A hypothetical just society would use the death Penalty as a form of punishment.

In order to examine the workings of what defines a just society, we must first ensure that the environment is fit for justice. A suitable environment is one in which there is a) political stability and b) stability of the justice system. These terms combined are defined as social stability, so in order to determine who won the round we must decide, who increases more social stability. Social stability is necessary and is a prerequisite component of a just society because the opposites of it is anarchy or tyranny, both of which allow for infinite rights violations through the lack of any system of punishment or governmental checks. This means that individuals are not given their fair due and any reason for forming a society has evaporated. The first priority of a just society, therefore, is to ensure it can remain just and look to other values. I contend that the death penalty is necessary to maintain social stability. If dangerous criminals are permitted to survive, society is constantly at risk. Many criminals sentenced to death exhibit no of remorse and a lack of moral stability. Because of this, it is extremely dangerous to keep them functioning in society. This is especially true in environments filled with insurgencies or other challengers to a just society. Ernest Van Den Haag (legal philosopher) explains, "In some fairly infrequent but important circumstances, the death penalty is the only possible deterrent. Thus, in case of acute coups d'etat, or of acute substantial attempts to overthrow the government, prospective rebels would altogether discount the threat of any prison sentence. They would not be deterred because they believe the swift victory of the revolution will invalidate a prison sentence and turn it into an advantage. Execution would be the only deterrent because, unlike prison sentences, it cannot be revoked by victorious rebels. The same reasoning applies to deterring spies or traitors in war- time. Finally, men who, by virtue of past acts, are already serving, or are threatened by, a life sentence, could be deterred from further offenses only by the threat of the death penalty." Because prison fails to solve for the real scenarios above, it not only does not contribute to social stability; it only severely detracts from it. The death penalty solves for these problems through A) deterrence of current criminals from brinking into the death penalty. Van Den Haag says "Capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter[s] some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks." B) Through unquestionable prevention, outlined by Jeremy Bentham, "The most remarkable feature in the punishment of death, and that which it possesses in the greatest perfection, is the taking from the offender the power of doing further injury. Whatever is apprehended, either from the force or cunning of the criminal, at once vanishes away. Society is in a prompt and complete manner delivered from all alarm."