INTRODUCTION

Home to only 5 percent of the worlds populace, the

United States detains astonishing 25 percent of the global
convict population-there are over 2.2 million prisoners
serving sentences in prisons or jails.1 Marking a 500%
increase over the past thirty years, the United States has
precipitately augmented a nonpareil penal system with
the highest incarceration rate in the world.2 Americas
peerless in numbers criminal justice system has reignited
one of the primary considerations of political philosophy:
the relationship between punishment and justice. Arguably
the most fundamental and crucial concept of political
philosophy, justice pervades the modern world as an
essential focus of discussion raising concerns regarding
the relationship between the individual and the state.
Historically, the church has affirmed the right of the civil
magistrate in matters of capital justice. Contemporary
culture, in contrast, is permeated with arguments against
capital punishment. Even among those professing
Christian faith, there is widespread opposition to the death
penalty. As a trend, the ever-increasing role of the media
in manipulating public sentiment in the face of pressing
ethical debates promises not to subside. While we may
grant that the Christian community is divided over this
issue and while we take no delight in its clarification, the
church in keeping with its earthly mandate is to
instruct the state in matters of justice.
As the death penalty is a specific type of punishment,
much of the controversy surrounding it can be illuminated
by considering the nature of punishment in general. Thus
we will begin by looking more broadly at the notion of
punishment.
Punishment in General

A basic definition of punishment is that it involves the deliberate

infliction of suffering on a supposed or actual offender for an offense
such as a moral or legal transgression. While punishments can be
imposed by anyone in a position of authorityparents, teachers,
bosses, friendsit is criminal punishment that is of issue here,
namely, the punishment imposed by governments for legal
infractions. When imposing punishments, governments have a
range of options that differ in severity. At the low end, punishments

of community service require offenders to participate in some

activity that benefits their local community, such as picking up litter,
working at animal shelters, or assisting nonprofit organizations.
Financial penalties, such as fines, are common particularly with nonviolent crimes. Acts of public humiliation, while more common in
previous eras, are still sentencing options today, such as when
convicted drunk drivers are required to put DWI stickers on their
cars. The use of corporal punishment, such as caning, is still an
option in some countries today. Incarceration in jail or prison is
among the harshest form of punishment, particularly because of the
serious restrictions that it places on the offenders liberty.
Many harsh forms of punishment that were commonplace in
the past , particularly those involving torture, have since been
outlawed as inhumane in most countries. One major liberalizing
influence was a book called On Crimes and Punishments (1764) by
Italian political philosopher Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), which
drew attention to injustices within Europes criminal court systems
and the appalling condition of its prisons. The entire concept of
criminal punishment, he believed, needed major rethinking, and
society needed to shift away from severe methods to ones that
would have a more lasting psychological impact on both the
prisoner and the public. He writes,
The intent of punishments is not to torment a sentient being, nor to
undo a crime already committed. . . . Instead of being influenced by
passion, such institutions should be the cool moderator of the
passions of individuals. Can the groans of a tortured wretch bring
back the time past, or reverse the crime he has committed? The
end of punishment, therefore, is no other than to prevent the
criminal from doing further injury to society, and to prevent others
from committing the same offense. Such punishments, therefore,
and such a mode of inflicting them ought to be chosen in a way that
will make the strongest and most lasting impressions on the minds
of others, with the least torment to the body of the criminal.
Aims of Punishment
All punishment has some aim which serves to justify the suffering that is inflicted
on the offender. The main aims are retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and
deterrence.
With retribution, punishment is a matter of what is deserved in return for a
wrongful act. The retributive theory of punishment is most often associated with
the notion of eye for and eye justice, where the imposed punishment is equal to
the harm done. The Latin expression for this is lex talionis, which literally means
law of retaliation. Sometimes the eye for an eye concept of punishment is
taken literally, such as the following from the ancient Babylonian Law of
Hammurabi(c. 1750 BCE): If a man puts out the eye of another man, then his eye
shall be put out. If he breaks another man's bone, then his bone shall be broken.
By todays standards, though, strict adherence to eye for and eye justice is
barbaric: we dont punish rapists by raping them, or punish arsonists by burning
down their houses. Rather, we seek redress through more humane types of
suffering that we can impose on offenders.

With incapacitation, punishment keeps offenders from repeating similar

crimes, typically by physically restraining them. When we catch violent criminals
one of our first thought is to get them off the street before they harm others.
With rehabilitation, punishment aims to change the offenders predisposition
towards criminal behavior, and thus keeps him from becoming a threat to others
when released into the community. Sometimes rehabilitation is facilitated through
psychological counseling or other types of behavior-modification therapy.
However, the assumption here is that any type of punishment, if it is memorable
enough, will in and of itself discourage criminals repeating crimes. We expect
convicts to have learned their lesson and mended their anti-social ways.
With deterrence, punishment is a means of discouraging others from
committing similar offenses. If I see that an armed robber was punished with
prison time, Ill be less likely to commit armed robbery myself. The aim here is to
use the criminal as an example for others to learn from.
It is difficult to talk about the aims of punishment without mentioning the
motive of revenge, which involves doing something from resentment as a
retaliatory measure. In our ordinary lives, revenge often plays a role in our
motivations to have someone punished. Suppose, for example, that a mugger
stabs you and leaves you with a life-threatening wound, or that you are brutally
raped, or that a drunk driver crashes into your car killing one of your family
members. In each of these cases you would likely want the perpetrator to not only
be caught, but to suffer for his crime and, in essence, get what he deserves. By
harshly punishing the perpetrator, you have the opportunity to vent your rage and
some sense of satisfaction and closure from your ordeal. What distinguishes
revenge from retributive aims of punishment is impartiality. Revenge stems from
an individuals personal desire for retaliation, whereas retribution considers more
abstractly what justice calls for in a specific situation. Similarly, revenge is
intimately connected with a negative emotional state, such as anger or
resentment, which do not need to play a part in retributive reasoning.
ETHICAL ISSUES
The philosophical component of the death penalty debate concerns whether
executing criminals is ever a morally defensible form of punishment. Of the many
moral justifications offered, three of the most important ones draw on the notions
of rights forfeiture, retribution, and deterrence. Well look at each of these.