The death penalty is the harshest sentence used by our government to punish criminals. As such, it is the most controversial punishment in force in the United States today. Ernest Van Den Haag examines the morality of the death penalty in his essay, "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense." He argues that there are moral grounds to support the death penalty and that a lesser punishment is, in fact, immoral.
             To better understand the grounds on which Van Den Haag basis his arguments, let's first look at the issue itself. The death penalty has been used in almost all civilizations in human history. In the United States today it is reserved for the those irrevocable and most heinous offenses (e.g. murder, treason). The arguments for and against the death penalty stem from its too main functions, deterrence and retribution. For the death penalty to act as deterrence, it must deter people from committing crimes that warrant its use. The reward amassed by committing the crime must be outweighed by the consequences of that crime. For most people, the death penalty fits this description. Although, there are some who would rather sacrifice their lives to commit a crime they feel is justified or worth the consequence of death. For these people, capital punishment is not a deterrence and may, in some cases, be a motivating force.
             The death penalty's other function is as retribution for crimes committed. There are two kinds of retribution, egalitarian and proportional. Egalitarian requires that the punishment be identical, or as close to identical as possible, to the crime. While this seems fitting, is would be almost impossible to conduct this type of punishment in our society. The murderer who kills and rapes five people cannot be killed and raped five times. It would also be difficult to punish a Benedict Arnold with high treason. These are extreme examples, however they make proportional retribution seem more reasonable. Proportio...