NCJ Number
193100
Date Published
2001
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This chapter focuses on religious ethics and the social contract as underrepresented valid ethical foundations for support of the selective use of the death penalty.
Abstract
The prophets and lawgivers of the three great Western religions -- Judaism, Islam, and Christianity -- concur in the use of death to punish and demand retaliation against the criminal, even though both Mohammed and Jesus spoke of the virtues of mercy in preference to, but not in place of, the Law of Moses. These religions suggest restraint in the use of but not the abolition of the death penalty. The social-contract argument in support of the death penalty is based on the acceptance of the social benefits of living in the company of others and agreeing to follow the rules set by the community. Under the social contract, members of the community agree not to kill other members of the community, so that all will be safe from such personal and family tragedy. Homicidal persons, by their actions in killing another in the community, have violated the social contract, thus nullifying the community's obligation to ensure the safety of the killer. The community may take the life of the killer, provided this is the majority will of those who have forged the social contract. Since the social contract is clear about the punitive consequence of murder, then it is ethical to fulfill the terms of the contract in executing those who kill others in violation of the contract. Although neither religious teachings nor the concept of the social contract requires the use of executions, both sources lend sustenance to the selective use of the death penalty. 32 references