Although all humans have the right to live, there are some cases that the right to live is not applicable. Murderers should not be given the chance to live if they have killed an innocent person. If a criminal robs an innocent person of their right to be alive, why should that criminal be allowed to live? It is completely acceptable to use the death penalty on such individuals because it is rather unfair that they get to be on this earth while the innocent person does not. Kant’s “an eye for an eye” point of view is exactly what makes the death penalty the ethical approach when dealing with a criminal who committed murder. The death penalty should not come as a surprise to criminals that intentionally took the life of an innocent person. By committing the crime, criminals are in a way accepting the aftermath and repercussions of their actions. Capital punishment should not be implemented as a tool for vengeance but rather in a fair manner that allows law enforcement to make a wise decision about a particular …show more content…
In a utilitarian perspective, the death penalty would be saving the lives of innocent people so it would be for the greater good of society has a whole. Not only will the citizens feel safer that such terrible criminals got what they deserved, but it will also shift the attention from the criminals to the victims that lost their lives to these monsters. Too much effort and energy is spent trying to decide on whether criminals should be kept alive when the answer is simple; if they take an innocent life, they don’t have the right to live. According to John Stuart Mill, a very famous utilitarian, “If punishing an offender would most likely produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness compared with the other available options (not taking any action, publicly denouncing the offender, etc.), then the punishment is justified.” (Murtagh, part