" (Immanuel Kant) .
By this, Kant is explaining that without your consent, one cannot be "dealt with" that way. Although Kant agrees that the hurt done to the criminal should equal the hurt the criminal did to others, or "eye for eye", I still agree with his views on the utilitarian theory. If the only means of justification for capital punishment are because it brings good to society or makes people happy, then that means innocent people may be killed too, if it would benefit people. .
James Rachels, also a philosopher, discusses the act of capital punishment but covers his opinion on the retributivism theory. The difference between retributivism theory and utilitarian theory is, the utilitarian theory is justified by the thought of capital punishment achieving crime reduction or other benefits socially, where retributivism theory is justified by almost taking "revenge", but only is done to people who have committed wrong doings. Both of these theories show just how easy it is for people who believe in these theories to accidentally bring upon the death penalty to an innocent person. .
Throughout time, there have been many cases where innocent men have been sentenced to death row, and inevitably killed. One case for example is Cameron Willingham from Texas. Cameron was convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire. In 1992, the forensics that was done to examine traces of arson was not reasonable at all, and there was no scientific evidence that Cameron had set the fire. The only other evidence that Mr. Willingham had against him was a felon who had testified saying Cameron had confessed to the murders of his children and the igniting of the house fire. This felon was also a drug addict who was currently on psychiatric medication. The same evidence that was used by the experts, who tried to prove Willingham innocent, was used a year later to free a man from death row.