Capital Punishment In George Orwell's A Hanging

In the United States, the legality of the death penalty was challenged in the landmark Supreme Court case of Furman v. Georgia in 1972. The Court declared that the death penalty in unconstitutional in, at least, certain applications because the punishment violates the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Thurgood Marshall, who argued that the death penalty was unconstitutional in all instances, writes that there are six conceivable defenses given to justify capital punishment, which are “retribution, deterrence, prevention of repetitive criminal acts, encouragement of guilty pleas and confessions, eugenics and economy.” Since a person who is executed cannot possibly commit a future criminal act, that argument is invalid. Also, eugenic justification is roundly abhorred in the 21st century. Encouragement of guilty pleas is generally an unaccepted practice in the American legal system as well. Consequently, there remains the possibility that capital punishment is allowed based on retribution, deterrence, and economy.
While at times the justification for capital punishment is argued in terms …show more content…
In this essay, Orwell writes about hanging the hanging of a condemned criminal in Burma. As they were leading the prisoner to the gallows, a wild dog runs towards the group, jumps on the prisoner and licks his face, excited to interact with a human. The men who were set to execute the hanging were taken aback and looked on in shock, almost as if the dog should be able to realize that the man who’s face he just licked was a convicted criminal set to be put to death in a few moments. The dog was unaware of such circumstances, but recognized the prisoner’s humanity and sought interaction with him. Even if the man had committed a crime, he still possessed humanity and dignity that the dog respected far more than the humans in the essay ever