Beyond the Death Penalty Debate

The debate on capital punishment boils down to an exchange of conflicting ethical and utilitarian views. But, given the prevalence of state-sponsored wars, massacre, and starvation, not to mention prison conditions that often drive inmates to suicide, opponents of the death penalty should not regard its abolition as an end in itself.

China’s decision to execute the head of its drug regulatory agency has rekindled international debate about capital punishment. It is an age-old question, one that harks back to Plato, who in his “Laws” saw the need to punish by death those who commit egregious crimes.

Supporters of capital punishment usually put forward three arguments to justify state-sanctioned killing of those who take the life of another. First, there is the old law of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” In the words of Immanuel Kant, not some Texas governor, no other “penalty is capable of satisfying justice.”

Then there is a utilitarian argument: capital punishment deters many criminals from murder. Furthermore, killing murderers prevents recidivism: if released from prison, they might kill again.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles from our archive every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.


By proceeding, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which describes the personal data we collect and how we use it.

Log in;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.