Immanuel Kant's Arguments Against Capital Punishment

“A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral.” — Immanuel Kant

When determining what constitutes ethical behavior, society must exclude outside factors such as emotion and consequences. In regard to the capital punishment, neither is acceptable. “Moral worth of an action depends exclusively on whether it is done from duty,” 18th century Philosopher Immanuel Kant asserts, “regardless of our particular desires and inclinations” (Kant 78). While in different situations our motives may be different, our actions must be universal and intrinsically moral. If we are deciding whether or not to justify killing another human being, we can at least make that decision by using prudent logic instead of arbitrary reasoning.

One reason to support capital punishment is because it represents equality. When someone commits a crime, he or she must be punished, and that punishment must fit that particular crime. Adrianne Haslet-Davis, a victim of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, believes, “When you take lives, yours can be taken as well” (Haslet-Davis

2). This concept of retribution is the only way to promote equality in the criminal justice system. According to Ernest van den Haag, “Retribution is an independent moral justification” (van den Haag). Without retribution, a civil society will cease to exist because its laws would lose integrity and validity. We design laws as universal and fair. Shouldn’t our punishments follow accordingly?
Another justification is the criminal’s personal autonomy.

Our autonomy, the ability to make our own choices, defines our humanity. In the United States, most offenders on death row deliberately committed a heinous crime. The convicted knew that their actions were morally wrong and knew that they faced serious punishment. They accepted their fate when they consciously agreed to perform the crime, therefore they recognized their choice and able to accept the ultimate punishment for their actions. Along with the notion of personal autonomy, many abolitionists argue life without parol as a viable substitute to capital punishment. This concept of rehabilitating criminals deprives them of their personal autonomy, otherwise known as denying their basic humanity. As Immanuel Kant states, “Morality then is the relation of relations to the autonomy of the will” (**Kant

16).
Those who oppose the death penalty rely on arguments such as desired consequences and arbitrary emotion to justify life without parol. What they lack is sound logic to support their arguments. Humanity, and the championed values of equality and free will associated with it, supports capital punishment. While critics claim society needs to abolish this ultimate punishment in order to remain civil, I argue the opposite. We should support capital punishment because, without it, a peaceful society becomes nonexistent.