Examples Of Non Pacifist Arguments Against Capital Punishment

“Who so sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” (Genesis 9:6) There is an ancient tradition going back to biblical times that a fitting punishment for murder is the execution of the murderer. In this paper I will critically explain Pojman 's “Defense of the Death Penalty”. I will go over what his opinion on the death penalty and the deontologists and consequentialists point of views.

Capital Punishment is a moral controversy in today’s society. It is the judicial execution of criminals judged guilty of capital offenses by the state, or in other words, the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws can date back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. and the ethical debates towards this issue have existed just as long. There is a constant pro-con debate about this issue, and philosophers like Aristotle and Mill have their own take on this controversy as well. Aristotle is against capital punishment, while Mill believes it is morally permissible.

Capital punishment, the state imposed penalty of death, continues to be one of the most controversial issues in contemporary American public policy. Since the earliest days of its employment in the colonial era until today, citizens have struggles with the issue of when and under what circumstances the taking of a human life by the state can be morally or legally justified. For some opponents of the death penalty, the simple answer is that the taking of a human life is always morally and ethically wrong, even when conducted under the auspices of state authority as a legal punishment. In contrast, proponents of capital punishment have contended with equal fervor that the death penalty is morally justified as a form of retributive justice,

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

Within the Old Testament, God commanded the use of the death penalty for specific crimes ranging from murder to blasphemy. “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:12, English Standard Version). In contrast, the New Testament shifts the focus of capital punishment towards Jesus and his example

The victim did not do anything to deserve death, the criminal did. To counter the argument that capital punishment is uncivilized, Van Den Haag points out that most civilizations have had the death penalty at some point in their history. He also addresses the argument that the death sentence is degrading by showing that philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, have said that execution affirms the criminal’s humanity by affirming their ability to make decisions and rationalize.

In American courts that strive for justice, the idea of justice through retribution aligns with logic. For example, if somebody is guilty in a car accident, they are expected to pay the repairs. However, issues arise when one attempts to offer repairs for the damage caused by murder. How does one offer monetary retribution for a life? Despite America’s measurement-obsessed society that places a price tag on every aspect of life, can a death be quantified to bring justice? Due to this discrepancy, the idea of capital punishment arose millenniums ago, and despite its violent nature, the penalty still exists in American justice systems today. While, logically, the life of a murderer may seem an equal tradeoff for the life of the victim, morally and socially this approach complicates matters. Is this approach not just fighting fire with fire, resulting in greater harm than peace? Even more troubling, these state-administered murders directly contradict the teachings of many religions that teach the right to life. To best align with Christianity, capital punishment should be virtually unpracticed except in extraordinary cases when no other alternative can protect the common good.

The very emphasis of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” makes it certain that we are descended from an endlessly long chain of generations of murderers, whose love of murder was in their blood as it is perhaps also in ours.

The Evolution of the Christian Perspective on Capital Punishment One of the most controversial issues in modern society involves the implementation of Capital Punishment in criminal justice. Capital Punishment has been heavily debated in the realm of politics due to the many conflicting religious opinions over the issue; some of the most prevalent voices in this debate have been the Christian churches and their members. This paper explores the evolution of the modern Christian perspective towards capital punishment, the presently declared or undeclared attitudes of major Christian denominations, and the incompatibility between faith and personal values that capital punishment forces Christians to reconcile. Christianity’s attitude towards capital

The death penalty has become a heavily debated topic in society, due to the uncertainty of its moral context. Supporters of the death penalty reason that those who have committed blameworthy crimes should have their lives go worse as a result of their actions. They believe in retribution. Protestors of the death penalty believe that it is counterproductive. They say that by legalizing the behavior that the law is trying to prevent, which is killing, they are being hypocritical. William Baude’s article raises the question of whether or not the death penalty is constitutional. The death penalty has plenty of ethical, legal, and moral matters associated with it. The moral dilemma of the death penalty can be viewed from deontological and utilitarian perspectives. Both theories allow the death penalty to be a morally acceptable punishment, but the difference is the reason behind each theory.

Capital punishment, commonly known as the death penalty, has not always been controversial. In the early 1600s, capital punishment was seen as an absolute option for the punishment of evildoers. However, the past century and scholars before the 1600s have both shown strong arguments against the use of the death penalty as a means of punishment. This paper argues against capital punishment through the lenses of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Michael Sattler’s anabaptist view on the use of violence. This topic will be argued in five sections. Part one briefly introduces the historical development of the death penalty. Part two introduces a summary of the UDHR followed part three, an analysis of capital punishment through this lens. Part four introduces a summary of Michael Sattler’s work as an anabaptist and pacifist followed by part five, an analysis of capital punishment through his lens. Lastly, these arguments will be concluded with a

In an effort to make sure that innocent men and women are not wrongly convicted in capital punishments cases, they are given a wide range of appeals procedures. Immediately following sentencing an automatic appeals process called Direct Review begins. It is during this process that appellate courts review the lower trial court’s decision, checking for errors and making sure the case was tried on sound judgment. If any errors are found

Perhaps we should give the judge a knife and tell her that if she has

Putting people to death for committing murder makes other potential murderers think twice about killing someone. Capital punishment deters many murders every day. If all that had to be done was spend life in jail, getting free meals, having a roof over their head, and place to sleep at night, then killing

Capital punishment is beneficial to the community. It provides the society with a sense of security. The death penalty contains a positive influence on the future. A heavily debated topic is, “Does capital punishment deter people more than a life sentence to prison?” An explanation on why will be covered later. An issues many people have with capital punishment, is when it is just or not just. This is a topic many stray away from, because it is difficult to decide. Finding the right consequence for an action is difficult. While this paper is for the use of capital punishment, it is clearly not needed for every crime, or even every murder. Overusing capital punishment, such as using it for every murder, will negatively impact the country, and not using it has the same effect.