Death Penalty Analysis: Argument From Justice, Retribution, or Punishment

It is argued that some people simply deserve to die; that, given what they've done, their continuing to live is inherently unjust, regardless of other considerations. This is related to the argument that the victims' survivors deserve retribution. Let's assume that this is so, and that our goal is to minimize the injustice in the universe. Sentencing such people to life in prison creates injustice, and is therefore bad.

The counter-point to this is that executing an innocent person is also unjust. All it does is create a new victim, and do nothing for the survivors of the original. So the injustice created by an avoided-but-deserved execution is one value. The injustice created by executing an innocent is another value. Now since we are trying to minimize injustice, we must ask: how many avoided executions does it take before that injustice exceeds the injustice of executing one innocent?

And remember, we're not talking about killing criminals to save money, or for public safety. We're talking about killing them as an end unto itself. Would you, personally, be willing to kill one innocent person if it meant you also got to kill ten jailed Hitlers? A hundred? A thousand? From a perspective of justice, how many deserved executions is an innocent life worth?

My answer is infinity. I don't care how many horrible criminals I have to leave living in a hole forever; executing one innocent person is worse. By the argument of justice, as long as there is any chance that you might ever execute an innocent person, that potential injustice outweighs all the possible injustice of leaving actual criminals alive.

Tolkien asked, "Some that die deserve life; can you give it to them?" Obviously the answer is no. What we can do is not add to their number. That, at least, is just.

Let me know when the odds of a wrongful execution reach zero. Otherwise, argument from justice works against the death penalty.