Utilitarian or Retributivist Perspective on Death Row

Utilitarian or Retributivist Death penalty, the capital punishment, was called by Brennan as an "official murder" because of the main fact that it takes life as a form of providing justice to extreme crimes committed by criminals, an "eye for an eye punishment" as others may say. Justice Brennan, a utilitarian, is against the capital punishment because he believes that death penalty is not reasonable to pay for a crime.

This is perhaps because of his personal belief in morality that no human has the right to take away another human's life; that even the worst crime cannot be recompensed by the criminal's life. Brennan even argues that the death of a hundred of people is no worse than the death of one. Justice Brennan believes in punishment but not to death penalty. In his view, punishment is only proper to those who are guilty, but death penalty would be too much. His utilitarian theory indicates the following principle.

"The greatest happiness for the greatest number." This points that death penalty cannot provide happiness to those who are seeking justice. How can the death of a criminal diminish the pain that might be felt by the victim or his relatives? This is among the viewpoint of Brennan why he is against the death row. Compared to Brennan, on the other hand, Kant is a retributivist. He supports death penalty and has an opposite view why death row should be accepted as a form of delivering justice.

To Kant, the punishment of death penalty is but a consequence of crimes committed and a form of human justice. It has nothing to do with morality and should therefore not be used as a subject of issues thrown against death row. Moreover, Kant responds to Brennan's stand stating that hatred has nothing to do the capital punishment. Again, death penalty is nothing but an imperative way of delivering justice to those who seeks justice.

As indicated on Kant's side, If we believe that meting out justice is an absolute imperative which should never compete with any other interest, then it is our duty to punish the last murderer. Kant would argue strenuously with the notion that such an action constitutes the infliction of pain for no good reason. The good reason for inflicting pain is to fulfill society's duty to seek justice.

Kant stands as a retributivist because he sees that justice should be served to those who deserve it; what was taken should be what justice should deliver to the victims; an eye for an eye, as others might say. To Kant, no other elements, such as morality views, should cause failure in the delivery of justice. Personal Opinion Considering the viewpoints of both Brennan and Kant, I personally agree with the arguments that Kant presents in support to death penalty. That is, death penalty is the consequence of committed crimes.

I am a supporter of death penalty because I believe that death penalty upholds justice to victims of crimes. It is also one way of letting the society know that it is always possible that justice will always prevail and that justice is not hindered by mercy. Otherwise, should courts favor mercy, the fit meaning of the term "justice" cannot be properly served.

The important thing to note concerning death penalty is the answer to the question "Does death penalty accomplish the justice that is required, or is it just an excessive form of delivering justice Although I believe that death penalty should be supported, it is critical that extensive study of cases where death penalty is proposed should be done. Every point and situation that occurred in a crime must be clearly established to determine whether a crime deserves a capital punishment or a less punishment.

Believing in death penalty does not mean that the courts of justice will impose death penalty on every crime. Rather, what should be understood is that death penalty proves that there is justice and it is not always imperative that a crime results to death row. If Brennan argues that the death of a hundred people is no worse than the death of one, how will.