76 Pro Death Penalty Quotes by Philosophers
“All grandeur, all power, and all subordination to authority rests on the executioner: he is the horror and the bond of human association. Remove this incomprehensible agent from the world and at that very moment order gives way to chaos, thrones topple and society disappears.” [The Works of
Joseph de Maistre, ed. Jack Lively (1965). The Count, in Les Soirées de
Saint-Pétersbourg, "First Dialogue," (1821).]
All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice. |
|
In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762, he says the following: “Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.”
|
|
“If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.”
Even if a civil society were to be dissolved by the consent of all its members (e.g., if a people inhabiting an island decided to separate and disperse throughout the world), the last murderer remaining in prison would first have to be executed, so that each has done to him what his deeds deserve and blood guilt does not cling to the people for not having insisted upon this punishment; for otherwise the people can be regarded as collaborators in his public violation of justice. (Kt6:333) A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral. “Even in a civilized society, the state has the right to punish the individual.” “If the punishment of an innocent person is a mistake of justice administration, failure to punish a criminal indicates that the absence of justice, which is a worse mistake.” |
|
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing.”
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. [Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770)]
Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. [Speech at Bristol Previous to the Election (1780)]
It is the function of a judge not to make but to declare the law, according to the golden mete-wand of the law and not by the crooked cord of discretion. [Preface to Brissot's Address (1794)]
One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to the good. [15 February 1788 - On the Impeachment of Warren Hastings (1788-1794) Articles of Charge of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, against Warren Hastings]
Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all. [Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)]
Whatever is supreme in a state, ought to have, as much as possible, its
judicial authority so constituted as not only not to depend upon it, but in
some sort to balance it. It ought to give a security to its justice against its
power. It ought to make its judicature, as it were, something exterior to the
state. [Reflections on the
Revolution in France (1790)]
When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people. [Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)] Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government. |
|
Let the punishment match the offense. (De Legibus) |
|
“…the criminal has committed a heinous act of violence with malice aforethought.
I would argue that the electric chair, far from being unconscionable, is
completely justified.”
"Public executions of the convicted murderer would serve as a reminder that crime does not pay. Public executions of criminals seem an efficient way to communicate the message that if you shed innocent blood, you will pay a high price... I agree... on the matter of accountability but also believe such publicity would serve to deter homicide." ["Why the Death Penalty Is Morally Permissible," from the 2004 book edited by Adam Bedau and titled Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment?]
"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... 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." ["Why the Death Penalty Is Morally Permissible," from the 2004 book edited by Adam Bedau and titled Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment?] Author and Professor of Philosophy, U.S. Military Academy. Excerpt from "The Death Penalty: For and Against," (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1998) - “[Opponents of the capital punishment often put forth the following argument:] Perhaps the murderer deserves to die, but what authority does the state have to execute him or her? Both the Old and New Testament says, “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Prov. 25:21 and Romans 12:19). You need special authority to justify taking the life of a human being.
The objector fails to note that the New Testament passage continues with a support of the right of the state to execute criminals in the name of God: ‘Let every person be subjected to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.... If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer’ (Romans 13: 1-4). So, according to the Bible, the authority to punish, which presumably includes the death penalty, comes from God.
But we need not appeal to a religious justification for capital punishment. We can site the state's role in dispensing justice. Just as the state has the authority (and duty) to act justly in allocating scarce resources, in meeting minimal needs of its (deserving) citizens, in defending its citizens from violence and crime, and in not waging unjust wars; so too does it have the authority, flowing from its mission to promote justice and the good of its people, to punish the criminal. If the criminal, as one who has forfeited a right to life, deserves to be executed, especially if it will likely deter would-be murderers, the state has a duty to execute those convicted of first-degree murder.” Sometimes the objection is framed this way: It is better to let ten criminals go free than to execute one innocent person. If this dictum is a call for safeguards, then it is well taken; but somewhere there seems to be a limit on the tolerance of society toward capital offenses. Would these abolitionist argue that it is better that 50 or 100 or 1,000 murders go free than one innocent person be executed? Society has a right to protect itself from capital offenses even if this means taking a finite chance of executing an innocent person. If the basic activity of process is justified, then it is regrettable, but morally acceptable, that some mistakes are made. Fire trucks occasionally kill innocent pedestrians while racing to fires, but we accept the losses as justified by the greater good of the activity of using fire trucks. We judge the use of automobiles to be acceptable though such use cause an average of 50,000 traffic fatalities each year. We accept the morality of a defensive war even though it will result in our troops accidentally or mistakenly killing innocent people. ["Why the Death Penalty Is Morally Permissible," from the 2004 book edited by Adam Bedau and titled Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment?] |
|
Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. |
|
“The end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom.” Second Treatise of Government, page 234, Of Civil Government “Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins.” Second Treatise of Government, Sec. 202 “To understand political power aright, and derive from it its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.” Second Treatise of Government, Ch. II, sec. 4 “A criminal who, having renounced
reason ... hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon
one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion
or tyger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor
security.” And upon this is grounded the great law of Nature, "Whoso
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Second Treatise of Civil Government “And because it may be too great a temptation to human frailty, apt to grasp at power, for the same persons, who have the power of making laws, to have also in their hands the power to execute them, whereby they may exempt themselves from obedience to the laws they make, and suit the law, both in its making, and execution, to their own private advantage.” Second Treatise of Civil Government, Ch. XII, sec. 143 From these
two distinct rights, the one of punishing the crime for restraint, and
preventing the like offence, which right of punishing is in every body; the
other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party, comes it
to pass that the magistrate, who by being magistrate hath the common right of
punishing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the
execution of the law, remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority,
but yet cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he
has received. That, he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand in his
own name, and he alone can remit: the damnified person has this power of
appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender, by right of
self-preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its
being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing
all reasonable things he can in order to that end: and thus it is, that every
man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter
others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the
example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure
men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common
rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and
slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and
therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage
beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is
grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his
blood be shed. And Cain was so fully convinced, that everyone had a right to
destroy such a criminal, that after the murder of his brother, he cries out,
Every one that findeth me, shall slay me; so plain was it writ in the hearts of
all mankind.
Second Treatise of Government, Ch. II, sec. 11 By the same reason may a man in the state of nature punish the lesser breaches of that law. It will perhaps be demanded, with death? I answer, each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like. Every offence, that can be committed in the state of nature, may in the state of nature be also punished equally, and as far forth as it may, in a commonwealth: for though it would be besides my present purpose, to enter here into the particulars of the law of nature, or its measures of punishment; yet, it is certain there is such a law, and that too, as intelligible and plain to a rational creature, and a studier of that law, as the positive laws of commonwealths; nay, possibly plainer; as much as reason is easier to be understood, than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for so truly are a great part of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right, as they are founded on the law of nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted. Second Treatise of Government, Ch. II, sec. 12 |
|
When there
has been brought home to any one, by conclusive evidence, the greatest crime
known to the law; and when the attendant circumstances suggest no palliation of
the guilt, no hope that the culprit may even yet not be unworthy to live among
mankind, nothing to make it probable that the crime was an exception to his
general character rather than a consequence of it, then I confess it appears to
me that to deprive the criminal of the life of which he has proved himself to
be unworthy—solemnly to blot him out from the fellowship of mankind and from
the catalogue of the living—is the most appropriate as it is certainly the most
impressive, mode in which society can attach to so great a crime the penal
consequences which for the security of life it is indispensable to annex to it.
I defend this penalty, when confined to atrocious cases, on the very ground on
which it is commonly attacked—on that of humanity to the criminal; as beyond
comparison the least cruel mode in which it is possible adequately to deter
from the crime. [Speech In Favor
of Capital Punishment 21 April 1868] 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. The punishment must be mild indeed which does not add more to the sum of human misery than is necessarily or directly added by the execution of a criminal. [Speech In Favor of Capital Punishment 21 April 1868] I can afford to admit all that is often said about the indifference of professional criminals to the gallows. Though of that indifference one-third is probably bravado and another third confidence that they shall have the luck to escape, it is quite probable that the remaining third is real. But the efficacy of a punishment which acts principally through the imagination, is chiefly to be measured by the impression it makes on those who are still innocent; by the horror with which it surrounds the first promptings of guilt; the restraining influence it exercises over the beginning of the thought which, if indulged, would become a temptation; the check which it exerts over the graded declension towards the state—never suddenly attained—in which crime no longer revolts, and punishment no longer terrifies. [Speech In Favor of Capital Punishment 21 April 1868] As for what is called the failure of death punishment, who is able to judge of that? We partly know who those are whom it has not deterred; but who is there who knows whom it has deterred, or how many human beings it has saved who would have lived to be murderers if that awful association had not been thrown round the idea of murder from their earliest infancy? [Speech In Favor of Capital Punishment] Much has been said of the sanctity of human life, and the absurdity of supposing that we can teach respect for life by ourselves destroying it. But I am surprised at the employment of this argument, for it is one which might be brought against any punishment whatever. It is not human life only, not human life as such, that ought to be sacred to us, but human feelings. The human capacity of suffering is what we should cause to be respected, not the mere capacity of existing. And we may imagine somebody asking how we can teach people not to inflict suffering by ourselves inflicting it? But to this I should answer—all of us would answer—that to deter by suffering from inflicting suffering is not only possible, but the very purpose of penal justice. [Speech In Favor of Capital Punishment] Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is 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...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. [Speech In Favor of Capital Punishment] Judges are most anxious to point out, and juries to allow for, the barest possibility of the prisoner's innocence. No human judgment is infallible; such sad cases as my hon. Friend cited will sometimes occur; but in so grave a case as that of murder, the accused, in our system, has always the benefit of the merest shadow of a doubt. [Speech In Favor of Capital Punishment] And this
suggests another consideration very germane to the question. The very fact that
death punishment is more shocking than any other to the imagination,
necessarily renders the Courts of Justice more scrupulous in requiring the
fullest evidence of guilt. Even that which is the greatest objection to capital
punishment, the impossibility of correcting an error once committed, must make,
and does make, juries and Judges more careful in forming their opinion, and
more jealous in their scrutiny of the evidence. If the substitution of penal servitude
for death in cases of murder should cause any declaration in this conscientious
scrupulosity, there would be a great evil to set against the real, but I hope
rare, advantage of being able to make reparation to a condemned person who was
afterwards discovered to be innocent. In order that the possibility of
correction may be kept open wherever the chance of this sad contingency is more
than infinitesimal, it is quite right that the Judge should recommend to the
Crown a commutation of the sentence, not solely when the proof of guilt is open
to the smallest suspicion, but whenever there remains anything unexplained and
mysterious in the case, raising a desire for more light, or making it likely
that further information may at some future time be obtained. [Speech In Favor of Capital Punishment] |
|
The proper end of human punishment is, not the satisfaction of justice, but the prevention of crimes. - The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy |
|
The deterioration of a government begins almost always by the decay of its principles.
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked. Useless laws weaken the necessary laws. |
|
What is in conformity with justice should also be in conformity to the laws. |
|
There are only two possible motives for believing that the death of a
citizen is necessary. The first: when it is evident even if deprived of liberty
he still has connections and power such as endanger the security of the
nation-when, that is, his existence can produce a dangerous revolution in the
established form of government. The death of a citizen thus becomes necessary
when a nation is recovering or losing its Liberty or, in time of anarchy, when
disorders themselves take the place of laws. But while the laws reign
tranquilly, in a form of government enjoying the consent of the entire nation,
well defended externally and internally by force, and by opinion, which is
perhaps even more efficacious than force, where executive power is lodged with
the true sovereign alone, where riches purchase and pleasures and not
authority, I see no necessity for destroying a citizen, except if his death
were the only real way of restraining others from committing crimes; this is
the second motive for believing that the death penalty may be just and
necessary.
|
|
“If we could do away with death, we wouldn’t object; to do away with capital punishment will be more difficult. Were that to happen, we would reinstate it from time to time.” Wilhelm Meister’s Travels, from Makarie’s Archive (1829)
One man's word is no man's word; we should
quietly hear both sides.
|
|
"There can be no justice until those uninjured by the crime become as indignant as those who are." Solon (559 BC) |
|
The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men. Justice in the life and conduct of the state is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens.
When it came to justifying punishment, Plato also looked forward, insisting in The Laws, his last and least idealistic dialogue and the only one where Socrates is absent, that almost every criminal could be rehabilitated through education. Plato did, however, anticipate some “hard shell” - today we call them “hard core” - recidivists who could not be softened to society. Even for these villains, Plato never expressed satisfaction at punishment as retributively deserved for past bad acts. “For truly judgment by sentence of law is never inflicted for harm’s sake. Its normal effect is one of two: It makes him that suffers it a better man, or, failing this, less of a wretch.” The worst of the worst were simply better off dead: “Longer life is no boon to the sinner himself in such a case, and that his decease will bring a double blessing to his neighbors; it will be a lesson to them to keep themselves from wrong, and will rid society of an evil man. These are the reasons for which a legislator is bound to ordain the chastisement of death for such desperate villainies, and for them alone” (Plato 1978:862e-863). |
|
In punishing wrongdoers, no one concentrates on the fact that a man has done wrong in the past, or punishes him on that account, unless taking blind vengeance like a beast. No, punishment is not inflicted by a rational man for the sake of the crime that has been committed (after all one cannot do what is it the past) but for the sake of the future, to prevent either the same man or, by the spectacle of his punishment, someone else, from doing wrong again. (Plato 1956:324b) |
|
|
|
“The world
is a dangerous place to live in; not because of the people who are evil, but
because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” |
|
"One of the uses of our system of justice is to warn others... We are reforming, not the hanged individual, but everyone else." |
|
Regarding America's call to arms against England: "Say not that this is revenge, call it rather the soft resentment of a suffering people, who, having no object in view but the good of all. ..." "My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to 'bind me in all cases whatsoever' to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other." The punishment that common moral sense signified was death to the villain or villains. Paine reminds those who would shrink at such a high moral duty: "[T]he blood of his children will curse his cowardice." |
|
The superior man governs men, according to their nature, with what is proper to them, and as soon as they change what is wrong, he stops.
When one cultivates to the utmost the principles of his nature, and exercises them on the principle of reciprocity, he is not far from the path. What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to others.
己所不欲,勿施于人 What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others. |
|
French philosopher Michel Foucault cautioned those who might mistakenly assume this drift away from capital punishment is from a groundswell of humanitarian concern among European nations. Rather, Foucault argued, changes in the social structure have forced those in power to rely on more subtle forms of coercion. “Together with war, (capital punishment) was for a long time the other form of the right of the sword; it constituted the reply of the sovereign to those who attacked his will, his law, or his person,” Foucault wrote in 1978. “Those who died on the scaffold became fewer and fewer, in contrast to those who died in wars.” |
|
Until a catharsis has been effected through trial, through the finding of guilt and then punishment, the community is anxious, fearful, apprehensive, and, above all, contaminated.
|
|
Justice is
not a method of averaging; it is a matter of assigning to each individual his
or her proper desert. |
|
"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions," according to philosopher John Rawls. It
transcends national borders, races and cultures. The death penalty is the
appropriate societal response to the brutal and willful act of capital felony
murder.
|
|
“Justice is the first virtue of those who command, and stops the
complaints of those who obey.” |
|
“Let all the laws be clear, uniform and precise. To interpret laws is almost always to corrupt them.” |
|
“For the Laws
of Nature (as Justice, Equity, Modesty, Mercy, and (in summe) Doing To Others,
As Wee Would Be Done To,) if themselves, without the terror of some Power, to
cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural Passions, that carry us
to Partiality, Pride, Revenge, and the like. And Covenants, without the Sword,
are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” |
|
“Although requital cannot simply be made specifically equal to the crime, the case is otherwise with murder, which is of necessity liable to the death penalty; the reason is that since life is the full compass of a man’s existence, the punishment here cannot simply consist in a ‘value’, for none is great enough, but can consist only in taking away a second life.” What experience and history teach is this — that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it. [Lectures on the Philosophy of History (1832)] “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.” |
|
"Each extreme is a vice; virtue lies in the middle." “Justice is to give to every man his own.” “Man when separated from law and justice is the worst of all animals.”
|
|
In the state of nature, I have the right to kill those who attempt to take my life, and in entering into society, I have accorded this right to the magistrate; why should he then not use it? Citizens have not accorded the magistrate the right to play arbitrarily with their lives; this concession would be senseless and void: they have, however, required the legislator to pursue their security, and that he counter, with sword in hand, the dangers which menace them, to defend them against a domestic enemy which wishes death upon them. |