The recent bemoanings of capital punishment by both Greg Jerrett and the Daily editorial board exhibit a clear lack of understanding of the legal and philosophical nature of punishment in a civil state, much less capital punishment.

To put it simply, society is founded on a social contract, an agreement between citizens and with the state to uphold certain inherent rights of life, liberty and property to the maximum degree possible while maintaining order.ÿ

The converse of this agreement is that actions taken by citizens which endanger or deprive others of their rights are punished by a deprivation of such rights as if by contract.

These same ideals of a social contract are prevalent through the Federalist Papers.

They are the ideas which America’s legal system was founded upon.

Hence, by this line of reasoning, punishment is not expressly for the purpose of retribution, revenge or deterrence, rather, it is the mere fulfillment of a contract with the state and other citizens which people implicitly agree upon by remaining within the bounds of the state.

Capital punishment, in theory and in practice, is reserved for the most heinous crimes within a society, those being actions which deprive individuals absolutely of their rights or which threaten the state as a whole and its ability to protect the rights of its citizens.ÿ

By this, it takes the prescribed action in the contract, boiling down to this:ÿwhen an individual deprives another of all of their rights, their rights are then deprived absolutely.

When one is deprived of one’s life, they cannot enjoy any other rights.ÿÿ

The arguments against capital punishment, including those of “Pope J.P. Deuce” as Mr. Jerrett refers to him, not only reflect an inherent misunderstanding of social contract theory but are also flimsy at best.ÿ

Citing effects-based elements of punishment and labeling this as the punishment’s “flaws” ignores the actual architecture of the punishment.ÿ

Were punishment all about retribution, government would be essentially unnecessary, seeing as complete and total anarchy along with rule by vigilante justice would effectively replace it.ÿ

The tired argument of “murder solving murder” is also insolvent again because it reflects virtually no understanding of the social contract.

The state is an executor of a set, implicit contract between individuals.

When an individual violates the terms of the contract, their rights are already in forfeit by the terms of this contract.ÿ

What the state does is merely see to it that the contract is fulfilled, thus the state isn’t “murdering” anyone for murder implies a direct deprivation of an individual’s right to life.ÿ

Because this right is in forfeit, the state is fulfilling its duty to the rest of the populace by ending the life in forfeit.

Seeing as neither America nor most civil societies are based on the principle of vigilante justice, the effects-based argument fails.

Perhaps intelligent debate would ensue in the Daily’s editorial section if intelligent research and thought occurred beforehand.

---

Steve Skutnik

Freshman

Physics