This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, examining its ethical and sociological implications. The essay begins by defining capital punishment and differentiating it from extrajudicial executions, setting the stage for a discussion of consequentialist and non-consequentialist arguments. The core of the essay argues against the ethical validity of the death penalty, delving into historical perspectives, philosophical justifications, and the role of the state. It explores various ethical approaches, including retributivism and utilitarianism, and critiques the concept of deterrence as a justification for capital punishment. The essay discusses the brutalization effect of capital punishment and the lack of empirical evidence supporting its deterrent effect. It also examines consequentialist concerns, such as potential discrimination, the impact on families, and the possibility of executing innocent individuals. The essay concludes by emphasizing that utilitarian justifications for capital punishment, which prioritize social utility over individual rights, are insufficient to legitimize the practice. Therefore, the essay concludes that the state is ethically wrong in imposing the death penalty.
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
