This article will focus on capital punishment, which we will define as execution by lethal injection administered by an executioner to someone convicted of murder, and for the purposes of this article murder will be established as the killing of an innocent person in cold blood. It will be about the dehumanization of the condemned and the inappropriateness of applying the same morality and ethics to someone who in the eyes of the public has lost all humanity. Dehumanization will, for the sake of my thesis, be classified as depriving someone of their humanity and depriving them of humanity, which is essential to ethics; we break the foundation of morality and ethics because without human beings there is no morality or ethics. I will argue that capital punishment undermines ethical and moral foundations especially Kant's theories by dehumanizing the condemned, therefore, opposing the ethical arguments in support of capital punishment by making morality and ethics inapplicable to someone who has been denied his humanity . I will first outline the various reasons why the condemned are stripped of their humanity, demonstrating how this violates the value of life and how using it as revenge and as a deterrent for other crimes goes against Kant's “Practical Imperative” which states that no human being the being should be seen as a means to an end because this essentially deprives him of the right to live for himself. I will also show how Kant's ethical theory regarding capital punishment, in which he indicates that the suppression of a human life should always be punished by taking the life of the criminal, presents contradictions especially with respect to the head of state where the same does not apply to him rules (Avaliani). The authorities are... middle of paper... considered a "means to an end". The public now sees the condemned man's death as a way to get what he wants: revenge. Execution is no longer a punishment, but rather a part of society's satisfaction. In this case, the condemned person loses the right to his own end, which strips him of his humanity by becoming the object of someone else's satisfaction and defying Kant's “Practical Imperative”. As I have already said, a condemned man dehumanizes himself when he kills another human being, however, after the murder has taken place the condemned man can begin a process of redemption, and since we know that redemption is a human process, then we understand that the convicted begins to regain his identity. humanity. However, if society begins to use him as a “means to an end,” they dehumanize him once again making it difficult to apply ethics to support capital punishment..