CHAPTER ONE: WHAT IS DEATH PENALTY?                                 9

1.0      Introduction                                                                                     9

1.1      Philosophical View on Death Penalty                                               9

          Conclusion                                                                                      13

          References                                                                                      15

CHAPTER TWO: IMMANUEL KANT ON DEATH PENALTY             16

2.0      Introduction                                                                                     16

2.1      Kant View on Death Penalty                                                            17

2.3      Conclusion                                                                                      20

          References                                                                                      21

CHAPTER THREE: A CRITIQUE OF KANT ON DEATH PENALTY 22

3.0      Introduction                                                                                     22

3.1      Kantian Case against Death Penalty                                                  25

3.1.1   Regulative Ideas                                                                              25

3.1.2   Free Will                                                                                         26

3.1.3   Moral Imputability                                                                           29

3.1.4   Concept of Right                                                                              33

          Conclusion                                                                                      36

          References                                                                                      37

CHAPTER FOUR: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION                           39

          Conclusion                                                                                      40

BIBLOGRAPHY                                                                                      42

          The death penalty is a fair and morally justified punishment for people who commit premeditated murder. Although opponents of capital punishment often contend that executions deny the intrinsic value of human life, their argument reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose of criminal justice, which is to punish a criminal in proportion to the harm caused by his crime. In the world of justice, a murderer’s life is not equal in worth to an innocent person’s life.1 Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital is derived from the Latin capitalis ("of the head", referring to execution by beheading).2

          Death penalty as punishment is a matter of active controversy in various countries and states, and positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region. In the European Union, Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits the use of capital punishment3. Also, the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, prohibits the use of the death penalty by its members.

          It is hard to know what to think about justification of death penalty as punishment3 because it is a fact that almost all societies in the world agrees that if a person violates the laws, he shall be punished.  However, the differences appear when it comes to what kind of punishment should be applied, especially for major crimes such as murder. Death penalty, which also known as capital punishment or execution, is one of these differences that have caused many debates and arguments between its supporters and opponents. From philosophers’ point of view, Immanuel Kant has a very interesting perspective of death penalty and its morality. Kant is a supporter for death penalty; Kant justification of it is clear and logical because it shows in what cases and conditions death penalty can be applied.

          First of all, Kant thinks that death penalty is morally acceptable because it result on preventing future criminals’ behaviors. For Kant, humans are rational beings and all of them have duties. According to Kant4, “Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law.” In other words, these duties that people have emerge as a result of their need to respect the law. Kant believes that everyone should follow the law as he states: “Everything in nature works according to laws,” and who violates the law should be punished and he doesn’t deserve to be a member of the society anymore. This implies his idea about “Categorical imperative” which simply means that each law has its own method or principles to be followed by citizens5. To analyze the morality of death penalty from Kant’s point of view, moral actions need to be defined. Kant suggests that acting in order to satisfy someone self-interest is morally unacceptable. To illustrate that, if someone kills another person to revenge or for any other reason, this action is immoral. In the other hand, if the government applies death penalty on someone because he killed another person, this action is a moral one because the state doesn’t act in regard to its self-interest but to protect its citizens from this criminal. So, this person who violates the law and kill another person might do this again, that is why it is better to prevent him or others from doing such actions again by applying death penalty on him.

          For Kant, social crimes which might be harmful to the public such as murder and theft are the kind of crimes that deserve a great punishment6. Moreover, Avaliani states that Kant considers death penalty as a moral and necessary action for two kinds of crimes: murder and lese-majesty crimes. He strongly supports that anyone who commits a murder or interrupts the state’s safety by harming the king or queen should die. According to Avaliani, Kant suggests that if the state doesn’t punish these criminals by death, it becomes “an accomplice of this crime.” Thus, it can be seen that Kant perceives death penalty as a justifiable action in specific cases and within certain conditions.

          In conclusion, it can be see that Kant provides a clear and logical justification for death penalty. Kant shows in what cases and under what conditions or circumstances death penalty can be morally acceptable; he suggests that murder and lese-majesty crimes justify death penalty or capital punishment. Also, it can be seen that Utilitarianism justifies death penalty only because it might provides happiness for the majority of people. So, while Kant’s point of view perceives death penalty as a preventer to great crimes such as murder. Last thing to say is, although death penalty violates someone’s right to live, it is defiantly helps to eliminate crimes rate in the society and creates just society that people don’t fear to live in it.

          It has been said that arguments against Kant’s justification of death penalty are so successful that ‘today there is barely an interpreter who will take a stand in favor of this part of Kant’s theory of penal law’7. In this paper, I will take such a stand, arguing that Kant does have a viable justification of capital punishment, one that coheres with the basic tenets of his practical philosophy and generates a pressure to carry out executions.

          Since Kant’s work is the locus classicus of retributivist justifica­tions of capital punishment, this paper has implications for broader debates in the philosophy of punishment. However, my primary goal is exegetical. Kant’s justification is not obvious; its main points are not explicitly defended, and some of what Kant does say about capital punishment is vulnerable to overly simplistic interpretations.