Warlin 1

Alysa Warlin
Mrs. Oberg
English 11
4 November 2015
Retribution through the Death Penalty
Capital punishment has been seen since before the Code of Hammurabi, known best as an
eye for an eye. Since that time it has changed a little. In the 1970s almost all death penalty
sentences have been imposed for homicide. In 2002, Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty
must been inflicted by a jury and not a judge. Though, when a jury is deciding on if the persons
crimes fit the punishment of the death penalty they usually think about one thing: retribution.The
question that begs to be asked is whether retribution is a form of vengeance taken on or is it a
rationally supported theory of the crime fitting the punishment. The death penalty is wrong for
the very fact of what its based on. Retribution is vengeance, and a life should not be taken (no
matter how terrible their crime may have been) in order to see justice done through revenge.
Some people think that the punishment should fit the crime. Going off the belief of an
eye for an eye, they believe that the punishment should be meaningful (especially when the life
of an innocent is taken), ( Richard A. Devine). This punishment is an act of anger, and not matter
how justified the anger is, a life for a life is not a good enough reason to hand out the death
penalty. The argument that the death penalty is punishment for evil done (and that not instituting
the death penalty puts a price on an innocent human life) makes basic human rights invalid. This
is especially true for articles 3 and 5 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3
states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of a person. By instituting the death

Warlin 2

penalty we are taking away a persons right to have a life. It is not our job to play god, therefore
we must follow what the universal declaration has decreed and not take away someones rights.
Article 5 states: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment. Lets stop for a second and ask ourselves if putting someone in an electric chair
or giving them poison is a fair punishment. Yes, they killed people. But is it our right to kill
them? More to the point, is it our right to kill them through means of torture? Lethal injections
were not meant to torture people, but the reality of the truth is that these machines are being used
to kill healthy human beings, and it doesnt always go as planned. Is the risk of torturing
someone before they die worth retribution? The answer is very clearly: no. One cannot simply
ignore the need for basic human rights for something as senseless as vengeance.
The words retribution and vengeance can be used interchangeably with each other.
The definition of the word retribution is: punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a
wrong or criminal act (Oxford Dictionary). Though, it is often questioned why it is so wrong if
vengeance is taken on somebody who took an innocent life. Raymond A. Scroth argues that
Retribution is just another word for revenge. Therefore retribution is not a rational response to a
critical situation. To kill the person who has killed someone close to you will kill both the
offender and yourself (Schroth). Capital punishment can create a vicious cycle of revenge, or it
could completely damage a persons soul. The death penalty seems to be a go-to punishment
when someone (or a group of people) feels that they have been particularly wrong. These people
then ask a jury to deem a specific individual worthy of death. All death penalty juries have to go
through a process called death qualification this series of test weed out people who may have a
problem with handing out capital punishment. This leaves people who are, more often than not,
willing to hand out the death penalty. This leaves more people being killed, even if the person put

Warlin 3

on death row may have been mentally unstable (but not so much so that they could claim
insanity). No matter what a person has done, they dont deserve to walk into a roomful of people
ready to hand out vengeance at the get-go. Giving someone the ultimate punishment of death
doesnt bring back the people that were lost, it doesnt bring anybody closure, and it most
certainly is not justly given out.
Capital Punishment is a form of revenge often called Retribution for lives lost. But
revenge is an irrational way of thinking and shouldnt be used as a just argument for taking a life.
It is using a persons life (yes a terrible person, but a person none the less) and telling them that
they need to die in order for the offended to find closure. But seeking closure through revenge is
never going to work and it wont bring back the person lost. It is not our job to tell somebody
that their life isnt worth living and that it is their time to die. It is our right to kill them,
especially through means of torture. The only way to fix the death penalty is the use the sentence
life without parole. This will not only take into account basic human rights, but if will also
help loved ones of the deceased find closure by letting them find out why the offender did it and
that they can get better now that they are in jail.
"Are You "Death Qualified"?" Cato Institute. 10 Aug. 2000. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
"Definition of Retribution in English:." Retribution: Definition of Retribution in Oxford
Dictionary (American English) (US). Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
"Should the Death Penalty Be Used for Retribution? - Death Penalty - ProCon.org." ProConorg
Headlines. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.