Retribution

Ling Chi – execution by slow slicing– was reserved for crimes viewed as especially severe, such as killing one's parents.

Supporters of the death penalty argued that death penalty is morally justified when applied in murder especially with aggravating elements such as for multiplehomicide, child murderers, cop killers, torture murderand mass killing such as terrorism, massacre, orgenocide. Some even argue that not applying death penalty in latter cases is patently unjust. This argument is strongly defended by New York Law School's Professor Robert Blecker,^[130] who says that the punishment must be painful in proportion to the crime. 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant sums it up as following;

But whoever has committed murder, must die. There is, in this case, no juridical substitute or surrogate, that can be given or taken for the satisfaction of justice. There is no likeness or proportion between life, however painful, and death; and therefore there is no equality between the crime of murder and the retaliation of it but what is judicially accomplished by the execution of the criminal.^[131]

Abolitionists argue that retribution is simply revenge and cannot be condoned. Others while accepting retribution as an element of criminal justice nonetheless argue that life without paroleis a sufficient substitute. It is also argued that the punishing of a killing with another killing is a relatively unique punishment for a violent act, because in general violent crimes are not punished by subjecting the perpetrator to a similar act (e.g. rapists are not punished by being sexually assaulted).^[132]

Дата добавления: 2015-08-03