Consequentialist Approach To Capital Punishment Essay

Capital punishment or simply the death penalty, is usually the harshest sentence reserved for those who have committed such reprehensible acts that they warrant death. In justifying punishment, there has been significant discourse regarding a retributive point of view and a consequentialist one. Retributivists, such as Immanuel Kant, posit that punishing those who have done wrong is justifiable because we are merely giving them what they deserve in return for what they have done. On the other hand, consequentialists assert that punishment is justifiable as it brings about positive consequences such as crime deterrence, rehabilitation, and social protection. In this paper, we will primarily examine the Kantian approach to capital punishment as well as its objections, followed by the consequentialist view as a secondary response in formulating a more comprehensive view of its justification. However, we will conclude that while both Kantian and consequentialist approaches are able to provide some justification of capital punishment, they are unable to account for the flaws in the penal system, and thus the death penalty should not …show more content…
Yost rightly posits that such arguments do not pose a serious case against the Kantian approach as the offender should not be any less responsible for his rational act merely due to social injustice. (pg 12) He goes on to assert that “the Kantian approach recognises that failure of social justice makes the death penalty unfair in many if not all cases, without at the same time insisting that this unfairness somehow lessens responsibility”. In accordance with Kant’s respect for persons, when one commits a wrongdoing and is subjected to the “power of agency”, then he would be held accountable for the decision that he made as a rational agent, regardless of his