Abstract

This study analyses the development of the relation between natural rights theories and the moral valuation of capital punishment in the European enlightenment up to Beccaria. The theories of Grotius, Hobbes and Cumberland are three eminent theoretical options in early modern natural law theory. In different ways they all approved capital punishment: Grotius proposed that the criminal forfeited his right to life through his criminal deed qua implicit consent or reciprocity. Hobbes saw the individual right to life of the citizen as finally not binding for the state. And in Cumberland’s sight the right to live was only conditional on its maximizing effect on the collective welfare as he understood it. It was not until Beccaria published his famous book on crime and punishment that an enlightened natural law author rejected the legitimacy of the death penalty. Beccaria’s arguments concerning capital punishment are investigated in this study in the light of the foregoing debate based on natural rights.