Argument: Public calls for capital punishment must be met to uphold justice

Extended argument and supporting evidence

In societies that will capital punishment in cases of murder, that to rule contrary to this public will is to undermine the public’s sense of justice being served, and that this is Deontologically “wrong”: This is a Deontological “virtue” argument that assumes that is based on the assumption that a particular society believes that the death penalty is righteous. Indeed, a majority in some publics, such as the American public, do support capital punishment as “just” in cases of murder. Because publics do have a say in determing the meaning of “justice” in their own societies and laws, many argue that a public that wills capital punishment in a certain circumstance, but that is dissapointed by a lesser ruling, develops a sense that justice has not been served. The Deontological “virtue” argument is that a social feeling of such judicial frustration is “wrong” by nature, making capital punishment “right” in circumstances where the public wills it.[1]

• This also leads to a utilitarian argument presented in a later section that posits that, in such circumstances where a public feels justice has not been served, that the public may feel it is necessary to take justice into their own hands, that a form of vigilante justice and anarchy may ensue, and that this is a reason to enforce capital punishment in societies where the public wills it.

“Thoughts on the death penalty”. Retrieved May 1, 2008 – “A majority of a state’s subjects may wish to confer the right to put certain classes of criminal to death through referendum or voting in state elections for candidates favouring capital punishment. Majority opinion in some democratic countries is still in favour of the death penalty.

It is reasonable to assume that if a majority is in favour of a particular thing in a democracy, their wishes should be seriously considered with equal consideration given to the downside of their views.”