Ethics of the Death Penalty

            
             Ever since we were young, we were taught that violence and murder are wrong. Our peers and the prominent figures in our lives would often remind us of the negative effects and moral codes that conspire around violence. So what makes it okay for people to preach for the innocence of their children but then encourage the act of capital punishment? Capital punishment is defined as the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. Throughout time, advocates and protesters of capital punishment have equally petitioned to gain support for their beliefs. The capital itself has not made any definite rulings as to whether or not they want to allow capital punishment to continue. States alone have made decisions upon the act though, as thirty-six states allow the death penalty, meaning fourteen states have made the verdict to abolish the death penalty. I believe allowing the death penalty leaves too much room for constant error, and could not possibly be administered fairly. .
             Many philosophical leaders of our time have discussed their input on the subject of capital punishment. Immanuel Kant is one who discusses not only his view on the matter, but the views of those who believe in utilitarianism. The utilitarianism theory of capital punishment is they believe it is justified but only because it inflicts happiness and relief towards certain parties. Utilitarianisms believe that capital punishment prevents offenders from doing further harm and give satisfaction to victims and society. Kant rejects this theory because he believes it shows that criminals are just sentenced to death to make others feel good. .
             "Juridical punishment can never be administered merely as a means for promoting another good either with regard to the criminal himself or to civil society, but must in all cases be imposed only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime. For one man ought never to be dealt with merely as a means subservient to the purpose of another, nor be mixed up with the subjects of real right.