It has been suggested that capital punishment helps to shape society's moral condemnation of serious crimes; murder in particular. In fact, author Steven Goldberg views capital punishment as the worst possible thing society can do to a convicted criminal. Moreover, it is interesting to note that messages are sent that both help and hinder the argument for capital punishment as an effective means to deal with severe crimes.1 As a means of discussing Goldberg's view, this paper will present a brief overview of the way that capital punishment was used in the history of western society. After the overview, we will look at a detailed analysis of Goldberg's argument, paying particular attention to the way Goldberg responds to the evidence for and against the death penalty.
From the outset, it appears that capital punishment, although used often, has not done much in the way of promoting regard for human life. From 1930 to 1967, 3,859 people were executed under the rubric of capital punishment in the United States.2 Since 1967, very few have met the same fate 38 states have adopted new sentencing and
1 Steven Goldberg, "On Capital Punishment," Ethics 85 (1974): 67 74.
2 Thomas Draper, ed., Capital Punishment, (New York: H.W. Wilson, 1985), 6.
punishment standards, and the debate continues to be a national issue. The argument runs deep into the strains of society: how should a democratic society punish those individuals who have chosen to commit the gravest of on both sides of the question to establish some sort of moral sins? Besides the emotional debate, scholars have lined up definitive answer to the problem. Most scholars agree that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to the crime of murder, since most murders are committed under emotional strains, etc. However, others maintain that ridding society of the criminal is as effective as any hope of deterrence.3
In contrast to the way twentieth cen...