Scott Ma

Mr. Wilson
SVI Philosophy
January 31, 2007

Ethics Paper: Capital Punishment Is Ethically Wrong

In 1976, the Canadian government abolished capital punishment and joined more than

half the countries in the world that have eliminated the death penalty in law or practice. Capital

punishment is carried out in various parts of the world for crimes that include murder, but there

exists no ethical justifications for this form of punishment. In this essay, I will argue that capital

punishment cannot be ethically justified, because punishments should not be retributive, the

death penalty is a barbarous form of punishment, and society should not aim to take the life of a

criminal but rather educate the criminal on his or her actions

In a community of free and equal citizens, its members are dedicated to a balance

between the common good and self-fulfillment. Individuals become a part of in order to receive

benefits from the community, but only as a result or effect of contributing to society, to the best

of ability. At the same time, these citizens have rights that cannot be infringed upon by any

individual, and are generally protected by the state or government. When a person chooses to

commit an act of violence or murder, he or she immediately forfeits some of his rights that he

originally had as a member of society who respected the laws of the community. Nevertheless,

he still has some fundamental rights that cannot be taken away, such as the right to not be

discriminated against and the right to a speedy trial (this takes place within the context of

Canadian law, since other countries have their own set of laws). People who commit acts of

murder take away the life of other individuals who have the right to life, and therefore these

criminals require some form of punishment. Sometimes, these murders are so violent and horrific

in nature that it seems unfit to simply put the murders in prison. Put bluntly, it seems and feels

more reasonable to apply capital punishment to these individuals, and to execute them. The
pretended justification for this is that because this person has committed such an act of violence,

it is our duty to do to that person the same thing that he or she has done. However, society must

not live by this philosophy, of “an eye for an eye”, also known as the “law of retaliation” or

retributive justice (formally known as lex talionis). The idea that punishment should be equal to

the crime can be derived from the Babylonian Law of Hammurabi of the 18th century, in which it

states “If a builder build a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house

which he built fall and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death .... If it kill the son of

the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death” (Hooker 2007). Clearly, such an absurd

principle cannot be applied to every crime (if a criminal kills a family of three, one cannot go

and kill the criminal’s mother and father). More importantly, this principle is not based upon a

foundation of reason and logic, but on innate human psychological feelings of vengeance. Fair

and rational laws about punishment cannot be derived when all one wants to do is to seek

revenge, because this human impulse is uncontrolled and clouds one’s judgement. C.S. Lewis, in

his The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, wrote that “According to the Humanitarian theory,

to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and,

therefore, barbarous and immoral” (C.S. Lewis 194). This is, in fact, very true, since to punish a

criminal based merely on revenge is irrational and serves no purpose other than to punish that

criminal. Capital punishment justified under this reason is also barbarous because it reverses the

state of society to previous periods of time when societies were beginning to form principles of

justice which were actually quite flawed. For example, the Law of the Twelve Tables was an

ancient legislation that served as the foundation of Roman law, and it states “If a person has

maimed another’s limb, let there be retaliation in kind…” and “A person who had been found

guilty of giving false witness shall be hurled down from the Tarpeian Rock” (Halsall 1998).

These kinds of punishments for crimes only serve as retaliation, and don’t benefit the criminal,

the victim, or society. These kinds of laws can also lead to a slippery slope situation where if a
person or a group of people (which could be in the form of a government or country) commits an

act of acts of violence, then they deserve to be “punished” using the same act of violence that

they committed. There can be no justification for this kind of punishment because instead of

punishing or penalizing the other party, one is essentially seeking retribution and committing the

same act of violence that one has condemned as immoral or illegal. Punishment should never be

carried out solely for the purposes of getting even with the criminal.

The aim of society should not be to commit the crimes that criminals commit, simply

because those criminals deserve it. If a criminal has killed someone, it would not be morally right

nor justified to seek vengeance and kill that criminal. Instead, society should strive to find out

why these individuals have committed such acts of violence and to make these criminals

understand that what they did was an irrational and immoral action. Society should also

endeavour to bring these criminals back to the world that rational and law-abiding people live in,

and to re-introduce them to society. The reason for this is that these criminals, no matter how one

looks at it, were once rational members of society who, because of various social, economic,

physiological or psychological factors, decided to commit acts of violence or murder.

Communities should try to determine these reasons why these individuals have “veered” off the

normal path that everyone else lives. Perhaps some criminals were first time offenders who may

have taken the wrong course of actions, and ended up being convicted of murdering someone.

Would capital punishment be effective then? The answer is no. Instead of executing these

criminals to illustrate the punishment for murdering someone, it would be much better to educate

these criminals and illustrate to them what they did wrong. If they learn that, indeed, their actions

were immoral and they should not have taken away the lives of other people, then they can

become better individuals and even contribute to society.

This is not to say, however, that these criminals shouldn’t be punished at all. Some form

of punishment still must be applied to these individuals, but it cannot involve death or execution.
Capital punishment is an immoral and unjustified act that cannot exist because it is a barbaric

and uncivilized form of punishment, it is retributive and seeks revenge, and the goal of society

should be to educate the criminal rather than take his or her life.

Bibliography

Fieser, James and Dowden, Bradley. “Capital Punishment”. 2001. 28 Jan. 2007.

<http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/capitalp.htm>

Halsall, Paul. “Ancient History Sourcebook: The Twelve Tables”

<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/12tables.html>

Hooker, Richard. “The Code of Hammurabi”. 1999. 28 Jan. 2007.

<http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM>

Lewis, C.S.. “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”. Philosophy: The Big Questions –

Course Readings 2006-2007