Continental Philosophy Review

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 41–64 | Cite as

Responsibility and revision: a Levinasian argument for the abolition of capital punishment



Most readers believe that it is difficult, verging on the impossible, to extract concrete prescriptions from the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Although this view is largely correct, Levinas’ philosophy can, with some assistance, generate specific duties on the part of legal actors. In this paper, I argue that the fundamental premises of Levinas’ theory of justice can be used to construct a prohibition against capital punishment. After analyzing Levinas’ concepts of justice, responsibility, and interruption, I turn toward his scattered remarks on legal institutions, arguing that they enable a sense of interruption specific to the legal domain. It is here that we find the conceptual resources most important to my Levinasian abolition. I argue that the interruption of legal justice by responsibility implies what I call the “principle of revisability.” The principle of revisability states a necessary condition of just legal institutions: To be just, legal institutions must ensure the possibility of revising any and all of their rules, principles, and judgments. From this, the argument against capital punishment easily follows. Execution is a legal act, perhaps the only legal act, that cannot be undone. An application of the principle of revisability to this fact leads to the conclusion that legal institutions cannot justly impose capital punishment. After defending these points at length, I conclude with some observations on the consequences of the principle of revisability for law more generally.


Emmanuel Levinas Capital punishment Philosophy of law Justice Responsibility 


  1. Amnesty International. 2009. “Unconscionable and unconstitutional”: Troy Davis facing fourth execution date in two years. Retrieved 25 August 2010.
  2. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. 1996.Google Scholar
  3. Atterton, Peter. 2009. Levinas, justice, and just war. In Levinas in Jerusalem: Phenomenology, ethics, politics, aesthetics, ed. J. Hansel, 141–153. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bator, Paul M. 1963. Finality in criminal law and federal Habeas Corpus for state prisoners. Harvard Law Review 76: 441–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergo, Bettina. 1999. Levinas between ethics and politics: For the beauty that adorns the earth. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernasconi, Robert. 1990. The ethics of suspicion. Research in Phenomenology 20: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernasconi, Robert. 1999. The third party: Levinas on the intersection of the ethical and the political. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 30(1): 76–87.Google Scholar
  8. Burggraeve, Roger. 2002. The wisdom of love in the service of love: Emmanuel Levinas on justice, peace, and human rights, tr. Jeffrey Bloechl. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Caygill, Howard. 2002. Levinas and the political. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Critchley, Simon. 1992. The ethics of deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Critchley, Simon. 2007. Infinitely demanding: Ethics of commitment, politics of resistance. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, Michael. 1984. Is the death penalty irrevocable? Social Theory and Practice 10(2): 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hand, Sean, ed. 1989. The Levinas reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Perpich, Diane. 2008. The ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pettys, Todd. 2007. Killing Roger coleman: Habeas, finality, and the innocence gap. William & Mary Law Review 48: 2313–2363.Google Scholar
  16. Poirié, François, ed. 1996. Emmanuel Lévinas: Essai et entretiens. Arles: Actes Sud.Google Scholar
  17. Pojman, Louis, and Jeffrey Reiman. 1998. The death penalty: For and against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  18. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sarat, Austin. 2002. The “New Abolitionism” and the possibilities of legislative action: The new Hampshire experience. Ohio State Law Journal 63: 343–369.Google Scholar
  20. Solum, Lawrence B. 2004. Procedural justice. Southern California Law Review 78: 181–322.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Providence CollegeProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations