Essay about Capital Punishment Argument
In this philosophical study of applied ethics the concept of punishment will be argued using philosophers such as Mill, Bentham and Kant. And the case of John Martin Scripps ‘The tourist from hell’ will be used. The concept of capital punishment as a form of punishment brings about questions such as ‘is there any crime so bad that it permits the state to kill? Does anyone deserve to die for his or her crime? Is the execution a sign that society has failed its responsibilities to all its citizens?
There are three aims to punishment, Retribution, Reformation, and Deterrence. Modern thinking on punishment tends towards a combined view where none of the aims itself is …show more content…
Genesis 9.6 ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made in his own image’
Romans 13:14 ‘But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer’.
In other words, the Bible permits and justified the lex talionis, which lies at the heart of retribution. Punishment is awarded on the grounds that because an offence has been committed the just desert, religiously, morally and legally is to act on behalf of God who demands satisfaction with the death of the sinner.
As an alternative to the biblical objectivity Kant’s philosophical argument – Philosophy of Law attempts to provide a non-metaphysical but universal argument justification for the retributive argument which for legal capital punishment. Kant rules out any reformative or deterrent aims of punishment in the first instance, an offender is punished because he has committed a crime and deserves it. Kant explains that justice and righteousness are the bedrock on which human values or dignity depends. Because Kants view is universal, murder is always the most heinous infringement of human liberty,