Death Penalty Debate: Van den Haag vs. Costanzo
This essay compares two opposing perspectives on the morality and justification of capital punishment. Law professor Ernest van den Haag argues that the death penalty is morally justified on grounds of retribution, deterrence, and societal responsibility, maintaining that individual guilt — not social circumstance — is what makes punishment legitimate. Psychologist Mark Costanzo counters that the death penalty fails as a deterrent, as murder rates have not declined, and raises moral, religious, and empirical objections, including the dehumanizing nature of execution methods and the role of race, wealth, and social status in convictions. The essay concludes by summarizing each thinker's core position.
- Introduction: Frames the moral debate over capital punishment
- Van den Haag's Case for Capital Punishment: Retribution, deterrence, and individual guilt arguments
- Costanzo's Case Against Capital Punishment: Empirical, moral, and religious objections to execution
- Conclusion: Summary of each thinker's opposing position
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper structures its argument as a clear point-counterpoint comparison, making each thinker's position easy to identify and contrast.
- It accurately represents both sides — van den Haag's retributive and deterrence-based rationale and Costanzo's empirical and moral objections — without distorting either view.
- The conclusion neatly synthesizes each scholar's disciplinary background (law vs. psychology) as context for their differing emphases.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative analysis of primary arguments: it isolates specific claims (deterrence, retribution, discrimination, dehumanization) and traces how each thinker engages with the same issues from opposing viewpoints. This technique is useful for ethics and philosophy papers where two positions must be weighed against each other.
Structure breakdown
The essay follows a straightforward four-part structure: a brief introduction framing the debate, a paragraph developing van den Haag's pro-death-penalty arguments, a paragraph presenting Costanzo's counterarguments, and a concluding paragraph that summarizes both positions. This mirrors a standard compare-and-contrast essay format appropriate for undergraduate ethics coursework.
Introduction
The morality of the death penalty has long been a source of controversy, as thinkers across disciplines have debated the permissibility and justification of executing criminals. Two eminent scholars who put forth strong opposing viewpoints on the subject are Ernest van den Haag and Mark Costanzo.
Van den Haag's Case for Capital Punishment
Ernest van den Haag agrees with the death penalty and considers it both moral and justified. He argues that capital punishment is moral insofar as it serves the purposes of doing justice and deterring crime. His argument goes further, contending that as long as criminals are the ones who deny innocent people the right to live, it is only fair for society to suppress them — in other words, it is morally wrong to allow a murderer to live.
Van den Haag takes into account the social conditions that may surround murder, such as poverty, limited control over one's actions, and societal discrimination (noting that more Black and poor people are punished). However, he acknowledges that these circumstances do not excuse criminal behavior. The underlying idea is that discriminatory conditions do not make the punishment unjust. Rather, it is the concept of individual guilt that makes punishment moral — guilt being a personal, not a societal, characteristic.
Arguing in line with retributive theories of justice, van den Haag holds that capital punishment is moral because it represents a responsible act by a society that recognizes and deters murder. He also supports the deterrence argument, maintaining that murder rates may decrease if people fear the most extreme and irrevocable form of punishment.
Conclusion
Law professor Ernest van den Haag supports the death penalty and puts forth arguments grounded in deterrence, retribution, and justice. On the other hand, psychologist Mark Costanzo denies that the death penalty produces positive practical effects, and raises religious and moral objections: that executions have not reduced murder rates, that society treats murderers unjustly in ways that reflect broader discrimination, that the process of execution is dehumanizing and sinful, and that it denies convicted individuals any chance of redemption.
Bibliography
Costanzo, Mark. (1997). Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty. St. Martin's Press: New York.
Van den Haag, Ernest. (1986). The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense. Retrieved from PBS Frontline.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.