To Kill or be Killed: An argument in support of the death penalty

To Kill or be Killed

            In his article “In Defense of the Death Penalty”, Ernest van den Haag argues that society, in order to preserve justice, must retain and use the death penalty for deserving crimes. Without the death penalty, van den Haag argues that equal injustice will emerge. Van den Haag makes several points to enforce his belief, I will touch on two. Firstly, van den Haag states that unequal justice is preferred over equal injustice. Justice requires punishing as many of the guilty as possible, while saving as many as the innocent as possible. Resting on this point, van den Haag invalidates discrimination in terms of death penalty use. Just because some guilty evade the irreversible death penalty, doesn’t make those who received it less deserving. Secondly, van den Haag argues that incarcerating murderers with those guilty of lesser crimes “cheapens human life” (van den Haag, 840), and that the crime of murder places the murderer apart from the victim in terms of human, inalienable rights. As a supporter of the death penalty, I believe that van den Haag’s position on the death penalty is valid and ultimately convincing.
            One of van den Haag’s main points is that unequal justice is preferred over equal injustice. He further argues that when it comes to morality, justice must always be chosen over equality, in terms of the application of the death penalty. The purpose of our justice system is to punish as many guilty individuals as possible, while saving as many innocent individuals as possible from punishment or death. Van den Haag explains that “justice cannot ever permit sparring some guilty persons, or punishing some innocent ones, for the sake of equality” (van den Haag, 836). For example, an individual guilty of murder, who deserves the death penalty, should not be exempt from receiving it simply because another equally guilty person did not receive it. The same goes for innocent individuals. An innocent individual should not be punished or harmed because another innocent person in the past did not escape it. Although van den Haag notes that unequal justice is “morally repellent”, it is still justice, and should not be disregarded on terms of equality. Van den Haag ends this argument by stating that equality should be “extended and enforced”, but not at the hands of justice. In summary, the guilty remain guilty regardless of the punishment they do or do not receive, which does not warrant the abolition of the death penalty.

            Van den Haag also argues for the death penalty on basis of the forfeiture view. This view holds that once an individual commits murder, the sole act of the crime sets apart murderer and victim, and therefore the murderer does not deserve to live, as they unjustly took the life of an innocent individual. Essentially, the murderer forfeits their right to be a part of the community in which they murdered, and their right to human solidarity. Van den Haag states “the convict is rejected by human society, found unworthy of sharing life with it” (van den Haag, 840). He goes on to say that if an individual chooses to forfeit their human to right to live by taking the life of another, and society doesn’t put them to death, that it is serving an injustice and denying value and worth to human life. Therefore, we must retain the death penalty to serve as the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.

            Stephen Nathanson, author of “An Eye for an Eye?” would probably take a different side than van den Haag on the issue of the use and enforcement of the death penalty. Nathanson argues that although a person forfeits some of their societal rights after committing murder, they do not forfeit their right to life and human dignity. Using the concept of “human desert” (Nathanson, 484), Nathanson argues that everyone, regardless of the crime committed, deserves a certain standard of treatment that is inconsistent with the death penalty. He goes on to say that our Framers granted everyone irrevocable, inalienable rights that cannot be forfeited at the expense of justice. Furthermore, Nathanson states that when we use restraint, and spare the lives of the convicted, that we possess a power to “communicate the importance of killing and other acts of violence” (Nathanson, 486). By abolishing the death penalty, we set an example and guidelines as to what defines proper behavior, which could have long-term, beneficial effects.

            If van den Haag were to respond to Nathanson’s objection to the death penalty, he would state that by eliminating the death penalty, equal injustice would prevail. Instead of showing that violence is wrong by eliminating violence, via the death penalty, you would allow immunity to the guilty, and deny them the ultimate punishment for their ultimate crime. Van den Haag would further argue that once someone commits murder, he or she forfeits their right to be a part of society, which includes their inalienable rights, and the right to human dignity. By not executing the murderer, we cheapen human life by stating that nothing is worth dying for, not even another human life. In conclusion to van den Haag’s rebuttle, he would state that if a small probability of saving the lives of a few innocent individuals exists, at the expense of a convicted murderer, morality would always chose saving the lives of the innocent individuals, over the sole convicted murderer.

            I ultimately agree with van den Haag’s position on the death penalty. Van den Haag’s opinion follows in accordance with Occam’s Razor, which states that the simplest view or way is often right, or the most coherent. Van den Haag’s position rests on the simple notion that we should punish as many guilty, and save as many innocent people as possible. Any mistakes made, or discrimination resulting from the use of the death penalty are flaws of the system, and must be corrected when found, yet remain an illogical reason to repeal it in its entirety. As a supporter of the death penalty, my views fall in line with those of van den Haag. Once a person consciously makes a decision to take the life of another innocent individual, the murderer forfeits their right to coexist with the rest of human society. Although the physical act of murdering a murderer is the same as an individual murdering another, the morality and rationale behind it is very different, and the death penalty must remain available to punish those deserving of it.

Paper submitted for POL324 do not steal.