philosophic scholar specializing in research and writing about capital punishment in the United States. The first half of this volume is primarily descriptive of the American system, including problematic procedural outcomes and some recent history of the death penalty. The second half of the book “undertakes a critical evaluation…from a constitutional and ethical point of view.” As a matter of applied ethics, Bedau argues for abolition of the death penalty in reasonably just, constitutional democracies, such as the United States.
• Written by a legal scholar, an accessible appeal to problematic outcomes of American criminal procedure as justification for abolishing the death penalty.
• Caplan, Arthur A. “Should Physicians Participate in Capital Punishment?” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82 (2007): 1047-48. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)61363-3/fulltext
• Conway, David A. “Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Considerations in Dialogue Form.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 3 (1974): 431-443.
• Davis, Michael. “Harm and Retribution.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 15 (1986): 236-266.
• Duff, R. A. Punishment, Communication, and Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
• Dworkin, Gerald. “Patients and Prisoners: The Ethics of Legal Injection.” Analysis 62 (2002): 181-189.
• Feinberg, Joel. “The Expressive Function of Punishment. Doing and Deserving. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. 95-118.
• Feinberg, Joel. “Noncomparative Justice.” Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. 265-306.
• Finkelstein, Claire. “A Contractarian Approach to Punishment.” The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Ed. Martin Golding and William Edmundson. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 207-220.
• Finkelstein, Claire. “A Contractarian Argument Against the Death Penalty.” New York University Law Review 81 (2006): 1283-1330.
• Gaie, Joseph B.R. The Ethics of Medical Involvement in Capital Punishment: A Philosophical Discussion. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
• Hampton, Jean. “The Moral Education Theory of Punishment.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 13 (1984): 208-238.
• Hart, H.L.A. “Bentham and Beccaria.” Essays on Bentham. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. 40-52.
• This essay remains hugely influential in providing the dominant framework for philosophic theories of punishment, including the death penalty.
• Hart, H.L.A. “Punishment and the Elimination of Responsibility.” Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. pp. 158-185.
• Heyd, David. “Hobbes on Capital Punishment.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 8 (1991): 119-134.
• Litton, Paul, Physician Participation in Executions, the Morality of Capital Punishment, and the Practical Implications of Their Relationship (June 28, 2013). 41 Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics 333 (2013); University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-13.  https://ssrn.com/abstract=2286788.
• Mackenzie, Mary Margaret. Plato on Punishment. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
• McGowen, Randall. “The Death Penalty.” The Oxford Handbook of the History of Crime and Criminal Justice. Edited by Paul Knepper and Anja Johansen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 615-634.
• Montague, Phillip. Punishment as Societal Defense. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995.
• Morris, Herbert. “Persons and Punishment.” The Monist 52 (1968): 475-501.
• Murphy, Jeffrie. “Marxism and Retribution.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 2 (1973): 217-243.
• An accessible, readable argument to the conclusion “that the death penalty is not morally acceptable.” Nathanson considers a variety of arguments offered in defense of capital punishment in America: deterrence, costs, problematic procedural outcomes, moral desert and the death penalty, American constitutional considerations. An especially helpful treatment of the arguments based on criminal procedure in America.
• Nathanson, Stephen. “Does It Matter if the Death Penalty Is Arbitrarily Administered?” Philosophy & Public Affairs 14 (1985): 149-164. Print.
• Chapter 4 deals with theories of punishment (retributive and deterrence) with respect to a contractarian theory of a libertarian state developed in the spirit of John Locke’s emphasis on individual rights.
• Section III of Chapter 4 (pp. 363-398) deals with punishment as communication, including some ambivalence about its implications for the death penalty for murderous offenders.
• Nussbaum, Martha. “Equity and Mercy.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 22 (1993): 83-125.
• Pojman, Louis. “For the Death Penalty.” The Death Penalty: For and Against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998. 1-66.
• Distinctly different, opposing, nuanced approaches to the death penalty in the context of more general theories about punishment and illustrating ways in which justifications are often hybrid theories that synthesize elements of retributivism and consequentialism. Both authors also address the import of imperfect criminal procedures in the administration of the death penalty in America (or perhaps anywhere). The text includes a response by each to the other’s arguments.
• Quinn, Warren. “The Right to Threaten and the Right to Punish.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 4 (1985): 327-373.
• Radin, Margaret Jane. “Cruel Punishment and Respect for Person: Super Due Process for Death.” Southern California Law Review 53 (1980): 1143-1185.
• Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Revised edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971, 1999.
• Reiman, Jeffrey. “Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 14 (1985): 115-148.
• Reiman, Jeffrey. “Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished in America.” The Death Penalty: For and Against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998. 67-132.
• An excellent survey of the title topic, an aspect of capital punishment not often engaged in the work of others in this list.
• Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1949-1953.: Report. Cmd.8932. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1953.
• Simmons, A. John. “Locke and the Right to Punish.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 20 (1991): 311-349.
• An excellent analysis of the arguments of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in defense of capital punishment for at least some murders.
• Though the primary aim of this book is to show how philosophic arguments and theories “can be useful in producing an improved moral rhetoric,” Sorell does offer a non-consequentialist and retributivist defense of capital punishment on the ground that murderers deserve to die. He opposes alternative forms of retributivism (e.g., appeals to fairness) and argues that utilitarian or consequentialist arguments are inconclusive, including J.S. Mill’s little-known defense of capital punishment.
• Stalley, R.F. An Introduction to Plato’s Laws. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983.
• A clear, organized introduction to an array of recent theories of punishment, though not specifically addressed to issues of capital punishment. Chapter 7, “The Amount of Punishment,” engages retributivist and utilitarian approaches to justifying the form or kind of punishment for offenders.
• United Nations. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” (1948). http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.
• United Nations. “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” (1976). http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.
• United States. House of Representatives. The Constitution of the United States of America. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2000. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf.
• Waisel, David. “Physician Participation in Capital Punishment.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82 (2007): 1073-1080. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)61369-4/fulltext.

Author Information

Robert Hoag Email: [email protected] Berea College U.S.A.

An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.

Capital Punishment Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on capital punishment.

Every one of us is familiar with the term punishment. But Capital Punishment is something very few people understand. Capital punishment is a legal death penalty ordered by the court against the violation of criminal laws. In addition, the method of punishment varies from country to country. Where some countries hung the culprits until death and some shoot or give them a lethal injection.

Types of Capital Punishments

In this topic, we are going to discuss the various methods of punishment that are used in different countries. But, before that let’s talk about the capital punishments that people used in the past. Earlier, the capital punishments are more like torture rather than a death penalty. They used to strain and punish the body of the culprit to the extreme that he/she dies because of the pain and fear of torture.

Besides, modern methods are quicker and less painful than traditional methods.

• Electrocution – In this method, the criminal is tied to a chair and a high voltage current that can kill a man easily is passed through the body. In addition, it causes organ failure (especially heart).
• Tranquilization – This method gives the person a slow but painless death as the toxin injections are injected into his body that takes up to several hours for the criminal to die.
• Beheading – Generally, the Arab and Gulf countries use this method. Where they decide the death sentence by the crime of the person. Furthermore, in this method, they simply cut the person’s head apart from the body.
• Stoning – In this the criminal is beaten till death. Also, it is the most painful method of execution.
• Shooting – The criminal is either shoot in the head or in his/her chest in this method.
• Hanging – This method simply involves the hanging of culprit till death.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Advantages and Disadvantages of Capital Punishments

Although many people think that it’s a violation of human rights and the Human Rights Commission strongly opposes capital punishment still many countries continue this practice.

The advantages of capital punishment are that they give people an idea of what the law is capable of doing and the criminal can never escape from the punishment no matter who he/she is.

In addition, anyone who is thinking about committing a crime will think twice before committing a crime. Furthermore, a criminal that is in prison for his crime cannot harm anyone of the outside world.

The disadvantages are that we do not give the person a second chance to change. Besides, many times the real criminal escape the trial and the innocent soul of the prosecution claimed to guilty by false claims. Also, many punishments are painful and make a mess of the body of the criminal.

To conclude, we can say that capital punishment is the harsh reality of our world. Also, on one hand, it decreases the crime rate and on the other violates many human rights.

Besides, all these types of punishment are not justifiable and the court and administrative bodies should try to find an alternative for it.

FAQs about Capital Punishment

Q.1 What is the difference between the death penalty and capital punishment?

A.1 For many people the term death penalty and capital punishment is the same thing but there is a minute difference between them. The implementation of the death penalty is not death but capital punishment itself means execution.

Q.2 Does capital punishment decrease the rate of crime?

A.2 There is no solid proof related to this but scientists think that reduces the chances of major crimes to a certain level.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Capital Punishment Essay

Essay on Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment is the execution of a person given by the state as a means of Justice for a crime that he has committed. It is a legal course of action taken by the state whereby a person is put to death as a punishment for a crime. There are various methods of capital punishment in order to execute a criminal such as lethal injection, hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, etc. Based on moral and humanitarian grounds, capital punishment is subjected to many controversies not only at the national level but also at the global platform. One must understand the death sentence by itself.

Many records of various civilizations and primal tribal methods denote that the death penalty was a part of their justice system. The system of the prison was evolved to keep people in confinement for some time who have done wrong in their life and was harmful to society. The idea behind keeping the criminal in the prison was to give them a chance to change and reform themselves. The idea works well with people who have done minor offences like theft, robbery, etc. A complication arises when grievous offences like brutal and inhumane acts of rape, murder, mass killing, etc. are involved. So, the contentious part is the grimness of the crime, which is the deciding reason for execution. 

During the 20th century period, millions of people died in the wars between the nations or states. In this violent period, military organizations practised capital punishment as a way of maintaining discipline. The death penalty was employed for crimes in many religious beliefs and historically was practised widely with the support of religious hierarchies. Today, there is no religious faith attached to the morality of capital punishment. It has been left to the discretion of the judiciary system to award the punishment in special circumstances. 

Most people feel that punishment for crimes like murders, rapes, and mass killings should not be death but some reformative or preventive sentence. The death penalty cannot reform a criminal, since once dead he cannot be reformed. Some people hold the view that no one has the right to take away anyone’s life for any reason. One should not take the role of God in taking away anybody’s life. At the same time, a criminal has no right to take away anyone’s life for any reason at all. If a person could go to an extent of taking someone’s life, he too has no right to live in a civilized society. Both the arguments can be cited to support viewpoints that are poles apart. 

Mankind has coined a large number of methods of capital punishment:

hanging by the rope until a person breathes his last.

death by electric current.

the murderer faces a firing squad.

the offender is beheaded and executed.

the culprit is poisoned.

the offender is stoned to death.

he is burnt alive at the stake.

the criminal is made to drown.

the criminal is thrown before hungry beasts of prey.

death through crucifixion.

Guillotine.

the offender is thrown into a poisonous gas chamber.

Methods can be different but all of these methods have one thing common and that is capital punishment is barbaric in all forms. It is savage and vindictive. It is a relic of an uncivilized era. Many people say that the methods by which executions are carried out involve physical torture. Contrary to the popular belief that the death penalty deters all future crimes, various surveys have shown that the threat of the death penalty does not in any way reduce the occurrence of violent crimes. 

Capital Punishment in India

Capital punishment in India does not come with a single stoke. The practice of Capital punishment is not very common in India. In our country, the Court of Session awards a death sentence according to the gravity of the offence, and this verdict requires confirmation by the High Court. Then an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court of India. In some cases, an appeal to the Supreme Court lies as a matter of right, where the High Court has reversed the verdict of the Sessions Court either into acquittal or punishment or has enhanced the sentence to capital punishment. 

Lastly, if needed an appeal can be made to the president of India and the governors of states for mercy. The President is solely guided by the notes in the files by the Home Minister or the Secretariat. He is bound to pen down the reasons for mercy. It is exercised very judiciously. 

Contemplating over capital punishment has been ramping on for a countless number of years. It is true that the death sentence is not the solution to the increase in crimes but at the same time, capital punishment inflicts physiological fear in the minds of people. In many countries, the use of this punishment has helped to deter crimes and change the minds of future criminals against committing heinous crimes. Capital punishment should be given in the rare of the rarest cases after proper investigation of the criminal’s offence. 

FAQs on Capital Punishment Essay

Q1. What Do You Understand By Capital Punishment?

Ans. Capital Punishment is the execution of a person given by the state as a means of Justice for a crime that he has committed. It is a legal course of action taken by the state whereby a person is put to death as a punishment for a crime. There are quite a few methods of capital punishment to execute a criminal such as lethal injection, hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, etc.

Q2. Why Do Some People Argue Against Capital Punishment?

Ans. Some people argue against capital punishment because they hold the view that no one other than God has the right to take anyone’s life. They argue that criminals should get a chance to change or reform themselves into good and responsible human beings. If they are executed, then they cannot be reformed.

Q3. What are Some Methods that Mankind has Coined for Capital Punishment?

Ans. Mankind has coined various methods of capital punishment:

the criminal is burnt alive at the stake.

the offender is thrown before hungry beasts of prey.

Q4. Does Capital Punishment Deter the Rate of Crimes?

Ans. There is no solid evidence to the theory of capital punishment that it reduces the crime rate but yes it does instil psychological fear in the minds of future criminals against committing heinous crimes.

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

Capital punishment is an ancient practice. It’s one that human rights defenders strongly oppose and consider as inhumane and cruel. In 2019, Amnesty International reported the lowest number of executions in about a decade. Most executions occurred in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt . The United States is the only developed western country still using capital punishment. What does this say about the US? Here are five essays about the death penalty everyone should read:

“When We Kill”

By: Nicholas Kristof | From: The New York Times 2019

In this excellent essay, Pulitizer-winner Nicholas Kristof explains how he first became interested in the death penalty. He failed to write about a man on death row in Texas. The man, Cameron Todd Willingham, was executed in 2004. Later evidence showed that the crime he supposedly committed – lighting his house on fire and killing his three kids – was more likely an accident. In “When We Kill,” Kristof puts preconceived notions about the death penalty under the microscope. These include opinions such as only guilty people are executed, that those guilty people “deserve” to die, and the death penalty deters crime and saves money. Based on his investigations, Kristof concludes that they are all wrong.

Nicholas Kristof has been a Times columnist since 2001. He’s the winner of two Pulitizer Prices for his coverage of China and the Darfur genocide.

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was on death row for 14 years. In his essay, he opens with the line, “Ironically, there is probably more hope on death row than would be found in most other places.” He states that everyone is capable of murder, questioning if people who support capital punishment are just as guilty as the people they execute. Darden goes on to say that if every murderer was executed, there would be 20,000 killed per day. Instead, a person is put on death row for something like flawed wording in an appeal. Darden feels like he was picked at random, like someone who gets a terminal illness. This essay is important to read as it gives readers a deeper, more personal insight into death row.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was sentenced to death in 1974 for murder. During his time on death row, he advocated for his innocence and pointed out problems with his trial, such as the jury pool that excluded black people. Despite worldwide support for Darden from public figures like the Pope, Darden was executed in 1988.

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

This piece is a transcript of Bryan Stevenson’s 2012 TED talk, but we feel it’s important to include because of Stevenson’s contributions to criminal justice. In the talk, Stevenson discusses the death penalty at several points. He points out that for years, we’ve been taught to ask the question, “Do people deserve to die for their crimes?” Stevenson brings up another question we should ask: “Do we deserve to kill?” He also describes the American death penalty system as defined by “error.” Somehow, society has been able to disconnect itself from this problem even as minorities are disproportionately executed in a country with a history of slavery.

Bryan Stevenson is a lawyer, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, and author. He’s argued in courts, including the Supreme Court, on behalf of the poor, minorities, and children. A film based on his book Just Mercy was released in 2019 starring Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Foxx.

“I Know What It’s Like To Carry Out Executions”

By: S. Frank Thompson | From: The Atlantic 2019

In the death penalty debate, we often hear from the family of the victims and sometimes from those on death row. What about those responsible for facilitating an execution? In this opinion piece, a former superintendent from the Oregon State Penitentiary outlines his background. He carried out the only two executions in Oregon in the past 55 years, describing it as having a “profound and traumatic effect” on him. In his decades working as a correctional officer, he concluded that the death penalty is not working . The United States should not enact federal capital punishment.

Frank Thompson served as the superintendent of OSP from 1994-1998. Before that, he served in the military and law enforcement. When he first started at OSP, he supported the death penalty. He changed his mind when he observed the protocols firsthand and then had to conduct an execution.

“There Is No Such Thing As Closure on Death Row”

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

This essay is from Paul Brown, a death row inmate in Raleigh, North Carolina. He recalls the moment of his sentencing in a cold courtroom in August. The prosecutor used the term “closure” when justifying a death sentence. Who is this closure for? Brown theorizes that the prosecutors are getting closure as they end another case, but even then, the cases are just a way to further their careers. Is it for victims’ families? Brown is doubtful, as the death sentence is pursued even when the families don’t support it. There is no closure for Brown or his family as they wait for his execution. Vivid and deeply-personal, this essay is a must-read for anyone who wonders what it’s like inside the mind of a death row inmate.

Paul Brown has been on death row since 2000 for a double murder. He is a contributing writer to Prison Writers and shares essays on topics such as his childhood, his life as a prisoner, and more.

You may also like

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Human Rights — Capital Punishment

Essays on Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is a controversial and thought-provoking topic that has been debated for decades. Writing an essay on capital punishment can be a challenging task, especially when it comes to choosing the right topic. In this article, we will discuss the importance of the topic, provide advice on choosing a topic, and present a detailed list of recommended essay topics, divided by category.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a highly divisive issue that has sparked fierce debate around the world. It raises questions about morality, justice, and the role of the state in taking the life of a convicted criminal. Writing an essay on capital punishment allows students to explore these complex issues and develop critical thinking skills. Moreover, it provides an opportunity to examine the social, ethical, and legal implications of the death penalty, making it an important and relevant topic for academic study.

When choosing a topic for a capital punishment essay, it is important to consider your interests and the specific aspects of the death penalty that you find compelling. You may want to explore the history of capital punishment, its ethical implications, its effectiveness as a deterrent, or its impact on society. Additionally, consider the current debates and controversies surrounding the death penalty, as these can provide a rich source of material for your essay.

Recommended Capital Punishment Essay Topics

History of capital punishment.

• The origins of capital punishment
• The evolution of execution methods
• Famous historical cases of capital punishment
• The abolition of the death penalty in certain countries

Ethical and Moral Considerations

• The morality of the death penalty
• Religious perspectives on capital punishment
• The rights of the condemned
• The ethics of executing the innocent

Effectiveness and Deterrence

• The effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent
• Comparing crime rates in states with and without the death penalty
• The psychological impact of the death penalty on society
• Alternatives to capital punishment

Legal and Social Justice Issues

• Racial disparities in death penalty sentencing
• The role of capital punishment in the criminal justice system
• International perspectives on the death penalty
• The impact of capital punishment on victims' families

Contemporary Debates and Controversies

• The use of lethal injection as an execution method
• The debate over capital punishment for juveniles
• The role of the media in shaping public opinion on the death penalty
• The impact of public opinion on the future of the death penalty

These are just a few examples of the many possible essay topics related to capital punishment. Regardless of the specific topic you choose, it is important to approach the subject with an open mind and a willingness to engage with different perspectives. By considering the historical, ethical, legal, and social aspects of the death penalty, you can develop a well-rounded and insightful essay that contributes to the ongoing discourse on this important issue.

The Death Penalty: is It Ethical and Effective in Crime Prevention?

The ineffectiveness of capital punishment: a critical analysis, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Conflict Theory Perspective on Poverty

Why capital punishment should be legalized, the capital punishment and the society's self defense by amber young, the role of capital punishment in lessening crime, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

A History of Capital Punishment in America

Abolishment of capital punishment, different arguments on whether capital punishment can be justified, the best solution to the views of capital punishment in our society, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

The ethics of capital punishment: death is not a right decision, against the death penalty: a persuasive argument for abolition, reasoning against the death penalty in america, justice and death penalty: views of edward i. koch and david von drehle, analysis of the effect of death penalty on crime rates in iran, evaluation of the justification of the death penalty, controversial topic of the death sentence, analysis of "death and justice: how capital punishment affirms life" by edward koch, revisiting the debate on capital punishment: an ielts perspective, emotivism and social darwinism and its ethical applications, analysis of edward koch’s argument in death and justice, capital punishment: legality, effectiveness, and availability of alternatives, death penalty: a cruel and unusual punishment or justice in work, how the death penalty violates human rights, thesis statement is capital punishment constitutional, death penalty as a cruel and unusual punishment, how the death penalty violates the 8th amendment, the death penalty's ineffectiveness as a crime deterrent, the pros of the death penalty: a comprehensive analysis, relevant topics.

• Freedom of Speech
• Gun Control
• Death Penalty
• Police Brutality
• Child Labour
• Breastfeeding in Public

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

The research on capital punishment: Recent scholarship and unresolved questions

2014 review of research on capital punishment, including studies that attempt to quantify rates of innocence and the potential deterrence effect on crime.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Alexandra Raphel and John Wihbey, The Journalist's Resource January 5, 2015

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/criminal-justice/research-capital-punishment-key-recent-studies/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Over the past year the death penalty has again come into focus as a major public policy and political issue, catalyzed by several high-profile events.

The botched execution of convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma in 2014 was seen as a potential turning point in the debate, bringing increased attention to the mechanisms by which persons are executed. That was followed by a number of other closely scrutinized cases, and the year ended with few executions relative to years past. On December 31, 2014, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley commuted the sentences of the remaining four prisoners on death row in that state. In 2013, Maryland became the 18th state to abolish the death penalty after Connecticut in 2012 and New Mexico in 2009.

Meanwhile, polling data suggests some softening of public attitudes, though the majority Americans continue to support capital punishment. Gallop noted in October 2014 that the level of public support (60%) is at its lowest in 40 years. A Washington Post -ABC News poll in mid-2014 found that more Americans support life sentences, rather than the death penalty, for convicted murderers. Further, recent polls from the Pew Research Center indicate that only a bare majority of Americans now support capital punishment, 55%, down from 78% in 1996.

Scholarly research sheds light on a number of important aspects of this issue:

False convictions

One key reason for the contentious debate is the concern that states are executing innocent people. How many people are unjustly facing the death penalty? By definition, it is difficult to obtain a reliable answer to this question. Presumably if judges, juries, and law enforcement were always able to conclusively determine who was innocent, those defendants would simply not be convicted in the first place. When capital punishment is the sentence, however, this issue takes on new importance.

Some believe that when it comes to death-penalty cases, this is not a huge cause for concern. In his concurrent opinion in the 2006 Supreme Court case Kansas v. Marsh , Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the execution error rate was minimal, around 0.027%. However, a 2014 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the figure could be higher. Authors Samuel Gross (University of Michigan Law School), Barbara O’Brien (Michigan State University College of Law), Chen Hu (American College of Radiology) and Edward H. Kennedy (University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine) examine data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Department of Justice relating to exonerations from 1973 to 2004 in an attempt to estimate the rate of false convictions among death row defendants. (Determining innocence with full certainty is an obvious challenge, so as a proxy they use exoneration — “an official determination that a convicted defendant is no longer legally culpable for the crime.”) In short, the researchers ask: If all death row prisoners were to remain under this sentence indefinitely, how many of them would have eventually been found innocent (exonerated)?

Interestingly, the authors also note that advances in DNA identification technology are unlikely to have a large impact on false conviction rates because DNA evidence is most often used in cases of rape rather than homicide. To date, only about 13% of death row exonerations were the result of DNA testing. The Innocence Project , a litigation and public policy organization founded in 1992, has been deeply involved in many such cases.

Death penalty deterrence effects: What do we know?

A chief way proponents of capital punishment defend the practice is the idea that the death penalty deters other people from committing future crimes. For example, research conducted by John J. Donohue III (Yale Law School) and Justin Wolfers (University of Pennsylvania) applies economic theory to the issue: If people act as rational maximizers of their profits or well-being, perhaps there is reason to believe that the most severe of punishments would serve as a deterrent. (The findings of their 2009 study on this issue, “Estimating the Impact of the Death Penalty on Murder,” are inconclusive.) In contrast, one could also imagine a scenario in which capital punishment leads to an increased homicide rate because of a broader perception that the state devalues human life. It could also be possible that the death penalty has no effect at all because information about executions is not diffused in a way that influences future behavior.

In 1978 — two years after the Supreme Court issued its decision reversing a previous ban on the death penalty ( Gregg v. Georgia ) — the National Research Council (NRC) published a comprehensive review of the current research on capital punishment to determine whether one of these hypotheses was more empirically supported than the others. The NRC concluded that “available studies provide no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment.”

Researchers have subsequently used a number of methods in an effort to get closer to an accurate estimate of the deterrence effect of the death penalty. Many of the studies have reached conflicting conclusions, however. To conduct an updated review, the NRC formed the Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty, comprised of academics from economics departments and public policy schools from institutions around the country, including the Carnegie Mellon University, University of Chicago and Duke University.

In 2012, the Committee published an updated report that concluded that not much had changed in recent decades: “Research conducted in the 30 years since the earlier NRC report has not sufficiently advanced knowledge to allow a conclusion, however qualified, about the effect of the death penalty on homicide rates.” The report goes on to recommend that none of the reviewed reports be used to influence public policy decisions on the death penalty.

Why has the research not been able to provide any definitive answers about the impact of the death penalty? One general challenge is that when it comes to capital punishment, a counter-factual policy is simply not observable. You cannot simultaneously execute and not execute defendants, making it difficult to isolate the impact of the death penalty. The Committee also highlights a number of key flaws in the research designs:

• There are both capital and non-capital punishment options for people charged with serious crimes. So, the relevant question on the deterrent effect of capital punishment specifically “is the differential deterrent effect of execution in comparison with the deterrent effect of other available or commonly used penalties.” None of the studies reviewed by the Committee took into account these severe, but noncapital punishments, which could also have an effect on future behaviors and could confound the estimated deterrence effect of capital punishment.
• “They use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers’ perceptions of and response to the capital punishment component of a sanction regime”
• “The existing studies use strong and unverifiable assumptions to identify the effects of capital punishment on homicides.”

In a 2012 study, “Deterrence and the Dealth Penalty: Partial Identificaiton Analysis Using Repeated Cross Sections,” authors Charles F. Manski (Northwestern University) and John V. Pepper (University of Virginia) focus on the third challenge. They note: “Data alone cannot reveal what the homicide rate in a state without (with) a death penalty would have been had the state (not) adopted a death penalty statute. Here, as always when analyzing treatment response, data must be combined with assumptions to enable inference on counterfactual outcomes.”

However, even though the authors do not arrive at a definitive conclusion, the National Research Council Committee notes that this type of research holds some value: “Rather than imposing the strong but unsupported assumptions required to identify the effect of capital punishment on homicides in a single model or an ad hoc set of similar models, approaches that explicitly account for model uncertainty may provide a constructive way for research to provide credible albeit incomplete answers.”

Another strategy researchers have taken is to limit the focus of studies on potential short-term effects of the death penalty. In a 2009 paper, “The Short-Term Effects of Executions on Homicides: Deterrence, Displacement, or Both?” authors Kenneth C. Land and Hui Zheng of Duke University, along with Raymond Teske Jr. of Sam Houston State University, examine monthly execution data (1980-2005) from Texas, “a state that has used the death penalty with sufficient frequency to make possible relatively stable estimates of the homicide response to executions.” They conclude that “evidence exists of modest, short-term reductions in the numbers of homicides in Texas in the months of or after executions.” Depending on which model they use, these deterrent effects range from 1.6 to 2.5 homicides.

The NRC’s Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty commented on the findings, explaining: “Land, Teske and Zheng (2009) should be commended for distinguishing between periods in Texas when the use of capital punishment appears to have been erratic and when it appears to have been systematic. But they fail to integrate this distinction into a coherently delineated behavioral model that incorporates sanctions regimes, salience, and deterrence. And, as explained above, their claims of evidence of deterrence in the systematic regime are flawed.”

A more recent paper (2012) from the three authors, “The Differential Short-Term Impacts of Executions on Felony and Non-Felony Homicides,” addresses some of these concerns. Published in Criminology and Public Policy , the paper reviews and updates some of their earlier findings by exploring “what information can be gained by disaggregating the homicide data into those homicides committed in the course of another felony crime, which are subject to capital punishment, and those committed otherwise.” The results produce a number of different findings and models, including that “the short-lived deterrence effect of executions is concentrated among non-felony-type homicides.”

Other factors to consider

The question of what kinds of “mitigating” factors should prevent the criminal justice system from moving forward with an execution remains hotly disputed. A 2014 paper published in the Hastings Law Journal , “The Failure of Mitigation?” by scholars at the University of North Carolina and DePaul University, investigates recent executions of persons with possible mental or intellectual disabilities. The authors reviewed 100 cases and conclude that the “overwhelming majority of executed offenders suffered from intellectual impairments, were barely into adulthood, wrestled with severe mental illness, or endured profound childhood trauma.”

Two significant recommendations for reforming the existing process also are supported by some academic research. A 2010 study by Pepperdine University School of Law published in Temple Law Review , “Unpredictable Doom and Lethal Injustice: An Argument for Greater Transparency in Death Penalty Decisions,” surveyed the decision-making process among various state prosecutors. At the request of a state commission, the authors first surveyed California district attorneys; they also examined data from the other 36 states that have the death penalty. The authors found that prosecutors’ capital punishment filing decisions remain marked by local “idiosyncrasies,” meaning that “the very types of unfairness that the Supreme Court sought to eliminate” beginning in 1972 may still “infect capital cases.” They encourage “requiring prosecutors to adhere to an established set of guidelines.” Finally, there has been growing support for taping interrogations of suspects in capital cases, so as to guard against the phenomenon of false confessions .

Related reading: For an international perspective on capital punishment, see Amnesty International’s 2013 report ; for more information on the evolution of U.S. public opinion on the death penalty, see historical trends from Gallup .

Keywords: crime, prisons, death penalty, capital punishment

About the Authors

Alexandra Raphel

John Wihbey

Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral? Essay

Introduction, works cited.

Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.

The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).

Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims. The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).

It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter 10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).” (Kant).

Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand, retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18 th century abolitionist Cesare De Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind.”

This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.

It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.

In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason, rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers. Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance of redemption.

Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent lives.

Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society. Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members, loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.

Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.

To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized? The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.

Kant, Immanuel. Death Penalty. Book Rags. 2008. Web.

Kant, Immanuel. Death Penalty: Retributive Arguments.. Book Rags. 2006. Web.

Student Essay on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe. Book Rags. 2006. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, October 22). Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral? https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/

"Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" IvyPanda , 22 Oct. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral'. 22 October.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" October 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

1. IvyPanda . "Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" October 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" October 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

• Blame Them if You Are a True Patriot
• Acids, Bases and pH Testing: A Physics Lab
• Is the Death Penalty Effective?
• The Death Penalty, a Matter of Morals
• Is Punishment Best Justified by a Utilitarian, Retributive or by a Mixed Theory?
• Lethal Injection as Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• Capital Punishment in the US Analysis
• Death Penalty: Critical Thinking and Arguments

Rethinking Justice: why the Death Penalty should be Abolished

This essay about the reasons to abolish the death penalty discusses the ethical, practical, and financial implications of capital punishment. It argues that the irreversible nature of the death penalty, coupled with the risk of executing innocent people, raises serious moral concerns. The essay also points out the lack of evidence supporting the death penalty as a crime deterrent and highlights the biases in its application, which disproportionately affect minorities and those of lower socio-economic status. Additionally, it notes the higher costs of death penalty cases compared to life imprisonment. Finally, the essay emphasizes a shift in global norms, with a growing number of countries abolishing the death penalty in favor of more humane approaches to justice. This reflects a broader move toward upholding human rights and fostering a fair and equitable justice system.

How it works

The death penalty has always been a hot-button issue, sparking debates that cut deep into our moral and ethical fibers. But as society evolves, so too should our justice system. There are several powerful, human-centered reasons why the death penalty feels like an outdated relic in today’s legal landscape.

Let’s start with the moral quandary it presents. Taking a life, under any circumstance, raises a multitude of ethical questions. One of the most troubling aspects of capital punishment is the chilling possibility of executing an innocent person.

Since 1973, over 185 individuals on death row in the United States were exonerated. This isn’t just a statistic; it’s a glaring reminder of how irreversible and final the death penalty is. Mistakes in other areas of justice can often be rectified, but there is no undoing an execution.

Then there’s the argument about whether the death penalty actually deters crime. The evidence here is shaky at best. Numerous studies have shown that harsh penalties like execution do not effectively prevent crime more than life imprisonment. If deterrence is the goal, the death penalty misses the mark, which begs the question: why keep it?

Bias in the death penalty’s application adds another layer of concern. The system shows troubling disparities, particularly with racial biases and socioeconomic status influencing outcomes. Defendants accused of killing white victims are disproportionately sentenced to death, which speaks volumes about the prejudices skulking through the corridors of our courts. This isn’t just unfair; it’s a fundamentally flawed system that perpetuates inequality.

Financially, the death penalty doesn’t make much sense either. It’s far more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. This is due to the lengthy and complex legal process required in capital cases, designed to minimize errors. Every dollar spent here is a dollar that could be used more effectively elsewhere within the criminal justice system.

Globally, the trend is also moving away from capital punishment, with over two-thirds of countries having abolished it in law or in practice. This global shift isn’t just about being progressive; it’s about adhering to international human rights standards that recognize the death penalty as a violation of the right to life.

In the end, abolishing the death penalty isn’t just about eliminating a punishment option. It’s about building a justice system that reflects our values of fairness, redemption, and humanity. It’s about acknowledging that the state shouldn’t sanction the irreversible act of taking a life. Moving away from the death penalty would signal a commitment to these values and contribute to a more equitable society.

So, as we ponder the path forward, let’s consider a justice system that upholds life and offers chances for redemption. That’s the kind of progress that aligns with our collective growth as a compassionate society.

Cite this page

Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

"Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/ [Accessed: 15 May. 2024]

"Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

"Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/. [Accessed: 15-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/ [Accessed: 15-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Essay on Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment

• 2 Works Cited

Capital Punishment Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished. Upon examination, one finds capital punishment to be economically weak

Capital Punishment Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the toughest form of punishment enforced today in the United States. According to the online Webster dictionary, capital punishment is defined as “the judicially ordered execution of a prisoner as a punishment for a serious crime, often called a capital offence or a capital crime” (1). In those jurisdictions that practice capital punishment, its use is usually restricted to a small number of criminal offences, principally

corresponding punishments. Among all penalties, capital punishment is considered to be the most severe and cruelest one which takes away criminal’s most valuable right in the world, that is, right to live. It is a heated debate for centuries whether capital punishment should be completely abolished world widely. The world seems to have mixed opinion regarding this issue. According to Amnesty International (2010), currently, 97 countries in the world have already abolished capital punishment while only

Capital Punishment and the Death Penalty Capital punishment exist in today’s society as citizens of the United States should we have the right to take an individual life. As illustrated throughout numerous of studies the death penalty is an unfair process seven out of ten deaths handed down by the state courts from 1973 to 1995 were overturned when appeal and the seven percent were later found to be innocent. Such as the Dobie Williams case which took place July 8, 1984. Dobie

Outline I. Religious Views a. Hinduism b. Jainism c. Buddhism d. Judaism and Christianity e. Islam II. Who a. Countries b. States c. Juveniles III. What Ways IV. Why, Laws Broken a. Laws about it b. Cost c. Wrongful accusation V. Increased Murder Rate VI. Conclusion Did you know, that according to a study at North Carolina State, a murder case cost 2.16 million dollars more with a death penalty then with a sentence of life imprisonment? It 's true! It is estimated that the

Capital Disciplinement And Capital Punishment

Some say capital punishment is the largest amount of discipline. As indicated by 71% of the United States there is no harsher discipline than death itself. 58 nations hone capital punishment. The United States of America, is one of the 58. Starting at 2015 the United States will just utilize capital punishment if indicted first-degree kill. Some trust that death penalty will prevent killers. I will be contending that capital punishment does not stop lawbreakers and that the United States ought to

Capital Punishment And Capital Involvement

Capital punishment is an individual punishment to death for committing a crime. The history of capital punishment fluctuates worldwide, between different governments and beliefs. The current issue of capital punishment is taking lives without having a reliable reason to take them to the death penalty. One large and main issue is that capital punishment breaches, or breaks two essential human rights, which are the rights to life, and rights to living free of torture. This is a huge issue because

Capital Punishment Essay: Retain Capital Punishment?

• 1 Works Cited

Capital Punishment - Retain or Not?         This essay tangles with the question of whether or not we should retain the death penalty within the American code of penal law.   There is a feeling of frustration and horror that we experience at the senseless and brutal crimes that too frequently disrupt the harmony of society. There is pain which accompanies the heartfelt sympathy that we extend to the victims' families who, in their time of suffering, are in need of the support and compassion

Capital Punishment Is A Legal Punishment

what the big deal about Capital Punishment is? According to free dictionary, Capital Punishment is to put to death as a legal punishment (Farlax). Capital Punishment is used worldwide, and is guaranteed to prevent future crime. Capital Punishment is a large controversy in the U.S. but before a personal opinion can be formed, some facts need to be known, such as what it is, where it is used and why it could be good or bad. Well, what is Capital Punishment? Capital Punishment is where a person is executed

Capital Punishment Is The Ultimate Punishment

what would you want from the government if he had killed someone you know? He should receive the capital punishment. The capital punishment is the ultimate punishment given to the precarious crimes. It is the last stage of capital punishment. There are different methods of like hanging, electric chair, lethal injection, firing squad, gas chamber. Murderers and rapist should be given extreme punishment, and they have to pay for their wrongdoing. We can observe crime rates are accelerating day-by-day

Popular Topics

• Capitalism Essay
• Capitalist Economy Essay
• Capote in Cold Blood Essay
• Captains of Industry Essay
• Capulet Essay
• Caravaggio Essay
• Carbon Essay
• Carbon Dioxide Essay
• Carbon Monoxide Essay
• Essay on Cardiovascular Disease

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Capital Punishment

• Updated on  
• Jun 11, 2022

The phrase “punishment” is one that we are all familiar with. However, only a small percentage of the population is familiar with capital punishment. Capital punishment is a court-ordered death penalty for violating criminal laws . Furthermore, the method of punishment differs from one country to the next. Some countries hang the criminals until they die, while others shoot or inject them with a fatal injection. Keep reading the blog to find an IELTS Essay on Capital Punishment and much more!

Methods of Capital Punishment 

• Electrocution – In this method, the perpetrator is bound to a chair and a high-voltage current is passed through his body, quickly killing a guy. It also leads to organ failure (especially heart).
• Tranquilization – This method causes the criminal to die slowly and painlessly by injecting toxin injections into his body. It can take up to several hours for the criminal to die.
• Beheading – Arab and Gulf countries commonly use this method of capital punishment. In this, they just sever the person’s head from their body using this manner.
• Stoning – It is a kind of capital punishment in which the criminal is beaten to death. It’s also the most agonizing technique of execution.
• Shooting – In this approach, the culprit is shot either in the head or in the chest. Hanging – In this method, the culprit is hanged till death.

Also Read: Essay on Human Rights

Advantages of Capital Punishment

• A life sentence is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense.
• The death sentence has the potential to deter violent crime.
• It does not have to be done in a violent manner.
• The affected family is not re-victimized by the death penalty.
• It eliminates the prospect of an escape and potential victims in the future.
• When capital punishment is used in a fair manner, it can help to reduce prison overcrowding.

Disadvantages of Capital Punishment

• When applied, it is the ultimate negation of human rights.
• The death penalty has the potential to execute someone who is potentially innocent.
• The cost of bringing a death penalty case to trial is substantially higher than in other situations.
• With the death sentence in existence, there may be no deterrent to crime.
• It’s used to keep political messages under control.
• Capital punishment is occasionally used to put children to death.
• There is no turning back once the execution has occurred.
• Sometimes the evidence used to justify the death penalty is contaminated.
• It is frequently used in a discriminating manner.
• The death sentence has a negative influence on a victim’s family.
• Only a few jail escapes occur each year, and even fewer involve violent offenders.
• Some people are simply unconcerned.

IELTS Essay On Capital Punishment (Sample) 

This is an IELTS essay on Capital Punishment which can help you for your exam-

Our lives are less secure without capital punishment, and violent crimes are on the rise. Capital punishment is necessary to restrain violence in society. Since the beginning of time, there has been debate about capital punishment, particularly for violent offences. Many regard it as one of the most heinous penalties, intended to convey a stern message to anyone who even contemplates trouble. While some believe it is natural justice, others believe it is unnatural and argue that humans should not play the role of demi-god. I am certain that people are incapable of deciding one’s death purely on the basis of a disruptive account.

Capital punishment strongly depicts eye-for-an-eye justice, which is a barbarous act in and of itself. Hanging someone to death will not improve the victim’s position, nor will it bring the dead back to life. It may provide a phoney sense of fairness to the people, proving transitory and fading with media attention. Instead, the victim must be given the opportunity to reflect on his own actions, perhaps by meeting the victim or the victim’s family. History has demonstrated that such an exercise acts as a form of punishment because the guilty is usually consumed by flames of repentance. Certainly, such a person deserves a second opportunity.

Few people, on the other hand, would argue that capital punishment restricts criminals and makes the general public feel safe, which is the establishment’s primary responsibility. It is not, in my opinion, lethal punishment that induces a sense of security. People will feel safer in countries like India if decisions are delivered on time and the process is transparent because justice delayed is justice denied. 

It should be emphasized that the main goal of punishment is to reform and rehabilitate a criminal. The state’s job should be to punish the guilty person in a way that re-educates and morally redeems him. Given the inevitability of capital punishment, it should not be used in any circumstance.

A life sentence could instead be used for this purpose where it’s possible that the criminal is given a second opportunity.

Also Read: Essay on Democracy

To learn more about such topics and score well in English proficiency, check Leverage Live !

We hope this blog helped you in understanding what is capital punishment, its methods, and its various advantages as well as disadvantages. Sign-up for a free session or contact Leverage Edu if you’re thinking of studying abroad or need help with the scholarships. 

Sonal is a creative, enthusiastic writer and editor who has worked extensively for the Study Abroad domain. She splits her time between shooting fun insta reels and learning new tools for content marketing. If she is missing from her desk, you can find her with a group of people cracking silly jokes or petting neighbourhood dogs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

🟥 Capital Punishment Essays

Death penalty in the bible.

There are questions, controversies, and debates about the death penalty issue in the Bible. Some Christians claim that the death penalty is mentioned in the…

Capital punishment – arbitrary by nature

According to an Associated Press three part series of articles published this past May, the arbitrary nature of imposing the death sentence in the United…

Argentina’s death penalty laws

In Argentina, the Constitution of the Argentine Nation (1994) Article 18 states in part: “The penalty of death for political offences, all kinds of torture,…

Crucifixion during the Roman Empire

Death by crucifixion is an ancient practice, which was utilized frequently by the Romans to punish criminals in the society. Crucifixion was a process, which…

The death penalty in the United States

Thesis Statement Death penalty is allowed in the United States of America, more so the individuals convicted with capital offences, though it is not adopted…

Argumentative essay on death penalty

In 1994, Seth Penalver was sentenced to death for a brutal murder that involved three individuals. There was no actual physical evidence relating him to…

An analysis of the death penalty policies between the United…

Introduction The death penalty is a contentious issue in the modern world both domestically and internationally. Amnesty international (2016) estimates that there were nearly 1634…

Gender inequality in the death penalty

The death penalty in today’s society is seen as a proper way of punishing individuals who commit capital crimes. This has been a controversial subject…

The history of capital punishment in the United States

In any community, the test of that society’s integrity, authority, and core identity is found in the legal system that the society has. History has…

Humberto Leal Garcia case of Texas 2011

Introduction Humberto Leal Garcia was a Mexican-born convict sentenced to death by lethal injection by the state of Texas for the crimes of rape and…

What is the best site to search for quality capital punishment paper samples?

Our database has many well-written examples of essays about capital punishment and similar subjects.

How to use capital punishment essay samples to create my paper?

Please read them, then rephrase them, and add your commentary.

Is it allowed to submit your samples as mine?

We do not advise using these writings as your own since other students may have already cited them since they are in the public domain. They can serve as a source of ideas and a guide for you.

How many college essays and papers are in your database?

Numerous essays are available in our database.

Without a court order, it is essential to distinguish between the death penalty and extrajudicial killings. The execution of a person convicted to death after being found guilty by a tribunal of the law of a criminal offense is capital punishment, commonly known as the death penalty. Although the imposition of the sentence does not necessarily result in execution, the terms “death penalty” and “capital punishment” are sometimes used interchangeably. That is because there is a chance that the sentence could be commuted to life in prison.

Essay about Capital Punishment: Brief Facts

Over 60% of the world’s population still lives in nations that practice the death sentence, including China, Saudi Arabia, India, the United States, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Egypt, and Iran.

Executions can be carried out using various techniques, including fatal injection, gas asphyxiation, beheading, hanging, shooting, stoning, and crucifixion.

You might be asked to write an essay about capital punishment during your justice or international law classes.

How Our Database Can Help with Essays about Capital Punishment

Writing a paper on capital punishment is challenging. Finding accurate information, organizing it properly, and feeling confident you’re using reliable sources is complex.

In response, we are here. You can quickly explore essays about capital punishment or any topic because our database of writings can search by subject and keywords. After that, you can use our essay as a jumping-off point for your study by expanding it or changing how it is structured.

For writing ideas – discover expert essays

It’s simple to become stuck when composing an essay on capital punishment. You know what you want to express but struggle to put it into words.

You’ve probably heard that reading other people’s work is the best thing to do when you’re having difficulties coming up with something. It lets you clear your mind and concentrate on what to do next.

Don’t know how to write your essay?

You’re adrift. The sheer quantity of potential themes and structures overwhelms you. It’s not just you! Most students don’t know where to begin when writing capital punishment essays. To examine what experienced writers have written about the morality of executions and various crimes and to utilize their ideas as inspiration for your essays, we have put together this collection of essay examples. Here, you’ll find materials such as capital punishment essay examples.

Our essays sparkle with quality

We have the ideal option if you’re seeking samples of well-written, compelling, and entertaining essays. To assist you in starting your essay writing, authors from the United States and other nations have compiled a collection of articles on various subjects.

What’s best? All of it is free! See how simple it may be to produce an essay that your professor will be interested in by looking through our collection of academic papers today.

Our Papers on Capital Punishment Didn’t Help? Order a Custom Essay!

Did you know that the American professional essay writers team at EssayWriter can assist you with any project requiring a paper on capital punishment? Everyone may afford our services because our essay writing service is reasonably priced. Each piece is entirely original and written from scratch.

We provide a broad range of academic papers for high school, college, university, and working professionals. Please don’t hesitate to contact us immediately if you need assistance with any educational writing assignments.

• Bill of Rights
• Civil Disobedience
• Drunk Driving
• First Amendment
• Forensic Science
• Gang Violence
• Human Rights
• Identity Theft

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Crime

Capital Punishment Argumentative Essay Example

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Crime , Punishment , Criminal Justice , Death , Capital Punishment , Life , Finance , Social Issues

Words: 1400

Published: 01/11/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Should Capital Punishment be allowed?

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, refers to the legal process that result to a felon who commits heinous crimes being sentenced to death by the state judicial authorities to pay for the wrongdoings that are otherwise considered extreme. The actual act of killing the individual is called execution, while the judicial decree that allows for the individual to be punished this way is called the death sentence. Capital punishment has existed in nearly all societies since time immemorial, whereby it served to punish perpetrators of serious crimes and those who revolted against the authorities. In the contemporary world, most societies that still use Capital Punishment reserve it for crimes such as treason, espionage and murder. During the past, especially the dark ages, sodomy, rape, adultery and incest were considered serious offences and carried the death penalty. Brutal ways were used to end the lives of those sentenced to death and these included: boiling the criminal alive inside a large cauldron filled with either oil or water, burying alive, beheading using the guillotine, burning the offenders while they were alive and crucifixion just to mention a few. In this modern day, such crude methods are no longer applied. Historically, Australia featured relentlessly, as far as capital punishment is concerned. Currently, capital punishment is not allowed in the Nation. The last time for a man to face a hangman was in the year 1984. Even before the execution, various states had long abolished capital punishment. Most of crimes that were previously subject to capital punishment are now treated with sentences to life imprisonment. Nevertheless, the use of Capital Punishment remains one of the most debatable subjects with proponents citing solid arguments for its use, while opponents similarly postulate solid arguments against this type of punishment. The paper will dwell on arguments for and against Capital Punishment. First, opponents cite that human life is valuable and authorities that are run by humans do not have the right to sentence fellow humans to death even in cases where they have performed the most heinous crimes. Those opposing the punishment believe that the offender’s life has to prevail over his or her bad conduct that may warrant a death penalty (Phil, 2012). Secondly opponents argue that every human being has an alienable right to life. Sentencing a person to death even if he or she has committed murder violates the God given right to life of that person (Goldstein, 2005; 324). This argument closely resembles the first one but it is argued from the perspective of human right groups. Based on human rights perspective, every human being is entitled to fundamental privileges such as right to life, and that administering capital punishment amounts to worst human rights violation. This is because the right to life is the most fundamental (BBC, 2012). Thirdly, abolitionists insist that retribution is nothing other than revenge, which should not be condoned. To the abolitions, two wrongs in retributions do not necessarily add to a right. Additionally, according to abolitionists, capital punishment may entail wrongful execution, which would see innocently convicted people executed. They have often given the example that, in 25 states, between 1973 and 2005, as significant as 123 were relieved from death row when courts declared them innocent (Rita, 2007; 66). As if not enough, abolitionists argue that capital punishment is likely to be a subject of disproportionate minority representations based on element such as race, gender and economic status. They argue that, for instance, the fact that African Americans account for only 12 percent of the total population have constituted 41 percent of death row inmates and have constituted 34 percent of the number of people executed since 1976.

However, there are convincing reasons why capital punishment should be allowed. First, on the basis of retribution, capital punishment is morally justified when applied to crimes entailing murder, especially with elements of aggravation such as multiple homicide, torture murder and child murder, as well as mass killing incidents such as genocide or terrorism. Gertrude (1972) contends that failing to administer capital punishment penalty in such cases is what may be particularly unjust. In order to ensure fairness, the punishment must be as painful as proportional to the crime. It would be unjustified to let heinous crime offender live, leave alone incarcerating them. Secondly, capital punishment is necessary because it deters crimes. It is arguable that the best way to deal with crimes is prevent their occurrence, and this is achievable through deterrence. Indeed, various groups have inclined on the perspectives that the best appropriate punishment is that which deters further criminal activities. In particular, “punishment serves as an example for other people to learn and desist from committing crimes” (Rita, 2007; 56). For instance, a terrorist who watches an ally being hanged learns a lesson; hence desists from committing the heinous crime. It is argued that for every execution, as significant as five lives are saved, indicating that execution correlates negatively with crime deterrence, that is as more offenders are executed, lesser heinous crimes are reported. Death penalties had deterrent effects in the countries that executed more than nine people as from1977 to1996 implying that deterrence does not come with a few execution programs (Shepherd, 2004; 8). In this regard, there is even the need to increase the number of execution to achieve desirable results. Thirdly, death penalty should be enforced even if the deterrent effects are uncertain to avoid a repeat of crimes by the same criminals. If societies execute serious crime offender such as murderers, and there happens that deterrent effects are non-existent, the fact remains that the society would have avoided additional murder cases committed by the very criminals (Bazemore, 2001; 25). Additionally, capital punishment could serve as an effective prosecution tool. The threat of death compels defendants to enter the deals of pleas for life without paroles or life with a minimum of 30 years. Prosecutors, courts and complainants may decide to spare criminals from execution in exchange for cooperation with the police in searching for still missing persons (Kronenwetter, 2001; 9). In addition, it is cheaper to sentence criminals to capital punishment than keeping them in prisons. Funds allocated for maintaining the convicts could be allocated for other purposes such as helping the needy. In conclusion, it is worth siding with the view that capital punishment is justified. What is particularly appealing about capital punishment is that it is justified based on the principle of retribution. There can be no means of serving justice other than based on the retribution. For instance, a man who steals a car should be asked to pay back the car. Undoubtedly, it would be unfair to have the thief of the car punished with a fine of twenty dollars. In the same way, those who murder should be murdered. Those who kill other by the gun should be shot using the same gun. This should also be applicable for other types of crimes. Besides, it also agreeable that capital punishment is morally justified when applied for crimes entailing murder, especially with elements of aggravation such as multiple homicides, torture murder and child murder, as well as mass killing incidents such as genocide or terrorism. It also deters crimes, considering that the criminals weigh the consequences of crimes. Thirdly, it prevents additional losses of lives, such as through murder by the same criminals. It is also economical to sentence criminals to capital punishment since incarcerating them would mean a significant portion of tax payers’ money will be set aside for their up keep.

Bazemore, G. (2001). Restorative community justice: repairing harm and transforming communities. Cincinnati, US: Anderson Publishing. BBC. (2012). Arguments against capital punishment. Ethics Guide. Retrieved on November 13, 2012, from http://www.bbc.co./ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml Gertrude, E. (1972). Philosophical Perspectives of Punishment. Albany: University of New York. Goldstein, W. (2005). Defending the human spirits: Jewish law's vision for moral societies. New Delhi: Feldheim Publishers. Kronenwetter, M. (2001). Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. Phil, B. (2012). Phil for Humanity: The Pros and Cons of Capital Punishment. Retrieved on November 13, 2012, from http://www.philforhumanity.com/Capital_Punishment.html Rita, S. (2007). A comparative analyses of capital punishments: statute, policy, frequency, and public attitude the world over Capital punishment. Lexington Books. Shepherd, J. (2004) Capital Punishments and Crime Deterrence. A Testimony to the Judiciary The Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Congress, and Homeland Security.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 290

This paper is created by writer with

ID 287987752

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Failure personal statements, keystone case studies, tilt case studies, pod case studies, fresco case studies, dwelling case studies, mouton case studies, affirmation case studies, how critical theory improves the study of international politics research paper example, example of essay on learning from the past in building a strong future the shaw memorial, goals report examples, engineering professions essay sample, example of research paper on mental disorders, example of consequences dissertation chapter, sociology course work sample, case study on trends in health information systems and applications, good power portrayal in the play ma raineys black bottom literature review example, free essay on western civilization breeds intolerance, should schools ban junk food essays example, free creative writing on a cambodian learning english in the united states of america, good example of essay on reading reaction, sample essay on vietnam war on american culture, other essays examples, hamlet study questions course work sample, good art research paper example, good islamic art article review example, uninhabitability essays, endocytic essays, fendt essays, enteroscopy essays, cathodic essays, condylar essays, ercp essays, amanitin essays, cormatrix essays, cryopreserved essays, betapropiolactone essays, bileaflet essays, brugada essays, atrioventricular essays, bellocq essays, catecholaminergic essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses

Life in Prison or the Death Penalty

by Viktoriia (Ukraine)

What should happen to him?

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to IELTS Essay Feedback Forum .

Capital Punishment

by Azam (Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan)

Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree? I thoroughly agree with the proposition, capital punishment should be made mandatory in our society, where crime ratio is being increased day by day because we live in a world where people are not even certain about how they are going to return, either on legs or on shoulders. There is a law of physics, which is known as "Murphy's Law", which states that "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong". So whose duty is it to make it right again? To start with, the ratio of crime and terrorism is being so increased exponentially. People feel unsafe, even being at their own homes. Criminals show no compassion or mercy to those who are being held by them as captives. I do not know what they get by doing such heinous and diabolical acts. In my opinion, death penalty should be made as an essential punishment for those criminals and insurgents who love to annihilate the humanity or the society we live in, where people get massacred brutally just like flies in air. The good example of this is in most of middle-eastern countries where criminals get beheaded or hanged publicly for their wrongdoings, that is why their crime ratio is equivalent to almost zero. Crime is afterall a crime, irrespective of how big or small it is. By this i mean that, adopting such policy might frightens those criminals and make them to think at least ten times before bringing any kind of furor among citizen and annihilate them. On the other hand, many people or activists think that criminals are also humans so they also deserve another chance to rectify themselves to become a better citizen in future. From these facts, I would maintain that, no human-being happens to be an insurgent, criminal or terrorist by birth. It is just the time which plays as a best teacher for some and worst for some.

IELTS Capital Punishment Essay

Capital Punishment Essay

Please give some honest feedback. Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment in essential to control violence in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? With rising violence and ghost gun availability, normal people are more prone to danger now than ever. The whole judicial process consumes a lot of time and effort to punish the guilty. Furthermore, the lighter penalities fail to dither the culprit from repeating the crime placing the public in danger. I partially agree that capital punishment is needed to control violence and will try to explain the same below. Many criminals repeat their offending behavioural pattern as soon as they come out of the prison after serving the sentence as prison fails to bring any change in their basic nature. Plenty of criminals jailed in sexual assualt cases and robbery continue such behaviour once they are out again. Many racists and terrorists with extreme nature also follow the similar kind of pursuit. Also ghost guns without serial numbers and unexcepted attacks inspired from online videos mak it difficult to guard against vulnerable victims. capital punishment thus sounds good to deter offenders depending on the gravity of the situation as such people are too risky to be left out in to the society again. Nevertheless, awarding a death penalty to criminals cannot alone change their behaviour as observed in ISIS follwers who are prepared to die in their own attacks. Thus, death sentence cannot be a solution that reduces the crimes and secures public. Also, it assumes that perpetrators can never change rejecting the basic notion behind the punishment and legal process. Death is too severe and cannot be reversed in terms of penalty. Thus, capital punishment fails to address the cause of concern in reducing the crime rate but it is imperative in few cases of extremely grave crimes. Just like how one shoe doesn't fit every foot, one punishment cannot address all the uprising violence in the society alone. It surely does apply to few scenarios and some other measures are to be taken to address the elephant in the room.

Click here to post comments

Death Penalty

by sadineni (Bangalore)

With Out Capital punishment (The death Penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Do you agree or disagree? Death is same for both good people and as well as bad people (criminals). Fear of death is the deepest and strongest fear in the humane race. Nobody raise hand aganist this point. But here the question is whether capital punishment is essential to controle violence in society? Can We use this fear of death to controle violence? Killing a person who was killed other person. How far it is correct? In Recent years, If we see some crimes. even death penality is not sufficient to punish the criminals of those crimes like Nirbhaya case in India, Terrorist attack on Taj hotel in India and famous attack on world trade towers. As i already mentioned inherited death will be there in all living creatures in this universe. We can user this fear of death to prevent crime in society by installing the fear in peoples mind by hanging the criminal in the crime like nirbhaya case in India. If some body ask the question, How far it is correct to kill a person with the name of punishment, then deffinetly my answer is "yes it is correct" Because we have to see the intention behind killing the person. A soldier killing an enemy is not at all a crime but a person who was killed other person for the sake of money is deffinetly a crime. Similarly killing a person who was killed other person is to prevent the crime and to make justice to the victim. Capital punishment is not a new concept to us, It is there from our ancient times. So i can conclude my argument as capital punishment is essential to controle violance in society along with efforts to chnage the idiology and way of thinking of criminals .There should be strong system not to misuse the capital punishment,other wise it may cause furthermore violence in society instead of decrease violence in society.

Death Penalty Essay

Some people advocate the death penalty for those who committed violent crimes. Others say that capital punishment is unacceptable in contemporary society. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty and give your opinion. It's always said that "forgiving and making people learn from the mistakes is the best solution".The death penalty is something that is given to the people who committed an absolute brutal or cruel crime. As it is known that every coin has two different sides and every aspect or decision has both advantages and disadvantages. In detail, the death penalty when given to the criminals the authorities hang them or kill them on a decided date. The death penalty brings fear in the people who think of attempting a crime and people will never have the audacity to commit a crime. Which results in clearance of the negatives in the society and keeping it safe. In other words, the death penalty brings awareness to people who commit an offense and force them to choose the right path. On the contrary, this causes a loss of human life and great grief to their friends and family. An innocent person may lose their due to this punishment. For an instance, many criminals these days use innocent people as a part of their crime, and later these people are caught instead of the original criminals. If these people are given the death penalty this results in taking away an innocents life. Also, this may lead to a revolt by the public on authorities. Moreover. killing someone is never a favorable solution, Teaching them the way of life and how to exceptionally use their ideas for a better living would be much more satisfactory and ideal. A punishment should teach someone how to go on the right way by following the rules and regulations, but should never kill someone. Therefore, I support the idea that capital punishment is unacceptable in contemporary society. Authorities should try to avoid death penalties to the maxing extent and should promote the ideology of changing the criminal's mindsets and thoughts and make them a better human being.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Taking a Gap Year

May 14, 24 03:00 PM

IELTS Essay: Loving Wildlife and Nature

May 10, 24 02:36 AM

Paraphrasing in the IELTS Test: Speaking and Writing

May 03, 24 10:26 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Exclusion of Jewish Jurors Prompts Review of California Death Row Cases

Dozens of cases are under review after notes from jury selection in a 1990s murder case indicated that prosecutors worked to exclude Jews.

By Tim Arango

A jury was being chosen for a murder trial nearly three decades ago in California. The state was seeking a death sentence for Ernest Dykes, who had been charged with killing a 9-year-old boy during a robbery in Oakland.

Weighing who should be struck from the jury pool and who should be kept, a prosecutor made notes about a prospective juror:

“I liked him better than any other Jew but no way.”

Other notes about prospective jurors bore evidence of similar prejudice:

“Banker. Jew?” read one.

“Jew? Yes,” read another.

The notes — just handwritten scribbles — were discovered recently in an internal case file from the 1990s when Mr. Dykes was convicted of murder and sent to death row. A federal judge who is overseeing settlement talks as part of an appeal by Mr. Dykes told the Alameda County District Attorney’s office to conduct a top-to-bottom search for any additional documents, and that search turned up the notes, which are now in the hands of the judge.

The notes offered a startling glimpse into a practice that some defense lawyers long suspected was going on, and that a former prosecutor had alleged was common in Alameda County — prosecutors seeking to exclude people of certain faiths, races or genders.

Now, Mr. Dykes, 51, and perhaps others on death row in California as well, may have their convictions tossed out and be granted new trials. The federal judge weighing his appeal has ordered a review of all California capital cases in which a defendant from Alameda County is still on death row. The county includes Oakland, Berkeley and a host of other Bay Area communities.

The inquiry, which may involve as many as 35 cases from as far back as 1977, is just getting underway. But the district attorney’s office says it has already found evidence that the discriminatory practice was widespread for decades and involved numerous prosecutors.

“When you intentionally exclude people based on their race, their religion, their gender or any protected category, it violates the Constitution,” said Pamela Price, the Alameda district attorney and a former civil rights lawyer.

Legal scholars and critics of the death penalty say some prosecutors have long sought to exclude certain groups from serving as jurors in capital cases, even after the courts made clear that the practice was unconstitutional. Given the long history of racial injustice in the United States, Black jurors were presumed to be sympathetic to defendants, especially to Black defendants. And in the decades after the Holocaust, Jews were presumed to be against capital punishment.

A team of prosecutors worked on the Dykes case, and the district attorney’s office said it has not been able to determine exactly who wrote the notes about prospective Jewish jurors.

The lead prosecutor in the case, Colton Carmine, is retired. Reached in Reno, Nev., where he now lives, Mr. Carmine declined to discuss the revelations about jury selection in the Dykes trial.

Ms. Price’s office has been contacting surviving relatives of the victims in the murder cases that are under review, to prepare them for the possibility of new trials and the prospect of reliving the trauma of having lost a loved one so violently.

Retrying the cases would present prosecutors with numerous challenges, like tracking down old case files and witnesses whose memories may have faded, or who have died.

Ms. Price, a former civil rights lawyer who is facing a recall election organized by critics who favor more punitive measures, said her office has reached about half the victims’ families so far. “Obviously people are not happy to hear from us after 20, sometimes 30 years, that the case is not over,” she said.

Lance Clark, the 9-year-old boy Mr. Dykes was convicted of killing, wanted to be an architect, and was “so smart, so bright,” said an uncle, Steve Robello. “He made his own toys. He made his own robots.” Just this week, he said, he visited his nephew’s grave and left flowers.

Kirstie Trias, Lance’s sister, said it was devastating to learn that Mr. Dykes may get a new trial. The notion that he was somehow a victim is “heart wrenching,” she said.

Allegations of religious and racial bias in Alameda County jury selection have surfaced before. In 2005, John R. Quatman, a former prosecutor in the district attorney’s office, gave a sworn declaration that “it was standard practice to exclude Jewish jurors in death cases.”

Mr. Quatman said at the time that a trial judge in a death penalty case had advised him to make sure that no Jewish jurors were selected.

“He said I could not have a Jew on the jury, and asked me if I was aware that when Adolf Eichmann was apprehended after World War II, there was a major controversy in Israel over whether he should be executed,” he said. Mr. Quatman added that the judge said, “no Jew would vote to send a defendant to the gas chamber.”

There is limited polling on Jewish views of the death penalty, but a 2014 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that among Jews support for capital punishment was notably lower than among white Protestants and white Catholics, while higher than among Hispanics and among Black Protestants.

Rabbi Jacqueline Mates-Muchin, the senior rabbi at Temple Sinai in Oakland, which is about to celebrate its 150th anniversary, said that learning of the alleged past pattern of bias among local prosecutors struck especially hard, given the rise of antisemitism today.

“It’s pretty awful,” she said. “The word disappointing isn’t enough.”

Alameda County, with a population of about 1.6 million, is home to about 50,000 Jews, according to a 2020 estimate by the American Jewish Population Project at Brandeis University .

Rabbi Mates-Muchin said the revelations are troubling on many fronts. “I feel horribly for the families of the victims. I also think that it isn’t fair to these defendants, who did not have a decent representation of the community that they’re from judging their case.”

Proving bias in selecting jurors, though, is notably difficult. Using what are known as peremptory challenges, lawyers can strike a certain number of prospective jurors without necessarily having to provide a reason. Even when a reason is required, lawyers can often draw on answers to jury questionnaires for indications of bias that can be used to justify excluding someone.

“For as long as there have been jury trials in death penalty cases, there has been racial discrimination and religious discrimination in the selection of juries,” said Robert Dunham, director of the Death Penalty Policy Project, an independent research organization within the Philadelphia law firm Phillips Black. “And we see it most frequently in the context of prosecutors striking African-American jurors.”

Brian Pomerantz, a lawyer who specializes in appeals of capital cases and represents Mr. Dykes alongside another attorney, Ann-Kathryn Tria, said that exposing jury bias in death penalty prosecutions in Alameda has been “my life’s quest.”

“I’ve been chasing this for a decade,” said Mr. Pomerantz, who also represents two other death row inmates in Alameda cases whose trials he believes were tainted by the exclusion of Black and Jewish jurors.

California has the largest death row in the nation — there are currently 640 condemned inmates — but the state has not executed anyone since 2006. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, is opposed to capital punishment and has imposed a moratorium on executions. He has also shut down the death chamber at San Quentin prison and transferred death-row inmates to other prisons around the state.

It is not difficult to look in any corner of the country and find cases overturned because of jury bias, and prosecutors’ offices where striking jurors based on race or religion was common.

“Historically we’ve seen practices by prosecutors — and we know this to be true, because we’ve seen videotapes of their lectures to their colleagues,” said Robin M. Maher, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “We’ve seen training manuals where it says, make sure to exclude everyone — women, Jews, people of color — anyone who is part of a group that they think could sympathize with someone who was on trial for his life.”

In Philadelphia, a training video that showed prosecutors how to exclude Black jurors was unearthed, leading to overturned convictions. In Mississippi, a Black man, Curtis Flowers , was tried six times in the same murder case, and ultimately the Supreme Court overturned his death sentence after ruling the prosecutors violated the Constitution in selecting the jury. More recently, a court in North Carolina held a hearing last month about allegations of racial bias in selecting a jury in the case of Hasson Bacote , a Black man sentenced to death in 2009.

Mr. Pomerantz said the emergence of such bias in Alameda County, in the heart of the liberal Bay Area, shows how ubiquitous the practice has been in the United States.

“You’re talking about where Berkeley is,” he said. “This isn’t Alabama. This isn’t Texas.”

Kirsten Noyes and Alain Delaquérière contributed research.

Tim Arango is a correspondent covering national news. He is based in Los Angeles. More about Tim Arango