Utilitarianism Case Study -- Death

Utilitarianism Case Study -- Death Penalty

Context, History, and General Background of the Issue

The history of criminal justice recognizes three principal concerns: punishment or retribution, isolation of offenders for the benefit of the general public, and deterrence. In principle, the death penalty serves all of those interests by punishing the offender, protecting members of the general public from the offender, and providing an example intended to deter other individuals who might otherwise be more inclined to perpetrate the same offenses. In ancient times, punishment was typically the focus of criminal penalties but contemporary ethical theorists emphasize crime prevention and prosecution the Utilitarian approach to criminal justice in general would favor measures that reduce the incidence of crime and benefit the greatest number of people in society. It could support the imposition of death penalties in certain situations.

Applying Utilitarian Ethical Concepts

Generally, Utilitarianism would permit capital punishment in circumstances where there were no other reasonable means of achieving the greatest good for the largest number of people. One school of Utilitarian thought is that human social behavior must be addressed through Utilitarian rules that do not recognize fact-based exceptions to those rules. The other Utilitarian school of thought, Act Utilitarianism, is that it may also be for the maximum good of society that its rules maintain sufficient flexibility not to produce morally absurd results applied in an all-or-none manner. Both schools of thought could justify capital punishment under certain circumstances. [the larger implications would be terrifying because, in principle, Rule Utilitarianism could establish an ethical requirement to impose the death penalty for killing strictly in self-defense or even by accident, depending only on the literal content of the laws involved.]

Should this man have been subjected to capital punishment? Why or why not?

Possibly. First, as a general proposition, it is not helpful to look backwards with 20/20 factual hindsight. The perpetrator of a violent attempted homicide is not vindicated of his guilt if his intended victim later kills 20 people at work. Nor is the fact that a murderer becomes a "model prisoner" after the fact an appropriate consideration looking back on what his punishment should have been without the benefit of omniscient hindsight. If a criminal commits a morally heinous crime, imposing the death penalty might be justified under Act Utilitarianism as a form of collective self-defense, based on the same rationale for recognizing self-defense killing by individuals. That might be the case where society must choose between allocating the only available funds to child welfare or to the costs of providing lifelong custodial care to some types of offenders. At the time of the crime, Act Utilitarianism could have justified the death penalty based on the seriousness of the crime if allocating funds to housing offenders sentenced to life in prison came at the expense of other (innocent) members of society. All of the interests it would serve support the greater good of society, such as by deterring crime, protecting the general public, and valuing the benefit to deserving recipients of public funds over those who forfeit those rights because of their prior conduct.