Argument about Capital Punishment In this philosophical study of applied ethics, the concept of punishment will be argued using philosophers such as Mill, Bentham, and Kant. And the case of John Martin Scripps “The Tourist from Hell” will be used. The concept of capital punishment as a form of punishment raises questions such as "is there a crime so serious that it allows the state to kill?" Does anyone deserve to die for their crime? Is the execution a sign that society has failed in its responsibilities to all its citizens? Punishment has three purposes: retribution, reform, and deterrence. Modern thinking about punishment tends toward a combined view in which none of the goals by itself is sufficient to provide an overall explanation. Retribution and deterrence will be highlighted in detail. Retribution expresses very clearly what people instinctively feel is the basis for punishment. Retributive arguments have a long and ancient history, particularly in the West, due to the support of biblical and ecclesial traditions. Historically, law codes from the Old Testament, Babylonian Hammurabi (1728-1686 BCE), and other ancient periods use a retributive argument. A lex talionis (the law of the tooth) is adopted in the Old Testament: “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” In other words, a grievance caused requires satisfaction from the victim to which she or society is entitled. This right is due to no other reason than that these criminals deserve what they deserve. Retribution classically holds that punishment is justified because the criminal deserves it and all other considerations are taken into account ... middle of paper ... no deterrent effect on others. However, the utility of punishment does not provide the means to estimate the amount of punishment, other than the minimum necessary to deter others. I think the retributive route is effective because it deals with people who have had to suffer a grievance because of the crime and punishment. This path makes it possible to provide satisfaction to the victims. However, this path can now be considered retrograde because killing another human is wrong and this attitude is more fashionable. We see that society is considered responsible for the murders because the state must take care of its members. I think the most effective method is reform because it looks at how the offender can re-enter society as a useful member, but punishment must still be meted out and enforced to have a deterrent effect...