Ethan Thomas

12/14/17

Capital Punishment

In a world filled with beginnings and endings nothing is more absolute than death. No

matter what you do, who you are, or even how healthy you are, death is the last thing a person

does in their life. Life is valuable and precious so shouldn’t we protect it against being taken

early or unjustly? Simply put, crime should be punished and punishment should fit the crime

that was committed.

Ernest Van Den Haag in his essay “The Ultimate Punishment” passionately supports

capital punishment. “Justice requires that as many of the guilty as possible be punished,

regardless of whether others have avoided punishment.” For true justice, we must not withhold

punishment from the guilty on the premise that others have been able to escape justice.

Imagine a world where stealing was legal; no one could be trusted because anyone could take

whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. People would live in fear and society would

deteriorate. Instead we punish the crime, just like a ticket for speeding or jail time for breaking

a law. The problem is not found in should we punish murderers, but if capital punishment

should be what a murderer receives. In all situations, the punishment is two-sided with the

punishment being a deterrent for future crimes and a retribution for the victim.

“By committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a

legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime.” In this short

statement, Van Den Haag opens up a whole new prospective that the proven guilty have
already expected their penalty just like those who speed assume the risk for receiving a ticket.

This can bring us back to the reality that the murderer isn’t a victim, they are someone who

willingly and wrongfully caused the end of another’s life. The culprit should be treated justly but

this isn’t to the extent that they get a lesser punishment because people want to make them

out to be victims of the state. They of course aren’t victim’s due to the fact that they, by

committing the act, have submitted themselves to be tried, judged, and if found guilty

sentenced to punishment as long as it isn’t a violation of the 8th amendment.

All arguments that argue that the guilty suffer most on death row or during a life

sentence, can’t have a definite answer to every case. We can in fact know that the victim didn’t

deserve the suffering that was inflicted. Van Den Haag states that a kidnapper isn’t held for the

same amount of time as they held a victim but the punishment extends to provide justice on

both the individual and social level. On the same note the punishments for all crimes isn’t

intended to be pleasant and soft but punishments need to be just and to the point that the

crime committed wouldn’t be worth doing in comparison to the punishment.

Death is an absolute and life is the most precious thing we have to lose. You can’t

replace life after it’s gone, but that doesn’t mean that the person left living deserves to be

treated as a victim of the state or as someone who committed a lesser crime. The most severe

of crimes should deserve the most severe punishment. The death penalty is in place in states

that have elected to allow it.

Van Den Haag indirectly addresses the death penalty falls under the 8th amendment in

the Bill of Rights, he is directly addressing the people who call it cruel. He also talks about how
others will say that it isn’t worth risking an innocent life. Both of these arguments can be drug

out forever but Van Den Haag provides statistics from Professors Hugo Adam Bedau and

Michael Radelet. The Professors stated that over the span of 85 years, 7,000 people were

executed, and only 25 of them were found to be innocent. The 8th amendment was added to

prevent absurd and inhuman forms of punishment. Along with, unproportioned punishment to

the crime committed. This ruled out death by stoning, firing squad, and all other heinous ways

that have been used to execute murders. This in no way states that the death penalty as a

whole can be condemned as cruel or unusual.

Another argument is that capital punishment would promote and legitimize unlawful

killing. Capital punishment doesn’t not do that on the grounds that all other punishments are

meant to be unpleasant, and those punishments aren’t argued to be unlawful possession or

theft when we refer to someone getting jail time or a fine that they are forced to pay. Van Den

Haag explains that murder and execution are different because murder is unlawful and

undeserved, while execution is the result of a criminal getting what they deserve due to their

decision to commit an unlawful act. Van Den Haag believes that the comparison between

punishments for different crimes isn’t physical, it is social. This is both deterrence and to bring

justice to the victims

We don’t have any conclusive evidence that shows alternatives to capital punishment,

such as life in prison, that has any more or less deterrence to potential murderers. Van den

Haag states that maldistribution inheres no more in capital punishment than any other

punishment. This says that the cases that the innocent are failed by the justice system is in the
same amount as other crimes. If someone proceeds to use this it would only lead to the

agreement on all punishments not the death penalty specifically.

The moral objections must be the hardest to defend against because they aren’t able to

be changed by a conversation or line of statistics. Furthermore, the two moral objections

commonly given are that the penalty may be regarded as always excessive as retribution and

always morally degrading; to always say the death penalty is always excessive, one must believe

that no matter the circumstances or losses that are brought about that the death penalty can

NEVER be justified. This must come about from faith Van Den Haag believes.

As complex as the arguments for and against the death penalty are, the outcome of the

punishment must bring about justice and betterment of society. The death penalty isn’t just

meant for deterrence and it isn’t just meant to be something that allows the state government

to be the supreme ruling power of the fate of a guilty offender.

Does the murderer who stripped the right to live from a person, or persons, still have

the right to live? Is their right to live bigger than the deceased, or right to justice along with

society’s right to justice and safety? I don’t believe so and Ernest Van Den Haag also strongly

agrees. Even if the death penalty keeps one person alive every year I believe that along justifies

the execution of a guilty party. It is a cold reality of this world but in order to maintain law and

order; we must always be seeking out justice and to protect rights of the innocent. This must

not come at the expense of the victim because we have decided to lower the severity of

punishment.
Van Den Haag, Ernest . “The Ultimate Punishment.” Morality and Moral Controversies , 9th ed.,
Pearson, 2014, pp. 192–196.