Capital Punishment

In my opinion the Retributivist approach to Capital Punishment is the more appropriate view. The Retributivist believes that evil done with a vengeance should be repaid with punishment in-kind. In order to protect society and prevent crime, the death penalty has to be the most severe form of punishment with the biggest impact on society. Persons who commit murder should suffer and be punished for their inexcusable action(s). The principles of retributivism suggest that a convicted murderer should be executed because they "deserve" and "have earned" the death sentence. The right of retaliation can only be made equal by balancing of the crime with the punishment even if it is the death penalty. Those opposed to the death penalty argue that on moral grounds, all lives are sacred and killing is always wrong, a society, which kills, is no better than the murderer's being punished. The Retributivist maintains that the death must be kept free from all maltreatment that would cause suffering to be loathsome or abominable.

Punishment and more specifically "Capital Punishment" is a very controversial and sensitive subject. Not all countries actively enforce Capital Punishment as a punishment, for a person found guilty by a Judge and/or Jury. Punishment is repairing an injustice - "Making a wrong right". However, the question is "once a person has been convicted and sentenced to the death penalty" who has the more appropriate point of view:

a) The Retributivist: Legal Retributivism says that if a law is broken, punishment must result, regardless of any moral effects. Moralistic retributivism is concerned with the wrongdoing itself; if pain and grief have occurred, the criminal should be compensated with an equal punishment to the crime. Convicted felons must be punished and suffer to the full extent of their crime. It is morally fitting that a person who does wrong should suffer in proportion to their wrongdoing. Society must inflict as much pain and suffering on convicted criminals as was inflicted during the commission of their crime(s).

b) The Utilitarian: A moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. Utilitarianism is applied to the proposition that the supreme objective of moral action is the achievement of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Convicted felons must be dealt with quickly, efficiently and cost effectively. Society should not have to deal with these convicted criminals twice. If punishment can be shown to promote effectively in the interest of society it is justifiable, otherwise it is not.

Utilitarian Retributivist

Maximize social benefit (maximize the

benefit, minimize the harms) The offender should experience the exact

injustice inflicted

Focuses upon the goal of punishment in each

individual case Offender deserves to experience the suffering

or suffering inflicted by the criminal act

Punishment is morally best which produces the

maximum deterrence of criminal harm with

the minimum amount of harm to the offender Emphasis on the Goal of punishment rather

than on an abstract reason

Individual cases of punishment are justified if

they are in accord with the rules of the justified

Punishment system No equality between the crime of murder and

the retaliation except by judicial system

executing the criminal

Punish only persons who have actually

committed crimes, reduction murder rate Make offender "take responsibility" for action,

By re-paying the debt to society

Number of lives saved , must be exceeded by the

number of lives executed Punish the bad because they deserve it

Punishment must effectively promotes the

interests of society Punishment must never be greater than what

the convicted criminal deserves

Legislator, forward-thinking, justification Judge, past-thinking, specific crime

Only suffering can atone for sin

In the criminal justice system, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A person is fully entitled to a claim of innocence if charges are not brought against them, or if they are proven to be not guilty. There have been cases, which are processed through the judicial system, and have conclusively determined a person to be innocent. The evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person was responsible for and consequently deserved the punishment identified for the crime charged.

The logic of lawbreaking is that punishment to some degree will follow. If this were not the case, we would have no way of knowing what was a law. It is, by punishment of the infractions that laws become apparent. Punishment is the clear signal of the law. The degree of punishment is the difference between Retributivist and Utilitarian. These two terms are not found in any legal definitions and are not taught as part of the Justice system. These are philosophical terms on how society should exact punishment on persons who have been duly processed through the legal system and have been found guilty of crimes against society.

The Death Penalty is defended as a cost-effective alternative to life imprisonment. However, it is more costly to execute an inmate than to have that person serve a life sentence (Amnesty International, 1987). A 1982 study in New York reported the average capital murder trail and the first stage of appeals costs U.S. taxpayers $1.8 million. It is estimated that this is less than it would cost to incarcerate someone for one hundred years. Other sources estimate that it can cost up to $2.2 million to obtain and carry out a death sentence.

The principal factor in this cost is the appeals process, which lasts an average of 10 years and is deemed necessary to reduce the likelihood of the execution of innocent persons.

These statistics clearly indicate that