1. Stewart A. Fountain
April 24, 2013
Ethics
An Ethical Argument for Capital Punishment
“Thou shalt not kill” is a familiar quote to those religious or not. It is an imperative from the Ten
Commandments which states simply that you should not kill another human being. So what happens
when one human kills another? What do we do? If there is one thing that I have learned from studying
criminal justice, it is that the punishment must fit the crime. If someone feels that another’s life is so
meaningless and they kill them, then why should they have the right to live? They have degraded
themselves beyond the point of human therefore, allowing them to live lets them have something that
the victim did not have the chance to enjoy.
A unique perspective toward this was brought forward by the Japanese. They have a belief that
death penalty reinforces the belief that bad things happen to those who deserve it. This reinforces the
contrary belief; that good things will happen to those who are 'good'.1
Surprisingly 81% of the Japanese
population is in favor of the death penalty due to this philosophy. This could be in support for a
Utilitarian argument that if killing a few bad people leads to an increase of happiness in a group, then it
is theoretically deemed good.
There are many arguments regarding capital punishment both for and against. People against it
say it is wrong because we are executing another human being. But do they “deserve” the right to live
simply because they are the same species? If they committed the crime then they should be willing to
take whatever punishment is associated with that crime. Many people argue that capital punishment is
“cruel and unusual punishment” and claim that it is unconstitutional because of the 8th
Amendment. At
the time the 8th
Amendment was enacted in 1791, capital punishment was not considered “cruel” or
“unusual.” It is only logical to presume that such a punishment does not fall under that amendment,
therefore in the eyes of the law it is not unconstitutional.
Murder constitutes the initiation of lethal force against an innocent person; it is also the
ultimate despising of divine authority. The murderer thereby forfeits his right to live by violating, with an
intent to kill, the victim.2
Another way to look at is this. From a religious standpoint, killing a human,
who is in the image of God, is in a sense killing God himself. Capital punishment is not an initiation of
force like murder is. Instead it is a response to the murder itself. Many people in favor of capital
punishment sometimes try to justify it by saying it brings closure to the families. While it may, this is
completely unrelated. In many crimes the convict, or defendant depending on where he or she is in the
justice system, can repay damages to the victims of their crime. In the case of murder there is no such
compensation for the crime. The convict cannot bring back the victim(s). This is why it should carry a
mandatory death sentence, because there is no way that they can repay for what they did. And what if
they are not convicted for a death sentence? Take for instance a person that gets 20 years for first

2. degree murder, serves 15 years and now is released for good behavior. The punishment was not very
severe and may not deter him. What is to prevent him from doing it again? He did not get put on death
row before, and what is another 15 years at that point right? The point of punishing someone is to keep
them away from society so they cannot cause any more harm and/or rehabilitate them if you can. If a
person cannot be made to answer for a capital crime, then everything in the world is arbitrary and
nothing is certain. To suggest that the ultimate human crime should not be met with the ultimate
punishment at the hands of the civil authorities is not “compassion.”2
The point of punishing someone, for any crime for that matter, is to deter crime. This can come
in two ways General Deterrence which tries to prevent would‐be criminals from doing a crime, and
Special Deterrence which uses punishment to deter repeat offenders. It sets a standard, and that’s the
main thing. Just like possession of drugs already invokes a 5‐10 year sentence, depending on the
amount they carry, there needs to be an objective standard for every crime. Punishment is needed to
restore social order, and if the right punishment is not implemented then there is no order. In fact not
providing the right punishment could in some cases show that the convict’s life is more important than
the innocent victim’s life. This is a perversion of true justice and is degrading to our system.
References
BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
Charles, Daryl. "The Ethics of Capital Punishment." CRI The Ethics of Capital Punishment
Comments. N.p., 17 Apr. 2009. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.