How Mill Apply the Principle of Utility to the Issue of Capital Punishment
In his parliamentary speech in, 1868, Mill argues in favour of capital punishment retention. In support of capital punishment, Mill argues that a punishment being an essential malice, it should be accomplished in a more severe way that it ought to be in order for the punishing party to attain the anticipated effect to the murderer. He further accentuates that, the desired effect of punishment can best be achieved economic wise if the suffering is inflicted more severe that it ought to be. Based on his perceptions, execution is less cruel when compared to life imprisonment where one will have to endure hard labour and subsequently die in one way or the other probably consequent to more pain than execution. Furthermore, in support of capital punishment, Mill further emphasises that, capital punishment is the most appropriate way of punishment consequent the fact that it closely resembles the offense.
Evident from his speech, it is apparent that Mill closely relate his argument on capital punishment to the principal of utility. The principle of utility states that, actions are right as long as they promote happiness. Based on this notion, Mill in support of capital punishment argues that, execution is a swift procedure that is less painful compared to the death the murderer will endure or eventually face. As a way of lessening the pain of the murderer, it is suitable to execute the murderer rather than subject him or her tolife imprisonment. Essentially, it is important to note the fact that, based on Mill’s perception, capital punishment does not inflict as much pain as the murderer will have to endure upon being subjected to life imprisonment. In this way, he argues against long term pain a notion that fundamentally defines principal utility.
