Two general theories of punishment, not simply of capital punishment:

1.  Retributivism:  backward looking theory (lex talionis)
    a.  Revenge
    b.  Moral Balance (the scales of justice as an analogy) - no exact "equals" in punishment
    c.  Rights of the victim - without this element, the result is a chaotic society
    d.  Effect on criminals -- the author of one's own punishment?  A restatement into the moral community.

2.  Deterrence and Rehabilitation theories
    a.  Prevention/Reduction
        Benefits:
            i.  Deters THIS particular criminal
            ii. Deters others
            iii. Improves society
    b.  As rehabilitation, is this REALLY punishment at all?
            i.  Assumption of diminished moral capacity
            ii. Are the benefits of rehabilitation available to everyone?
            iii. Is the expense justified?
            iv. Retribution is divisive, so rehabilitation is justified

The Problem of Telishment: - punishment of the innocent.  If this would deter criminals, then is it justified?

Questions regarding the value of human life:  Is the death penalty a sign that as a society, we have given up?
    -Is there bias in application?
        -more men than women
        -more minorities than caucasians

Objections to capital punishment:
    a.  Torture
    b.  Ritual Killing
    c.  Utlimate social rejection

Is punishment justified at all?
    Harm or deprivation makes a person worse off
    Pro:  Life in prison is unjustified - makes the criminal dependent upon the society he or she attempted to undermine.
    The Kantian view sees the therapy/rehabilitation model as inappropriate - a criminal has a RIGHT to be punished, not TREATED.