AN APPRAISAL OF JEREMY BENTHAM’S CRITIQUE OF DEATH PENALTY

ABSTRACT

Imagine a scenario, a person's father, guardian, or loved one is killed by a criminal, and subsequently, the criminal is executed as a form of capital punishment of death penalty. The question is, of what significance is such punishment for both the victim's family and society as a whole? Also, doesn't this situation raise concerns about the fundamental principles of moral law? Most philosophers of ethics responding to this problem, admit that there is an inherent natural placement of the right to life in every man. This right to life can be seen in two essential contexts: Every man has the right to be born and every man once born has the right to preserve his life. Thus, the right to life is of high esteem and emphasizes respect for the dignity and value of human life. Hence, it is often said that on no account should this right be violated, that is, no one should take the life of another person. It is within this line of thought that Jeremy Bentham posits a fashionable form to apply his general utilitarian principles of punishment to death penalty. Bentham’s utilitarian critique is against arguments put forward in support of the death penalty which is often retributive and deterrence in nature. Using a historical and evaluative method, this work is to see how justified Bentham’s confutation of death penalty is, as it violate right to life and does not serve as a corresponding corrective measures. This work also aims to look at the alternatives provided by Bentham after the denial of death penalty. Finally, this work in line with Bentham’s critique, posits that argument for death penalty does not take into consideration the fact that two wrongs cannot make a right. The way to restore a wrong is not through another wrong, rather a counterweight is needed so that the more evil there is on the other side, the better is on the other side.