Rethinking Capital Punishment

In his work "An Eye for an Eye?", Stephen Nathanson posits that capital punishment should be abolished immediately. He argues that the principle of "lex talionis", often interpreted as "an eye for an eye", is an inadequate justification for the death penalty in any nation. Nathanson critiques this principle by suggesting that, first, it can compel societies to engage in morally reprehensible acts, such as replicating the crimes of rapists or torturers, and second, it fails to provide suitable punishments for a broad array of crimes, such as those committed by drunk drivers or embezzlers (Nathanson 380).

While I disagree with Nathanson's blanket opposition to capital punishment, I concur with his assessment that "an eye for an eye" is not a sound basis for its justification. For this principle to serve as a valid support for capital punishment, it must be infallible and beyond critical reproach.

Evaluating the Need for Capital Punishment

Despite agreeing with the critiques of "lex talionis", a compelling argument for the retention of the death penalty can be derived from abolitionist arguments themselves. Many abolitionists claim that capital punishment infringes on a murderer's right to life and that a legal system which permits this form of punishment contradicts its prohibition of murder. However, this perspective raises questions about the moral equivalency between murderers and law-abiding citizens. Should individuals who have willfully violated others' right to life be afforded the same rights? If abolitionists genuinely regard the right to life as absolute, they must also reconcile this view with the justifications for war, revolution, and self-defense. Furthermore, the supposed contradiction in the death penalty's legality could be extended to other punishments, like imprisonment, which similarly restricts an individual's liberty (Primoratz 370, 373).

Critics of capital punishment often label it as immoral and unjust, seemingly detached from the visceral reality faced by families of murder victims. Those who have not experienced such loss may find it easy to argue against capital punishment. However, if they were to endure the brutal, senseless killing of a loved one, their perspective on justice and punishment might shift dramatically. The death penalty, often painted as a form of vengeance, can also be perceived as a form of mercy. It not only prevents further harm but also spares the convicted and their families the prolonged suffering that accompanies life imprisonment. Many prisoners sentenced to life eventually succumb to mental deterioration, suggesting that an earlier death might be a more humane alternative.

Justice and Deterrence

The death penalty extends beyond retribution; it is a mechanism of justice and deterrence. While life imprisonment removes dangerous individuals from society, the slight possibility of escape poses an unacceptable risk. Capital punishment eliminates this risk, ensuring public safety. Furthermore, the philosophical underpinnings of justice, as articulated by Immanuel Kant, emphasize equality in punishment. Kant argues that "the principle of equality" demands that no life be valued above another. By sparing a murderer's life, we may inadvertently suggest that their life holds more value than their victim's. Capital punishment, therefore, serves to restore this balance, affirming the equal worth of all human lives.

Proportional retributivism, often proposed by abolitionists as an alternative to the death penalty, posits that the severity of the punishment should match the gravity of the crime. Under this framework, murder would warrant life imprisonment (Nathanson 384). However, this overlooks the opportunities for education and personal growth available to life-sentenced inmates—opportunities irrevocably denied to murder victims. Take, for instance, the Bali Nine drug trafficking case in Indonesia, where some offenders, sentenced to life, pursued education and personal development during their incarceration. While I disagree with the application of the death penalty in this non-violent case, it exemplifies the disparity in potential for personal growth between the incarcerated and their victims (Wikipedia). As long as a murderer lives, they can still derive and contribute value, a possibility that their victims will never realize (Primoratz 372).

Conclusion

In summary, the debate surrounding capital punishment is deeply complex, involving considerations of justice, morality, and societal safety. While Nathanson's critiques of "an eye for an eye" offer valuable insights, they do not necessitate the abolition of the death penalty. Instead, they invite a re-evaluation of its application, particularly in cases of murder. By upholding the death penalty solely for the gravest crimes, we honor both the sanctity of life and the principles of justice. Such a stance acknowledges the irrevocable harm caused by murder while safeguarding society against potential future threats. As we strive for a just and equitable legal system, the death penalty remains a critical, albeit contentious, component in our pursuit of justice.

Did you like this example?

2978

124