In his speech; in favor of capital punishment, Mill argues in favor of the death penalty for worst murderers on the basis of Benthamite’s principle of exemplarity and frugality. As Mills states, punishment as an intrinsic form of mischief should not be excessively severe than is required to attain its anticipated effect; that of deterring crime. Although Mills recognizes the needs to uphold one’s rights, he explicitly advocates for the preservation of capital punishment in cases of aggravated murder. Mill states that whenever the greatest crime as a recognized law; murder, and when the culprit’ position suggests no palliation of guilt, then “no hope that the culprit may even yet not be unworthy to live among mankind” (98).
Mill realizes the ambiguity of the rights entitled to a person. He claims that individuals incessantly learn utility is an indeterminate principle that they should interpret distinctively, and there is no security except in the commands of justice. Basing on the principle of utility, Mill asserts that holds that it is suitable to inflict capital punishment on murderers; since in a similar case as an attacker is flogged or robber fined, an individual who takes one’s life should forfeit his own life. Mill asserts that this indicates concerns over the life which was taken ruthlessly. He also contemplates that the sole other form of punishment which could be seen be appropriate for a murderer is life imprisonment with tough labor. Mill claims that a punishment like other legal doctrines is morally reasonable to the degree that it nurtures human happiness. Although he had earlier opposed capital punishment, he changes his stand, to support on an utilitarian ground, claiming that he could countenance the capital punishment if and only if it would deter individuals from committing aggravated murder.
Work cited
Mill, John Stuart. "Speech in favor of capital punishment."(1972).
