Based on the Second Treatise of Government, does John Locke suggest that he is in favor or opposes capital punishment? Locke is fairly vague when addressing this topic and he certainly never offers a clear cut answer to the question. He bounces different arguments off each other while analyzing the question in different situations. After weighing all of the evidence it appears that Locke is ultimately in favor of capital punishment.
Locke argues early on in support of an “always choose life” approach. In chapter two of the Treatise, Locke states that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (9). This would mean that the death penalty would be unacceptable in all cases, because we have our God given right to life and no one can take that from us. It is clear that Locke places great value on property which of course includes life. Locke later states in chapter three that
…show more content…
The primary goal of the government in Locke’s commonwealth is the protection of our property which includes our bodies. Life, health, liberty, and possessions are still civil rights in a political society, but in a large society do we look past the rights of individuals for the good of all? If self-preservation for the entire society is to be valued, then maybe it is right to take the life of a murderer to benefit others. Here Locke shows glimpses of showing support for the death penalty. If someone violates my right to life, then the same should be done to them not only as punishment but also to put an end to their opportunity to harm someone else. This is a narrow-minded way of thinking and Locke would agree at least in today’s society. In present times, unlike that of the 17th century, prisons are secure enough to keep any serial killers behind bars for life. This takes the member out of society but at the same time preserves his right to