Kant And Capital Punishment Analysis

Many ethical debates raise concern among members of society as a redefinition of our values is questioned. Ever since its legalization, the implementation of the death penalty been among the most criticized issues in the world. Kathy was brutally murdered on June 1, 1985, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Greg, her husband, was left alone to raise his two daughters of four and fourteen months old. Greg Wilhoit was arrested almost a year later and was charged with murder for her wife Kathy. He spent five years on death row for a crime he did not even commit. In 1993, Greg received a full exoneration. This case, among others, led to a national disagreement on death penalty. An important question concerning the legitimacy of capital punishment arises. In this …show more content…
In Kant’s opinion, a state cannot exist without laws since they are the society’s foundation. If a crime is unpunished, the law is therefore weak, and a weak legal system means that the society is also weak. Furthermore, he believes the concept of fair punishment is expressed as an “eye for an eye”. This concept must not serve to scare or improve the society or someone. It only penalizes the criminals who violate the law. The idea of “eye for an eye” states, “if you steal from someone, you steal from yourself too” (Nathanson 73). In other words, if a criminal thinks that some kind of violation of the law is permitted, this means that he accepts to receive the same treatment. Hence, according to Kant and the theory of an “eye for an eye”, "whoever has committed murder, must die" (Kant, sec. 6, pars. 333). A murderer is not allowed to appeal for lighter punishment or for a pardon because if so, legal authorities would contradict themselves, violate the law too and be perceived as weak. He insists that the death penalty is the right and the only punishment for murder. However, an “eye for an eye” no longer belongs to our modern society. It is a barbarous way of resolving conflicts. It tends to encourage vendetta. If you look at almost each and every each …show more content…
As mentioned in this paper, death penalty violates the most important article of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, wrong judgment in the process of capital punishment leads to the condemnation of innocent individuals. Furthermore, Camus argues that it should not be a legitimate sentence since it does not prevent murders, no crime is worth death penalty and finally because no State, no human or no society have right over a human being since they are not absolutely innocent. Lastly, capital punishment should not be within the law because the argument of Kant of the law of retaliation is a barbarous way of resolving problems. Abrogating death penalty is a step toward a better and just