當我們思考「死刑」這件事的時候，腦海中所浮現的畫面究竟是「殘忍的殺害者＝兇手＝他非死不可！」抑或是「可憐的人＝他罪無可赦＝他只能獲死了！」雖然結論都是一樣的，但是思考的前提卻極其有差異，前者就是抹卻了「人性」的思考，只關心兇手的伏法，「被害者正義」獲得伸張，此乃關乎「刑罰」的法律思考觀點；後者則是關心「人之可憐性」，重點不再是緊除某些世上禍害，而是「死刑」是對所有人類性命的緊箍咒，「死刑」這個「刑罰」的存在本身其象徵意義就是對所有人類的不信任，而不只是「某個人」行兇殘忍故需被處罰，我們若認真以人文觀點審視就會發現不對勁處，這是「反客為主了」：在人的世界中，一切應該以「人」為「主」，法律與刑罰乃為了保護人類性命安全故為「次」等，如今臺灣社會卻是抬次為主，緊抱「刑罰」不放，恐已遺忘「死刑」的暴力性以及它也應有屬於人文面向的思考可能。本文擬先「還原」死刑這個刑罰最初設立的動機以及其後來的功能發展，因為現在討論死刑這件事都已摻雜太多政治正確或者潮流靠邊的非理性因素，反而遺忘人類原先為何會編納此刑罰進入群體生活規範的意念；爾後，再分別從應報主義與人權觀點檢視「死刑」這個刑罰存廢之正當性，期以求出對它最為審慎之人文觀察心得。

When we think of “death penalty,” is the image coming to mind the “brutal killer=murderer=he has to die!” or the “poor guy=he is unforgivable=he could only die?” Although the conclusions are the same, the premises of thinking differ to a great extent. The former wipes out humanistic thinking and only cares about the execution of murderer while the justice can be done on victims. Such perspective is the legal thinking on “penalty.” The later cares about “human compassion” and the emphasis lies on the elimination of certain calamity in the world but that “death penalty” serves as the constraints to human life. The existence of “death penalty” symbolizes distrust of all mankind and not just the “someone” needs to be punished because of the brutal attacks. If we seriously review with humanistic perspectives, we will discover the something wrong and “switch of positions.” In the world of humans, everything should be based on “humanism” while laws and criminal laws become secondary to complement the protection of human life and safety. The Taiwan society today has switched the position, clings to “death penalty” and has unfortunately forgotten that there could be possible thinking in humanities to “death penalty”. The paper attempts to “restore” the motivation at the initial founding of “death penalty” because the majority of discussion on death penalty is mixed with too many politically correct or irrational factors putting trends aside. Later, the paper reviews the legitimacy of abolishment to “death penal” with retributivism and human rights in expectation to derive the most deliberate review of humanistic observations.