A Philosophical Review of Capital Punishment

I was recently asked why I supported the death penalty. I came to realize that I had never thoroughly reviewed why I supported such a grand punishment. So I decided to write this in a format close to a style called “stream of consciousness.”

The main purpose of the death penalty is to protect society from a dangerous element, just like we attempt to eliminate wasps from school grounds by placing those wasp-catchers that hang from trees and so forth. No community wants to live with dangerous people. Stories have been run for years about restrictions placed on convicted felons and child molesters that are released after serving their time, as well as the attitude the community adopts with such restrictions. Because a person has made the decision to kill or maim innocent people instead of dealing with any given situation peacefully and lawfully, it is logical to assume that this person cannot function in society.

Now, only the most serious of crimes should conclude with a death sentence: child molestation, triple homicide, treason, etc. I don’t feel the need to explain every minute detail of every possible scenario that would constitute the death penalty because this isn’t a research post. But what I could do is argue the philosophical and moral need for capital punishment.

That’s correct. I just said moral and capital punishment in the same sentence. I would go so far as to argue that capital punishment is the moral thing to do. If someone is so dangerous that they have murdered someone, or scared a child for life, or whatever, the community has a moral authority to do something about it. In the good ol’ days, they were either hanged or banished from the town. Since we can no longer banish people just so they can show up at another community’s doorstep, we must hang them, figuratively speaking of course.

Opponents of the death penalty have many different arguments. I am not ignorant of them. They argue that the cost of execution is more so than life in prison. They argue that we have no moral authority to kill people, no matter how guilty they are. However, they continue, we do have a responsibility to at least attempt to change these people through therapy.

I argue that man is born neutral; that, at genesis, we are not good or evil, but it is our environment of which we grow and learn in that defines and shapes us. If someone is evil and has done evil things, with no regard for civility or the rule of law, they cannot be helped. I would argue that the cost of assisting these people plus the cost of their life-long tenure in a jail cell is more expensive than the most efficient capital punishment systems. I personally do not want my tax dollars to be spent providing for cable television or a new arm chair in the communal room, or even therapy sessions to work through and analyze why he killed his wife and kids. It just isn’t necessary in my book, and I’d rather they be out of this world than polluting it.