Copyright © 2025 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{176454,
        author = {Irteja Ahmed},
        title = {Retributive Justice and death penalty: A Philosophical and Legal debate.},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2025},
        volume = {11},
        number = {11},
        pages = {7271-7278},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=176454},
        abstract = {The death penalty remains one of the most polarizing issues in criminal justice, straddling the domains of moral philosophy, legal theory, and human rights. This paper examines capital punishment through the lens of retributive justice, a theory often mischaracterized as synonymous with vengeance but which, in its Kantian formulation, emphasizes proportionality, guilt, and moral desert. Drawing on the foundational works of Immanuel Kant and contemporary critiques of utilitarianism, the paper interrogates whether the death penalty aligns with the core tenets of retributivism.
Kant’s retributive theory, rooted in the categorical imperative, posits that punishment must be proportionate to the crime and grounded in the offender’s moral desert. He famously argued that even if society were to dissolve, the last murderer must be executed to uphold justice.  However, this paper challenges the assumption that retributive justice inherently justifies executions. By deconstructing the misunderstandings of retributivism—such as its conflation with vengeance or the literal application of jus talionis ("an eye for an eye")—the paper argues that modern retributive theory, emphasizing human dignity and proportionality, often contradicts the practice of capital punishment.
The analysis extends to constitutional law and international human rights standards, where the death penalty is increasingly viewed as a violation of human dignity. The paper also explores the fallibility of justice systems, where wrongful executions—punishing the innocent—are conceptually irreconcilable with retributive principles.  Ultimately, the paper concludes that while retributive justice historically supported the death penalty, contemporary interpretations rooted in just deserts and respect for human dignity challenge its legitimacy.},
        keywords = {},
        month = {April},
        }