Capital Punishment.

Hi,Thank you for your reply. First, let me note that we have both adopted a similar strategy. We both use arguments from a deontological (i.e., Kant, the most famous proponent of deontology) and consequentialist approach to morality (i.e., utilitarianism, a type of consequentialism). First, I wish to address what I see as several problems with your line of reasoningConfusion of deontological approaches with consequentialist approachesFirst, you invoke Kant as one thinker who can be used to justify capital punishment. However, in this section, you confuse consequentialist and deontological arguments. Your claims are that capital punishment can deter very heinous crimes. This is something we can debate but it is not a Kantian argument. Kant thought the consequences of an action are irrelevant. What matter is whether it accords with fundamental rules of morality derived from reason. For example, Kant would say some actions are wrong no matter how good the consequences. As such, this confuses the debate substantially.Failure to provide evidence of deterrenceThroughout your reply, you suggest that capital punishment can deter heinous crimes and benefit the majority. Unfortunately, the evidence does not bare this out. If you review my arguments above, there is a link to a quantitative study that shows that deterrence from capital punishment is actually controversial. We still do not have good evidence to show deterrence occurs in states with the death penalty. Failure to address negative consequences of the death penaltyIn my reply, I outline three major negative consequences of the death penalty. First, in any society, innocent people will occasionally be convicted and executed. This exerts a cost that should be included in the debate. In addition, when we hear about this, it creates a sense of injustice among the wider population. Second, to minimize the first negative consequence, the state will allow for an exhaustive appeal process that can be extremely costly to society (even more expensive than life imprisonment in some states). Third, a utilitarian must also consider the suffering inflicted upon the criminal which albeit is the last thing we want to consider, remains significant. Given that a person dies, that society must deal with occasional injustices, and to prevent this, we need to create a complex appeal system, the death penalty is anything but cost free. Unless you can show clear and significant deterrence (using empirical evidence), than I do not see how a utilitarian could support the death penalty.Retribution is not the only rule we followIn the first section, you invoke a Kantian perspective on punishment whereby the punishment should fit the crime. I agree. However, I believe the problem with your argument is that you are reasoning as if only one moral rule applies at a time. In fact, we may have several moral rules that are salient in any ethical dilemma. As I argued in my first reply, I believe that we are faced with two moral obligations when considering how to handle a criminal. We are obliged to ensure that the criminal make amends and we are obliged to not kill. The obligation to not kill being more primordial (I believe that most people will see this as a more fundamental moral rule), we should not follow the other rule fully. We are obliged to be merciful because even though the killer owes a life, taking his or her life would stain our own moral character.ConclusionI appreciate your arguments. I noted some confusion over Kant and utilitarianism which I have cleared up for you.Given that the death penalty involves violating one of the central tenets of morality (to not take a human life), that its benefits have little evidence, and that its costs are multiple and severe, I continue to conclude that the death penalty is immoral.