The purpose of this research is to examine the retributivist argument with respect to capital punishment. The plan of the research will be to defend a retributivist theory of criminal liability, which is in the background of any credible defense of capital punishment. It will be argued that retribution as the principal defense of capital punishment is superior to the notion that capital punishment can be defended according to a theory of deterrence and, further, superior to notions that capital punishment cannot be defended as a matter of utilitarian thought.
The history of capital punishment is as old as history itself, and some understanding of its history is important for a full elaboration of arguments connected to it. To be sure, this research focuses on contemporary society, but the roots of the present systems of punishment may foster understanding of the sociological implications of the death penalty. Until the eighteenth century, executions by the state were imposed for petty crimes as well as for major ones. For example, in Great Britain during the 1700s, "160 offenses were punishable by death, mostly offenses against property." In modern times, crimes against persons or the state, not property, are the focus of capital punishment: "treason, the murder of a police officer on duty, or murder committed by a prisoner serving a life sentence for murder."
One view of capital punishment is that executions deter crime. The deterrence position is that, properly applied, capital punishment will loom as so serious a threat that a potential murderer will think twice before killing.
Deterrence theory suggests that if punishment is to act as an effective deterrent to crime it must be: 1) severe enough to outweigh the potential pleasures crime might bring, 2) administered with certainty, 3) administered promptly, 4) administered publicly, and 5) applied with the proper judicial attitude. Each of these principles of punishment is...