Abstract Within the United States, legal challenges to the death penalty have held it to be a “cruel and unusual” punishment (contrary to the Eighth Amendment) or arbitrarily and unfairly enacted (contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). The Eighth Amendment requires that punishments not be disproportionate or purposeless. In recent rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted a piecemeal approach to this matter. In regard to particular classes of defendant, the Court has sought to rule on whether death is likely to be a proportional and purposeful punishment, as well as whether—given the condition of these defendants—such a determination can be reliably and accurately gauged. This article will suggest a different approach. Instead of asking whether, given the nature of certain categories of human defendant, the death penalty is constitutional in their case, I will begin by asking what—given the nature of the U.S. death penalty—one must believe about human beings for death to be a proportionate punishment. From this, I will argue that to believe that these penal goals are capable of fulfilment by the death penalty entails commitment to an empirically unconfirmable philosophical anthropology. On this basis, it will be further argued that the beliefs required for the U.S. death penalty's proportional and purposeful instigation (pursuant to the Eighth Amendment) are not congruent with the demands of legal due process.

中文翻译：

---

重温死亡的差异：美国死刑的哲学人类学与资本正当程序的可能性

摘要在美国，对死刑的法律质疑使它成为“残酷和不寻常”的惩罚（与《第八修正案》相反）或任意，不公正地颁布（与《第五和十四修正案》相反）。第八修正案要求惩罚不应过分或毫无目的。在最近的裁决中，美国最高法院对此事采取了零星的处理方式。关于特定类别的被告，法院试图裁定死亡是否可能是按比例和有目的的惩罚，以及在给定这些被告的条件的情况下，这种判决是否可以可靠而准确地衡量。本文将提出一种不同的方法。鉴于特定类型的人类被告的性质，他没有问，如果死刑在他们的情况下是宪法规定的，那么我首先要问的是什么（考虑到美国死刑的性质），人们必须相信对人类的死刑是相称的惩罚。由此，我将争辩说，要相信这些刑罚目标能够通过死刑来实现，就必须致力于经验上无法确定的哲学人类学。在此基础上，将进一步论证，美国死刑的按比例和有目的的鼓动（根据《第八修正案》）所需的信念与合法正当程序的要求不符。我将争辩说，要相信这些刑罚目标能够通过死刑得以实现，就必须致力于经验上无法确定的哲学人类学。在此基础上，将进一步论证，美国死刑的按比例和有目的的煽动（根据第八修正案）所需的信念与合法正当程序的要求不符。我将争辩说，要相信这些刑罚目标能够通过死刑得以实现，就必须致力于经验上无法确定的哲学人类学。在此基础上，将进一步论证，美国死刑的按比例和有目的的煽动（根据第八修正案）所需的信念与合法正当程序的要求不符。