Early economists were generally opposed to the death penalty. In 1667, Sir William Petty, an eminent mercantilist, opposed the hanging of indigents because this practice represented a failure to use their manpower for government projects; and later, Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian, wrote that capital punishment was unfrugal and that it amounted to the criminalization and execution of unsuccessful competitors in society. Another utilitarian, James Mill, felt that all offenders should repair their damages through labor and that capital punishment would interfere with the goal of restitution. Most modern justifications for the death penalty are based on its supposed deterrent effect. However, as Milton Friedman has pointed out, even empirical studies of the relationship of capital punishment to deterrence would be unable to prove a deterrent effect since too many variables would have to be considered. Furthermore, the Pareto principle in modern welfare economics can be used to demonstrate that alternative means of reducing the murder rate should be sought. If the differential deterrent between execution and life imprisonment is as small as it appears to be, a comparison of the benefits and disadvanteges of capital punishment to society would demonstrate that on the whole, the benefits would not outweigh the disadvantages to such an extent as to compensate executed individuals for their lives. Notes are included.