Immanuel Kant's Capital Punishment

Immanuel Kant developed a philosophy that argues that morality is about respecting people as ends in themselves, rather than a means to an end. Immanuel Kant reflects his beliefs concerning the existence and execution of the death penalty in a personal quote: "Even in a civilized society, the state has the right to punish the individual." Although every human being deserves dignity and respect, Kant would argue that in order to be a more moral society, our federal and state governments should continue to enact the death penalty in cases of first-degree murder with aggravating factors. Two arguments in favor of the death penalty evolve from Kant's ethical principle of respect for individual autonomy: 1) people who commit murders are acting freely and therefore choose to be subject to the death penalty

and 2) people have an autonomous duty to enact retribution.

The first argument manifests itself in the idea that each person should be held accountable for the rational and autonomous decisions that they choose to make. Kant argues that "every person is worthy of respect, not because we own ourselves but because we are rational beings, capable of reason; we are…autonomous beings, capable of acting and choosing freely." (Sandel 107)** People who commit murders do so rationally and therefore autonomously choose to become eligible for the death penalty. The murderers understand the gravity of murder and accept that the punishment for murder should be equally as severe. Kant does not focus on consequences, but believes that with autonomy comes moral responsibility. Furthermore, if a society does not seek a death sentence, they are doing a disservice to the murderer. Denying them the death penalty

is denying them the right to enact their free will in killing and then subsequently accepting responsibility for their action. The history of Kenneth Allen McDuff demonstrates a defendant that made the rational choice to commit 1st degree murder with aggravating factors, even though he knew he would receive the death penalty. In 1966, received the death penalty, yet escaped execution three times before SCOTUS invalidated all death penalties in Furman v Georgia. McDuff was released and subsequently "raped, tortured, and murdered at least nine women in Texas in the early 1990s." (Cassell. “In Defense of the Death Penalty”). After his release, McDuff once again, made a conscious decision to murder and subjected himself to the death penalty. Murderers deserve the death penalty because they were cognizant of their actions and, in doing so accept the subsequent outcome.
The second argument develops from the idea that people have a right to enact retribution. A quote from Immanuel Kant saying, “A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral,” establishes the belief that in order to achieve morality, we should institute a retributive system of punishment. Kant argues that “punishment must be in response to guilt and that the guilty must be punished so that justice and equality can exist.” (Shannon. “Introduction to Ethics). ** The death penalty is the “harshest punishment for [the] worst crimes,” because it irrevocably destroys the life possibilities of the death row inmate (Hinman. “A Life for a Life.”). In order to contribute to a moral society, people must seek retribution from those who have committed heinous crimes against society.
Kant’s belief in individual autonomy lends itself to the arguments that people who make a conscious decision to kill deserve the death penalty and society should seek retribution from those murderers.