You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Capital punishment — the deliberate execution of an offender by the state — is one of the issues the AQA specification lists under the application of ethics to human life and death, and it is unusually rich because it forces a prior question: what is punishment for? Whether the death penalty can ever be justified depends on which theory of punishment one accepts, so this lesson sets out the four classic aims of punishment — retribution, deterrence, protection and reform — and then runs the death penalty through the AQA-named ethical theories: Kant's retributivism, the utilitarian calculation of Bentham and his successors, natural moral law, situation ethics, virtue ethics, and the Christian readings of scripture and tradition that bear on it.
Key term: Retribution — the theory that punishment is justified because, and to the extent that, the offender deserves it; the punishment looks backwards to the crime, not forwards to its effects.
Retribution holds that punishment is deserved: the wrongdoer has upset a moral balance, and justice requires that they suffer in proportion to their offence. It is backward-looking — it justifies punishment by the crime already committed, not by any future benefit — and it is governed by proportionality, classically expressed as lex talionis, "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Exodus 21:23–25). It is essential not to confuse retribution with revenge: revenge is personal, unlimited, emotional and taken by the victim or their allies, whereas retribution is impersonal, proportionate, governed by rules and administered by an impartial public authority. Collapsing the two is one of the most common errors in exam answers, and it matters because the retributivist's whole claim is that desert is a requirement of justice, not a sublimated appetite for vengeance.
Key term: Deterrence — the forward-looking justification of punishment by its tendency to discourage crime: general deterrence dissuades would-be offenders in society at large, specific (individual) deterrence dissuades the punished offender from reoffending.
Deterrence is forward-looking and consequentialist: punishment is justified if the threat of it discourages crime — general deterrence aimed at would-be offenders in society, specific deterrence aimed at the offender. Protection (incapacitation) justifies punishment by its removal of a dangerous person from circulation: a dead or imprisoned offender cannot reoffend against the public. Reform (rehabilitation) holds that the proper aim is to change the offender into a person who will not wish to reoffend, restoring them to the moral community; it is closely allied to restorative justice, which seeks to repair the harm done to victims and to reintegrate the offender rather than simply to inflict suffering. Most real penal systems pursue several aims at once, and much of the disagreement about capital punishment is really a disagreement about which aim should take priority when they conflict. The death penalty's relationship to these aims is telling: it can serve retribution and protection completely, deterrence only if the empirical evidence supports it, and reform not at all — execution is the permanent foreclosure of any moral change.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is the philosophers' great retributivist, and his position is the natural starting point for the pro-death-penalty argument. In The Metaphysics of Morals (1797) he insists that punishment must be imposed "only because he has committed a crime" — never merely as a means to some social good, for to punish a person to deter others would be to use them "merely as a means," violating the Formula of Humanity. Punishment is a categorical requirement of justice. For murder, Kant holds that proportionality (the principle of equality, ius talionis) demands death: "there is no equality between the crime and the retribution unless the criminal is judicially condemned and put to death," and he presses the point with his island thought-experiment — even a society dissolving and dispersing must first execute the last murderer in prison, "so that everyone may realise the desert of his deeds." Strikingly, Kant casts this as respecting the criminal: by treating the murderer as a rational agent who, in committing the act, willed its maxim universally, the law honours their autonomy rather than excusing them as a patient to be managed. Hegel (1770–1831) develops a kindred idea — crime is a "negation of right," punishment the "negation of the negation" that restores the moral order, and the criminal has, in a sense, consented to it by their own deed.
The Kantian case is powerful but contestable. Critics argue that the very Formula of Humanity Kant invokes tells against execution: to kill a person to satisfy the demand of justice is still to dispose of them, to destroy the rational nature that is supposed to be beyond price, and a punishment that ends the offender's existence cannot be a way of respecting their continued status as an end. Others question whether strict proportionality is coherent — we do not rape rapists or torture torturers, so why should we kill killers? — suggesting that lex talionis is honoured selectively and that "proportion" need not require identity of punishment and crime. The retributivist replies that murder is special because it destroys the very thing (a life) that grounds all other rights, so only the forfeiture of the murderer's life is truly proportionate; the abolitionist replies that life imprisonment can express the gravity of the crime without the state itself taking a life. There is also a tension within Kant worth flagging for evaluation: the same Kant who demands the execution of the murderer is the philosopher who made the dignity of rational humanity the foundation of all morality, and abolitionists argue that his retributive conclusion is in fact inconsistent with his own deepest principle. A Kantian defender answers that to refuse to execute the murderer would itself disrespect them — it would treat them as less than a fully responsible agent, a creature to be pitied and managed rather than a person who must answer for what they have rationally done. Which of these is the more faithful application of Kant's respect for persons is a question a strong essay can genuinely argue, rather than a settled matter to be reported.
For utilitarianism punishment is, as Bentham put it, in itself an evil — it deliberately inflicts suffering — and is justified only if it prevents a greater evil. The death penalty is therefore permissible if, and only if, its consequences are on balance better than those of the alternatives, which makes the whole question turn on deterrence, protection and the costs of error. Tellingly, Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) himself opposed capital punishment: he judged that imprisonment is a more effective deterrent because its example is continuing and visible, whereas an execution is over in a moment and may even excite sympathy for the condemned, and that the penalty's irrevocability makes the cost of a mistaken conviction catastrophic. The deterrence claim is an empirical one, and the evidence is weak and disputed. There is, moreover, a theoretical reason to doubt it: deterrence works only on the rational calculator who weighs consequences before acting, yet a great many murders are crimes of passion, committed in rage, terror or intoxication, or by people who do not expect to be caught — exactly the offenders least likely to be checked by the prospect of a penalty they are not, in the moment, considering. Where premeditation does occur, the marginal deterrent difference between life imprisonment and execution is what matters, and it is far from obvious that a determined planner deterred by neither is tipped by the gap between them. Empirically, Isaac Ehrlich's 1975 econometric study claimed each execution deterred several murders, but it was widely faulted for its methods and assumptions; the US National Research Council, reviewing decades of research in 2012, concluded that the studies were too flawed to establish whether the death penalty deters at all and should not inform policy. Cross-border comparisons reinforce the doubt: abolitionist states and countries have not generally seen murder rates rise relative to retentionist neighbours, and some have seen them fall. Worse for the deterrence argument, the brutalisation hypothesis (Bowers and Pierce, 1980) suggests executions may be followed by short-term increases in homicide, as state killing models and legitimises lethal violence. A utilitarian must also enter on the cost side the suffering of the condemned and their family, the anguish of executioners, and — decisively for many — the irreversibility of error: because no judicial system is infallible, a policy of execution guarantees that some innocent people will, over time, be killed, a harm that imprisonment at least leaves correctable. Weighing all this, most utilitarians today judge the death penalty to fail its own test: it does not demonstrably deter better than imprisonment, and its certain costs (wrongful executions, brutalisation) outweigh its speculative benefits.
It is worth noting how the structure of the utilitarian argument differs from the retributive one, because the contrast is itself examinable. The retributivist asks a backward-looking question of desert and would, in principle, execute a guilty murderer even if doing so produced no future benefit whatever; the utilitarian asks a forward-looking question of consequences and would spare a guilty murderer if execution produced no net benefit, and — more disturbingly — could in principle endorse executing an innocent person if doing so (say, by quelling a riot) produced a sufficiently large benefit. This last possibility is the classic objection to utilitarian theories of punishment: by attending only to aggregate welfare, the theory seems to lose its grip on the requirement that punishment fall on the guilty. A rule-utilitarian answers that a society which executed the innocent for social convenience would generate terror and destroy trust, so the welfare-maximising rule is one that punishes only the guilty — but the critic responds that this concedes the retributivist's point that desert, not utility, is doing the real moral work. A strong essay can use this to show that retribution and utility are not merely two reasons pointing the same way but rival accounts of what punishment is.
Natural moral law is genuinely divided, which makes it excellent evaluation material. The primary precept to preserve life and the prohibition on killing the innocent pull against the death penalty; but Aquinas himself defended it. In the Summa Theologica (II-II, Q.64) he argues that, just as a surgeon may amputate a gangrenous limb to save the body, so the state may put to death an offender who has become "dangerous and infectious to the community," for the sake of the common good — the part may be sacrificed for the whole. Crucially, Aquinas restricts this to the guilty and to the protection of the community; it is the killing of the innocent that the precept forbids absolutely. So a natural-law case for the death penalty rests on the common good and just authority, while a natural-law case against it can stress that modern states can protect the community by secure imprisonment (so execution is no longer necessary), and that killing forecloses the offender's repentance and reform — goods natural law also values. This is essentially the reasoning behind the development of Catholic teaching examined below.
The protection (incapacitation) argument is, for many supporters, the most intuitive: a person who has murdered may murder again, and a dead offender certainly cannot. The abolitionist reply is decisive in the modern context: secure imprisonment, including a whole-life tariff, protects the public just as effectively, so the additional protection afforded by execution over imprisonment is negligible — and since the death penalty is meant to be reserved for the worst cases, which are precisely the cases where life imprisonment would be imposed anyway, incapacitation rarely requires killing. The supporter may respond that prisoners can kill fellow inmates or staff, or escape; the abolitionist replies that these are rare and are better addressed by prison security than by a policy of execution with all its other costs. The upshot is that protection, on its own, no longer justifies the death penalty in a state capable of secure confinement.
The reform argument bears uniquely against execution, and connects ethics to Christian theology. Reformative theories hold that punishment should aim at the offender's moral restoration; capital punishment is, by definition, the abandonment of that aim, since a dead offender cannot be reformed. For Christianity this is weighty: if every person is capable of repentance and is the object of a redeeming divine love, then to execute an offender is to declare them beyond redemption and to cut short the very process — conversion, penitence, the bearing of fruit "worthy of repentance" — that the gospel exists to make possible. The parable of the prodigal son and Jesus's promise to the penitent thief crucified beside him ("today you will be with me in Paradise," Luke 23:43) are often cited here: even at the point of execution, repentance and mercy remain possible, which suggests the penalty forecloses something of infinite worth. Against this, supporters argue that some crimes are so monstrous that the demand of justice (retribution) is not answered by the prospect of the criminal's eventual reform, and that victims' families may experience the emphasis on the offender's rehabilitation as a refusal to take their loss seriously. The reformative case is therefore strongest as part of a cumulative argument: it does not by itself prove execution wrong, but combined with the failure of deterrence and the sufficiency of imprisonment for protection, it removes one more pillar from under the penalty.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.