Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill utilitarianism and the capital punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Capital punishment is still recognized in many countries, including the United States, as a form of punishment for horrendous crimes, such as aggravated murder. There are always large debates about whether or not that capital punishment is an easy way out of serving a life sentence. My thesis is that I agree with Mill in believing capital punishment is kinder to prisoners than serving a life sentence.
John Stuart Mill believes that capital punishment, or in laymen’s terms the death penalty, is kinder to a prisoner than having the prisoner serving life in prison. In Mill’s speech on capital punishment that he delivered in April of 1868 he stated “Few, I think, would venture to propose, as a punishment for aggravated murder, less than imprisonment
…show more content…
(Mill, page 69) Mill believes this is the only argument against capital punishment because he does see the problems with convicting the wrong person and then sentencing them to death. Once the death is over there is no change mind button. The human, whether innocent or guilty, is gone forever and cannot be resurrected from the dead. In the passage where Mill is talking about how capital punishment is irreversible, he is saying that capital punishment may not always be kinder than life in prison especially when the person who is killed is later to be found innocent then in that sense the government took away a life that could have been …show more content…
Mill brings up any arguments of how just killing a man is easier to do than serving a life sentence because many people are more willing to have a prisoner killed than serve life in prison because they also want them to suffer. John Stuart Mill also talks about how many countries are more likely to make mistakes when capital punishment is on the table rather than a life sentence. I agree with Mill because when a person is sentenced to death they do not have the time to think about their actions and they can then be released from their suffering on earth. I also agree with Mill that people are going to make more mistakes when they are killing a man because they really want the person to be guilty even if they are
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.
In a quote by John Mill, “Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall.” Everyone’s life is precious, but at what price? Is it okay to let a murderer to do as they please? Reader, please take a moment and reflect on this issue. The issue will always be a conflict of beliefs and moral standards. The topic
In the article “The Penalty of Death”, written by H. L. Mencken, utilitarian principles are used to cover up for a system that wants results. All of the reasons that Mencken gives as justifications do not give concrete evidence of why the death penalty should continue as a means of punishment. The article states, “Any lesser penalty leaves them feeling that the criminal has got the better of society...” This statement alone demonstrates how he believes the death penalty brings justice and satisfaction to the people. Mencken creates the points he makes in his article in order to give society a way to make the death penalty seem less intrusive on moral principles and more of a necessary act.
However, Mill might object to this alternative on the grounds that it does not promote the general welfare because the criminal may eventually be released after a suitable amount of time, perhaps due to good behavior or overcrowding, and therefore, leaves the criminal with the opportunity to hurt people again in the future. Yet, this reply is also inadequate because it assumes that the criminal justice system is destined to fail its inhabitants, and that people are incapable of rehabilitation or redemption. In this manner, Mill implies that no criminal will ever able to atone for their crimes and reduce their threat to society, so death is the only option that ensures the promotion of the general welfare, which is, surely, absurd.
Opponents of capital punishment are outspoken and vehement in their arguments. They believe the death penalty does not does not deter crime. They also hold the opinion that endin...
In the essay, Death and Justice, by Edward I. Koch makes his argument of why he supports capital punishment by the examination of his opposition’s arguments that are most frequently heard. Koch claims the death penalty is just and supports his claims by rebutting the arguments. Koch believes that capital punishment is a mean to uphold justice, until another form of punishments are found as a better solution. Other punishment would be inadequate and therefore unjust for the crimes that deprive someone else life.. Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw committed murders before the murder, they were executed for. If theses individuals had received the death penalty in the beginning, than maybe an 18 year old woman, and two teenagers could still
Is the death penalty fair? Is it humane? Does it deter crime? The answers to these questions vary depending on who answers them. The issue of capital punishment raises many debates. These same questions troubled Americans just as much in the day of the Salem witch trials as now in the say of Timothy McVeigh. During the time of the Salem witchcraft trials they had the same problem as present society faces. Twenty innocent people had been sentenced to death. It was too late to reverse the decision and the jurors admitted to their mistake. The execution of innocent people is still a major concern for American citizens today.
Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed, including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively, but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary. Above all else, capital punishment should be morally justified in extreme situations because it has a deterrent effect. Many criminals seem to be threatened more by the thought of death rather than a long-term prison sentence.
America’s million dollar question is should capital punishment be allowed? Americans have been blindsided with decisions about the death penalty; in the past many have agreed with the punishment due to lack of knowledge on the issue. Today, information on capital punishment is everywhere. I agreed with most of America on the issue; it should be allowed because of its many beneficial reasons. I believe in “just desert,” that is criminals should receive the same punishment that they used against their victims. If you murder someone intentionally you should receive the death penalty. Finally, society feels relief as the capital punishment protects their own human dignity that are at risk if the accused remains alive; society dignity fails if they don’t punish the accused for they become participators of the crime. Therefore, the occurrence of anarchy is avoided with this punishment as it will serve as deterrence as well. Some philosophers such as Kant and Pojman have agreed with my view while others like Marshall and Bedau have challenged it.
"Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death... life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life sent...
In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society. Complete free exercise will inhibit individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm on others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act.