Should the Death Penalty Be Used for

Retribution?

General Reference (not clearly pro or con)

The Justice Center of the University of Alaska at Anchorage, in its website section titled
"The Death Penalty: Specific Issues - Retribution & Justice for Murder Victims"
(accessed Aug. 21, 2008), offered the following:

"Death penalty advocates justify capital punishment under the principle of lex talionis, or
'an eye for an eye' -- the belief that punishment should fit the crime. In particular, people
who favor capital punishment argue that murderers should be executed in retribution for
their crimes and that such retribution serves justice for murder victims and their
survivors. Death penalty opponents emphasize the sacredness of life, arguing that killing
is always wrong whether by individual or by the state, and that justice is best served
through reconciliation."

PRO (yes)
Louis P. Pojman, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at West Point Military
Academy, in an essay titled "Why the Death Penalty is Morally Permissible," from Adam
Bedaus' 2004 book titled Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital
Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case, wrote:

"People often confuse retribution with revenge... Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on
the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally
supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime...

Retributivism is not based on hatred for the criminal (though a feeling of vengeance may
accompany the punishment). Retributivism is the theory that the criminal deserves to be
punished and deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her crime,
whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it. We may all deeply regret having to
carry out the punishment, but consider it warranted.

When a society fails to punish criminals in a way thought to be proportionate to the

gravity of the crime, the danger arises that the public would take the law into its own
hands, resulting in vigilante justice, lynch mobs, and private acts of retribution. The
outcome is likely to be an anarchistic, insecure state of injustice."

2004 - Louis P. Pojman, PhD

Richard A. Divine, JD, Cook County Illinois State's Attorney, in an Apr. 30, 2003
"Statement on the Death Penalty in Illinois" retrieved from the State attorney's website,
offered the following:

"The death penalty is a necessary and appropriate punishment. Many people treat
'retribution' as an unworthy purpose for such a harsh punishment. But criminal
punishments are retribution for crimes. One cannot reject capital punishment because it is
retribution; the issue is whether it is an appropriate form of retribution.
Everyone agrees that there should be some punishment for murder. This mandate turns
capital punishment into a necessity when nothing else serves as real punishment for a
murder... Everyone would also agree that besides imposing some punishment for murder,
the law should also impose meaningful punishment...

Putting a monetary price on innocent life would not be a meaningful penalty for murder.
We do not impose fines on murderers because it would seriously deprecate the value of
human life... After a murderer has killed a certain number of victims, he reaches a point
where the only meaningful retribution is the death penalty. There are murders for which
alternative sentences of imprisonment are demonstrably meaningless...

Treating capital punishment as though it is 'eye for an eye,' 'blood for blood' or 'murder
for murder' ignores the differences between public retribution and private revenge.
Criminal punishment inherently imposes sanctions that private individuals are unable to
impose on each other."

Apr. 30, 2003 - Richard A. Devine, JD

J. Budziszewski, PhD, Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of

Texas at Austin, in an Aug./Sep. 2004 OrthodoxyToday.org article titled "Capital
Punishment: The Case for Justice," wrote:

"Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs
this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly
goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society
morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the
harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided
by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers
injury with injury for public good...

Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such. The reasons for saying so
are threefold. First, just punishment is not something which might or might not requite
evil; requital is simply what it is. Second, without just punishment evil cannot be
requited. Third, just punishment requires no warrant beyond requiting evil, for the
restoration of justice is good in itself... For these reasons, rehabilitation, protection, and
deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution: they are secondary."

Aug./Sep. 2004 - J. Budziszewski, PhD

Charles E. Rice, JSD, Professor Emeritus at Ave Maria School of Law at the University
of Notre Dame, in a June 22, 1987 The New American article titled "Retribution is an
Obligation," offered the following:

"The three purposes of criminal punishment are rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution.
While civic rehabilitation is irrelevant with respect to the death penalty, that penalty does
in fact deter homicide in some cases. The basic justification for capital punishment,
however, is retribution...

Anger is the sentiment aroused by the sight of injustice, and is therefore, intimately allied
with justice -- and civil society requires justice... anger is satisfied when retribution is
exacted, yes, but that righteous anger is also rewarded when retribution is exacted. And
that righteous anger should be rewarded, for its basis is the sentiment that to murder is
wrong.

The common good requires that the punishment fit the crime, whether that crime be a
theft of a bicycle or an ax murder. As an exercise in retribution, punishment serves to
right the balance of justice that is disturbed by the crime, provided that the punishment is
appropriate."

June 22, 1987 - Charles E. Rice, JSD

In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the US Supreme Court in a 7 - 2 decision
written by Justice Potter Stewart, JD, stated:

"The death penalty is said to serve two principal social purposes: retribution and
deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders. In part, capital punishment is an
expression of society's moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct. This function
may be unappealing to many, but it is essential in an ordered society that asks its citizens
to rely on legal processes, rather than self-help, to vindicate their wrongs...

The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man, and channeling that instinct in the
administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability
of a society governed by law. When people begin to believe that organized society is
unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they 'deserve,'
then there are sown the seeds of anarchy -- of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law."

Weaker than the argument of deterrence is the argument of retribution to justify the death
penalty. This argument purveys the Old Testament idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
justice; that certain people deserve to be killed as repayment for the evil done; and that there are
crimes so offensive that killing the offender is the only just response. The argument propelled by
unthinking emotion. While the desire for vengeance can be understood, its exercise deserves an
impassioned consideration for retribution makes impossible demands on our justice system. Biases
inherent in all legal systems and unavoidable errors of human judgment preclude a system which can
mete out death in a fair and fail proof way.[28] In the United States, Thorsten Sellin "examined statistics
on prosecutions, convictions and executions for murder and concluded that 'retributive capital justice is
tainted by bias and influence of factors beyond the control of courts of justice, such as the poverty of
the defendant, which prevents him from engaging competent counsels skilled in the art of criminal
defense.'"[29] Even those who ardently advocate retribution by death often paradoxically plead that it
should be used sparingly, for fear that it would dull the moral sensitivity of the community and lose its
terrifying effect.[30] As perceptively observed: "Such analyses suggest a sacrificial element in the use of
the death penalty. Since it is impossible to follow through fully the logic of retribution argument, a
token number of prisoners are executed to satisfy popular demand."[31] We humbly add that this Court
should not participate in a lottery where life will be at stake. Even a decision to execute everyone
convicted of a particular crime, such as the mandatory imposition of death penalty for certain offenses,
would fail to meet the fundamental requirement of fairness. In truth, by ruling out mitigating
circumstances and refusing to consider the limitations of any attempt to define crimes, mandatory
death sentences render judicial fairness even more difficult to achieve. The inevitable result will be an
arbitrary threshold for deciding who lives and who dies. In Singapore and Malaysia, to cite examples, the
death penalty is mandatory for possession of more than 15 grams of heroin, hence, only a
tiny difference between life and death.[32] It ought to be seen that the argument for retribution is often
no more than a desire for vengeance masked as a principle of justice.
Retribution is just another word for revenge, and the desire for revenge is one of the
lowest human emotions perhaps sometimes understandable, but not really a rational
response to a critical situation. For a Christian, this is an urge to use violence for ones
own purposes, and urge which should be resisted. To kill the person who has killed
someone close to you is simply to continue the cycle of violence which ultimately
destroys the avenger as well as the offender.

That this execution somehow give 'closure' to a tragedy is a myth. Expressing ones
violence simply reinforces the desire to express it. Just as expressing anger simply makes
us more angry. It does not drain away. It contaminates the otherwise good will which
any human being needs to progress in love and understanding."

Sep. 5, 2008 - Raymond A. Schroth, SJ

Amnesty International, in a Sep. 2007 document retrieved from its website titled "The
Death Penalty v. Human Rights, Why Abolish the Death Penalty?," offered the
following:

"When the arguments of deterrence and incapacitation fall away, one is left with a more
deep-seated justification for the death penalty: that of just retribution for the particular
crime committed. According to this argument, certain people deserve to be killed as
repayment for the evil done: there are crimes so offensive that killing the offender is the
only just response.

It is an emotionally powerful argument. It is also one which, if valid, would invalidate the
basis for human rights. If a person who commits a terrible act can 'deserve' the cruelty of
death, why cannot others, for similar reasons, 'deserve' to be tortured or imprisoned
without trial or simply shot on sight? Central to fundamental human rights is that they are
inalienable. They may not be taken away even if a person has committed the most
atrocious of crimes. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us,
which is why they protect all of us.

What the argument for retribution boils down to, is often no more than a desire for
vengeance masked as a principle of justice. The desire for vengeance can be understood
and acknowledged but the exercise of vengeance must be resisted. The history of the
endeavour to establish the rule of law is a history of the progressive restriction of
personal vengeance in public policy and legal codes."

Sep. 2007 - Amnesty International

The Lancet, a British peer-reviewed medical journal, in an Apr. 16, 2005 editorial titled
"Medical Collusion in the Death Penalty: An American Atrocity," offered the following:

"What justification can there be for capital punishment at all? The two main arguments
for the death penalty are deterrence and retribution. Few experts believe that the threat of
capital punishment is an effective deterrent. That leaves retribution. But to justify capital
punishment, the retribution must be meted out fairly, and that is clearly not the case. In
only 1% of murders do prosecutors seek the death penalty. Whether you receive the death
penalty depends not on what you have done, but where you committed your crime, what
colour your skin is, and how much money you have."
Apr. 16, 2005 - The Lancet

The National Council of Synagogues and the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops in a Mar. 23, 1999 meeting report titled To End the Death Penalty, A Report of
the National Jewish/Catholic Consultation," presented the following:

"Some would argue that the death penalty is needed as a means of retributive justice, to
balance out the crime with the punishment. This reflects a natural concern of society, and
especially of victims and their families. Yet we believe that we are called to seek a higher
road even while punishing the guilty, for example through long and in some cases life-
long incarceration, so that the healing of all can ultimately take place... The strongest
argument of all is the deep pain and grief of the families of victims, and their quite
natural desire to see punishment meted out to those who have plunged them into such
agony. Yet it is the clear teaching of our traditions that this pain and suffering cannot be
healed simply through the retribution of capital punishment or by vengeance."

Mar. 23, 1999 - National Council of Synagogues

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

Thurgood Marshall, JD, late US Supreme Court Justice, in his Gregg v. Georgia, 428
U.S. 153 (1976) dissenting opinion, stated:

"The death penalty, I concluded, is a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. That continues to be my view... The two purposes
that sustain the death penalty as nonexcessive in the Court's view are general deterrence
and retribution... The notion that retribution can serve as a moral justification for the
sanction of death... I find to be the most disturbing aspect of today's unfortunate
decisions...

The mere fact that the community demands the murderer's life in return for the evil he
has done cannot sustain the death penalty... The death penalty, unnecessary to promote
the goal of deterrence or to further any legitimate notion of retribution, is an excessive
penalty forbidden by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. I respectfully dissent from
the Court's judgment upholding the sentences of death."