Words: 1609
Kant and Mills on Capital Punishment Capital punishment has raised debate in America since 1608. Both the “pro-” and “anti-” sides of the issue have strong arguments. Some believe killing is simply wrong, and violates universal human rights, others seek the only justice they deem appropriate, equal justice. I will examine the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill, with regards to their stance on the death penalty. John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806- 8 May 1873) was born in London, England.
He was a renowned philosopher best known for his interpretation of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism is based on the concept that an actions morality should be judged solely upon its resulting universal happiness. Under utilitarianism one should act only in a way that would promote the most good for the most people. Utilitarian’s view suffering as intrinsically bad, and only when the amount of suffering is outweighed by the amount of resulting benefit is suffering acceptable. Punishment involving suffering is a very complicated concept for utilitarian’s.
With regards to crime the only justifiable punishment is a punishment that will in turn reduce crime. Utilitarian decisions are in a sense always a balancing act between total good and consequential harm. The same is true for deciding how to punish criminal offenders; one most determine whether the overall balance of pleasure is increased or decreased because of the form of punishment considered. In doing this a true utilitarian would have to a lot equal consideration to the suffering of all parties including the criminal offender.
Mills addressed these issues on April 21, 1868 in a speech given before parliament in response to a bill banning capital punishment. In this speech he displayed a clear support for capital punishment. Mills views capital punishment as a tool to keep society in order, and as the greatest deterrent from future crime. There are two ways to view the death penalty as a deterrent from future crime; by ending the criminals life he will clearly be unable to commit any future crime, and by instilling the fear of death as a consequence to those who have yet to commit a crime you may alter ones future actions.
Mill focuses more on the second of the two as the most effective justification of the death penalty. Mill states in his address “There is not, I should think, any human infliction which makes an impression on the imagination so entirely out of proportion to its real severity as the punishment of death. ” Crime in itself causes suffering, to reduce crime by creating a fear of penalty is a utilitarian practice. Mills judges the balance of suffering for the offender too; interestingly he deems death as a favorable alternative to life in prison.
Regarding the criminal he says, “the most that human laws can do to anyone in the matter of death is to hasten it; the man would have died at any rate; not so very much later, and on the average, I fear, with a considerably greater amount of bodily suffering. ” Although determining his stance on the matter today you must take into consideration the fact that prisons in the mid-1800 were far less accomodable then they are presently.
This brings me to another point, in today’s society prisons are comparably luxurious, prisoners enjoy televisions, three meals daily, libraries, education, and recreational equipment, these expenses are all funded by the greater portion of society, the tax payers. According to the North Carolinas department of corrections website it costs just over $75 per inmate per day. Lets assume a criminal commits a murder on his 30th birthday and is promptly incarcerated, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, he dies on his 70th birthday in prison.
This prisoner cost the law-abiding citizens of America roughly $1,095,000. It isn’t fair to consider financial taxing as suffering, but certainly increased taxes don’t increase overall happiness. Capital punishment will reduce taxes, and increase overall happiness. Mills has a single objection to capital punishment but I will propose an additional issue. Mill recognizes the potential for unjustified incarceration and death; and he states, “that if by an error of justice an innocent person is put to death, the mistake can never be corrected; all compensation, all reparation for the wrong is impossible. Mills discards the objection with relevance to the American court system. Mills considers our court system just, and willing to avoid false imprisonment at all costs, although for countries whose court system is not similarly just Mills cannot endorse capital punishment. Mills fails to address another circumstance, the circumstance of Stanley Tookie Williams. Mr. Williams was a co-founder and the Crips street gang and was sentenced to death for multiple murders. While in jail Mr. Williams rehabilitated himself and used his influence to speak out against gang violence in a successful attempt to reduce suffering.
Mr. Williams is clearly the exception to the rule, a utilitarian must exempt Mr. Williams from death simply because while alive he was maximizing happiness. Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724- 12 February 1804) was born in present day Russia. He is commonly regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of modern Europe. His teachings called Kantianism, or enlightenment philosophy focus on the perseveration of human rights. Kant stressed the importance of unconditionally doing the right thing in all instances. Despites Kant’s focus on preserving life he is supportive of the death penalty.
Kant’s support of the death penalty is motivated by a much different ideal then Mills support. Mills believe judicial punishment will serve as a tool to better society by deterring future potential criminals, Kant states in The Metaphysics of Morals “Juridical punishment can never be administered merely as a means for promoting another good either with regard to the criminal himself or to civil society”. Kant applies his ideal that no man is simply a mean to someone’s end, he implies that criminals are serving an end through their punishment.
In the Metaphysics of Morals he uses the Pharisaic Maxim; “It is better that one man should die than that the whole people should perish. ” I understood this as a criminal undergoing his punishment supports the foundation for law and without law humanity will suffer. In “The Right of Punishing” he states “For if justice and righteousness perish, human life would no longer have any value in the world. ” Kant’s views on crime and punishment are illustrated through two theories; “if you steal from another, you steal from yourself” and “eye for an eye”.
Kant’s central philosophical concept is categorical imperative; you must act in such a way that you would will the maxim of your action to be universal law. So by stealing you would imply that stealing is acceptable universally. If everyone stole from each other it would become impossible to apply value to objects, therefore deeming even the original thieves property valueless. Kant believes punishment for these crimes should cause equal pain for the criminal as the crime did to the victim, hence “eye for an eye”. If this is undergone balance is maintained, oddly enough the criminals maxim is also respected.
Simply stated when a criminal commits an injustice he implies that injustice should be universal law; he also offends his victims human rights. Now the victim is “unequal”, therefore to regain “equality” the victim must seek “jus talionis”, the right of retaliation. When seeking punishment for the criminal it must be identical to his crime, therefore following his maxim and maintaining his human right. A society that follows this structure will never have issue with overzealous punishment or law. Kant’s ideal of “jus talionis” is focused on a universal balance; it always mandates the killing of those who kill.
Kant does make clear that the termination of murderers should be does as humanely as possible, despite the heinousness of their crime. Initially Kant’s support for the death penalty was hard to grasp, it seemed his focus was directly upon preservation of life. After analysis his theory became quite clear and offers a fascinating means of avoiding a common problem, biased law and order. Many countries suffer from unjust leadership, which reflects in said countries systems of law and order. Kant’s theory provides the best opportunity to uphold the integrity of a justice system.
If a country were to adopt fully Kant’s theory they could guarantee just punishment, based solely on guilt. For example, if a crazed dictator were to outlaw speaking Spanish in his country he could theoretically assign the punishment of death to all renegade Spanish speakers, that would be absurd and the country’s system of law would be drawn into question. If that same country adopted Kant’s theory the same dictator could outlaw speaking Spanish but could only assign a punishment of being forced to be spoken to in Spanish for the same duration of time that you spoke it, a far more humane alternative.
This example may be far fetched but speaking Spanish could be substituted with any offense. Both Mill and Kant support the death penalty, although both justify their support with entirely different reasons. Mill believes the death penalty promotes the greater good for society, Kant believes the death penalty a lots maximum human rights. I believe the death penalty promotes the authority of law and order, but should be reserved only for the most obscene crimes. I cannot discount the argument of those anti-capital punishments, but I can confidently say supporters of the death penalty are in good company.