Equal Punishment And Proportional Retribution

1443 Words6 Pages
In this essay, I will argue that equal punishment and proportional retribution do not justify the use of the death penalty. First, I will argue that equal punishment is too specific and literal because it stems from the idea that one crime is deserving of that exact crime in the form of a legal punishment. In the case of murder, that belief would condone punishing murder with murder. We can’t justify some killings while condemning others. By giving permission to someone to execute another human being on the grounds of the death penalty, we are allowing him or her to kill another human being for killing. This creates a cycle of murder. Second, I will argue that proportional retribution does not leave the death penalty as the only option for punishment. However, it does give much room for interpretation and is not specific enough regarding alternative punishments. It would allow us to rank crimes according to severity and dole out punishments according to that scale. I will also bring up how retributive justice does not completely delve into the concept of who deserves to deliver the punishment to the murderer. Retributive justice is simply a means of attempting to legally inflict suffering upon another human being for their wrongful actions. Equal punishment turns society as well as those executing the punishment into barbarians. Murdering a person is not a crime that is deserving of being repaid with murder as a form of punishment. Killing someone for killing is
Open Document