An Overreaching State: How Capital Punishment Goes Beyond the Role of Government
Document Type
Oral Presentation
Campus where you would like to present
SURC 271
Start Date
21-5-2015
End Date
21-5-2015
Keywords
Death Penalty, Retributivism, Justifications
Abstract
This will be a presentation of my senior thesis in philosophy. It is a moral argument against retributivist justifications for capital punishment, which focus solely on desert (i.e., what the criminal offender deserves). I argue that although retributivism is not necessarily wrong, it cannot justify the government sentencing criminal offenders to death. It may be that certain individuals deserve to die, but this in itself is not a justification for capital punishment. I show this by first discussing the history, implications, and applications of retributivism so that the position itself is well understood before continuing. I then argue that the role of the state, regarding criminal justice, is to protect its citizens from harm and reasonable threats of harm, which can be achieved by sentencing an offender to life in prison. I show how prison is punishment in itself, and why it is the case that life in prison is sufficient punishment in lieu of the death penalty. Thus, I conclude that the death penalty cannot be justified with retributivist principles because it is beyond any obligation of the government.
Recommended Citation
Schmit, Riley, "An Overreaching State: How Capital Punishment Goes Beyond the Role of Government" (2015). Symposium Of University Research and Creative Expression (SOURCE). 10.
https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/source/2015/oralpresentations/10
Department/Program
Philosophy & Religious Studies
Additional Mentoring Department
Philosophy & Religious Studies
An Overreaching State: How Capital Punishment Goes Beyond the Role of Government
SURC 271
This will be a presentation of my senior thesis in philosophy. It is a moral argument against retributivist justifications for capital punishment, which focus solely on desert (i.e., what the criminal offender deserves). I argue that although retributivism is not necessarily wrong, it cannot justify the government sentencing criminal offenders to death. It may be that certain individuals deserve to die, but this in itself is not a justification for capital punishment. I show this by first discussing the history, implications, and applications of retributivism so that the position itself is well understood before continuing. I then argue that the role of the state, regarding criminal justice, is to protect its citizens from harm and reasonable threats of harm, which can be achieved by sentencing an offender to life in prison. I show how prison is punishment in itself, and why it is the case that life in prison is sufficient punishment in lieu of the death penalty. Thus, I conclude that the death penalty cannot be justified with retributivist principles because it is beyond any obligation of the government.
Faculty Mentor(s)
Matthew Altman