Death Penalty | Research & Encyclopedia Articles

There is an ongoing crucial debate within the criminal justice system as to the moral status of the death penalty. Retentionists hold that the death penalty is morally justified; abolitionists argue that it is not. Proponents of the death penalty justify it from either a retributive or a utilitarian framework, sometimes using both theories for a combined justification. Abolitionists reject these contentions arguing that the principle of the sanctity of human life gives each person an inalienable right to life and thus prohibits imposition of the death penalty. Scientific research and technological developments provide modest contributions to both arguments.

The retributivist argues (1) that all the guilty deserve to be punished; (2) that only the guilty deserve to be punished; and (3) that the guilty deserve a punishment proportional to their crime. It follows that death is a suitable punishment for anyone who commits a capital offense (that is, those offenses such as murder and treason that are especially morally heinous). The concept is suggested in the Bible: "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: 23–25).

A classic expression of the retributivist position on the death penalty is Immanuel Kant's statement that if an offender "has committed murder, he must die. In this case, 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 1887, p. 155).

For Kant, the death penalty was a conclusion of the argument for justice: just recompense to the victim and just punishment to the offender. As a person of dignity, the victim deserves (as a kind of compensatory justice) to have the offender harmed in proportion to the gravity of the crime, and as a person of high worth and responsibility, the offender is deserving of the death penalty. Accordingly the torturer should be tortured exactly to the severity that he tortured the victim, the rapist should be raped, and the cheater should be harmed to a degree equal to that suffered by the one cheated. Criminals deserve such punishment in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

The abolitionist disagrees. Putting the criminal to death only compounds evil. If killing is an evil, then the evil is doubled when the state executes the murderer, violating the latter's right to life. The state commits legalized murder. To quote the famous eighteenth-century abolitionist Cesare di Beccaria, "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" (On Crimes and Punishment, 1764).

The retentionist responds that the abolitionist is mistaken. The state does not violate the criminal's right to life, for the right to life (more precisely, the right not to be killed) is not an absolute right that can never be overridden (or forfeited). If the right to life were absolute, one could not kill an aggressor even when such action is necessary to defend one's own life or the lives of loved ones. It is a prima facie or conditional right that can be superseded in light of a superior moral reason. The individual right to life, liberty, and property is connected to the societal duty to respect the rights of others to life, liberty, and property. A person can forfeit the right to liberty by violating the liberty rights of others. A person can forfeit property rights by violating the property rights of others. Similarly the right to life can be forfeited when a person violates the right to life of another. An individual's prima facie right to life no longer exists if that person has committed murder.

The utilitarian argument for capital punishment is that it deters would-be offenders from committing first degree murder (that is, types of murder that seem especially vicious, brutal, or deleterious, such as assassination). However some studies that compared states that allow capital punishment to those that do not permit it concluded that imprisonment works as well as the death penalty in deterring homicide. Other studies purport to show that when complex sociological data (race, heredity, regional lines, standards of housing, education, and opportunities, among others) are taken into account, the death penalty does deter. Anecdotal evidence exists to support this. Abolitionists argue that isolated cases are poor indicia of the reality regarding deterrence.

Abolitionists point out that the United States is the only Western democracy to retain the death penalty. The retentionist responds that this is not an argument, but an appeal to popularity. Furthermore, in many Western countries that prohibit the death penalty (such as England, Italy, and France), there is evidence that the majority of citizens favor it.

Science and technological issues are relevant to the debate in so far as some argue that neuroscience and psychology show that criminals, including murderers, commit crimes due to neurological dysfunction and are not responsible for what they do. However the same arguments could be used to deny human responsibility altogether.

An application of technology to the death penalty is illustrated by attempts to find more benign forms of execution, for example, replacing the electric chair (which some consider cruel and unusual punishment) with lethal injection. Such changes have caused debate about whether the condemned deserves humane treatment or should be subjected to some pain and anxiety as part of the punishment.

Other abolitionists argue, on the basis of social scientific studies, that the U.S. penal system is inherently unfair, is biased against the poor and minorities, and favors the rich who can afford to hire better legal counsel. Furthermore they contend that there is always the possibility that an innocent person will be executed. The retentionist, recognizing these dangers, responds, Amend it, don't end it.

Crime;; Justice;; Police;; Science, Technology, and Law.

Bedau, Hugo Adam, ed. (1982). The Death Penalty in America, 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kant, Immanuel. (1887). The Metaphysics of Morals. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Murphy, Jeffrie, ed. (1968). Punishment and Rehabilitation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Pojman, Louis P., and Jeffrey Reiman. (1998). The Death Penalty: For and Against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Sorrel, Tom. (1987). Moral Theory and Capital Punishment. Oxford: Blackwell.

This is the complete article, containing 1,080 words (approx. 4 pages at 300 words per page).