Abstract
Since Cesare Beccaria claimed the respect for right to life in his treatise On Crimes and Punishments, the abolition of death penalty has become a controversial issue in the western society. In Taiwan, the issue has also been disputed for several years. However, rival camps have not yet come to any consensus.
Contemporary arguments in favor of capital punishment are mainly based on retribution, deterrence, and utilitarianism theories. Retributive theory argues for proper punishment according to the severity of crime. Deterrence theory argues for adequate punishments to deter potential perpetrators. Utilitarianism advocates that punishments should be justified by consequences.
After reviewing three theories above, and examining philosophical arguments for and against them, this thesis concludes that capital punishment is a kind of necessary evil and should be considered as the last resort for upholding social justice.
Keywords：Death penalty, Retribution, Deterrence, Utilitarianism.
摘要
自貝加利亞在《犯罪與刑罰》一書中首先倡導重視生命權開始，西方世界對於推動廢除死刑已經是趨勢，而台灣社會對死刑存廢的問題雖已討論多年，但正反雙方仍舊難以達到共識。
當代支持死刑的論證，主要建基在應報論、嚇阻論和效益主義之上。應報論主張依犯罪行為的嚴重程度，對罪犯施予相對應比例的懲罰。嚇阻論則是針對刑罰的威嚇效用，企圖讓潛在犯罪意圖者產生高度恐懼心理，而不敢冒然犯罪。效益主義為刑罰證成的基礎之一，焦距在犯罪行為的嚴重性，並強調阻止和避免未來犯罪。
本文透過以上三種理論，探討死刑存廢不同觀點，藉此論證保留死刑的必要性，並經由對它們的分析與考察，檢視死刑是否為守護社會正義的必要之惡和最後手段。
關鍵字：死刑、應報論、嚇阻論、效益主義