| In recent years, there has been a greater willingness on the part of the American public to endorse the motives of retribution and revenge as socially legitimate reasons for supporting capital punishment of convicted homicide offenders. This paper utilizes existing arguments to disagree with this retributive philosophy. Specifically, this paper argues that: (1) the goals of punishment are not met through the execution of convicted homicide offenders; (2) exacting retribution and revenge through the execution of convicted homicide offenders is morally, religiously, and pragmatically wrong; (3) not all survivors of homicide victims seek revenge through the execution of convicted homicide offenders; and (4) healing, for both victims and offenders, can be achieved more quickly and efficiently through a restorative justice philosophy that emphasizes reintegration, atonement, and forgiveness. The principles of restorative justice have ordinarily been applied to property crimes, not violent ones. This paper contributes to the existing literature by recognizing that these same principles can be expanded to include the violent crime of murder. |
Updated 05/20/2006