Lex Talionis Arguement Analysis

The articles state about the war however the way to rainy mountain explains about a journey the native american are on, “The journey began one day long ago on the edge of the northern plains.” these articles are sequence to the western expansion because the articles talks about journeys, war, native americans, Lewis and Clark. Kiowas was on an adventure to the heart of the continent,”The great adventure of the kiowas was a going forth into the heart of the continent.” Their journey last for long time. That’s when Lewis and Clark later on met the indiana’s, The indiana’s trade them horses for guns and tobacco. The indiana’s agree to let them pass their country and for them not to be in war.

Mr Campbell Newman was a popular lord mayor as a member of the Liberal Party, who served the Queensland government for three years from 2012 – 2015 (Lewis, 2015). In the recent 2015 Queensland state election, Newman was heavily punished by the public voters of Queensland as a result of treating the public servants unfairly by cutting jobs in contrast to his promises. He also claimed that there would be no forced redundancies and that he would try to lower the unemployment rate, yet these promises were never met. In support of this, the following essay argues that Campbell Newman didn’t interfere with the free market economy of Queensland, which can be beneficial for consumers in many ways because there is no government intervention. Instead,

According to Burton Leiser subjects shouldn't be punished until proven guilty, claiming that criminals who committed serious crimes “deserve” punishment. Leiser states, “Only the most horrendous offense against the state who seems to deserve the ultimate penalty”. Concluding his argument without giving any justification as to what constitute as a horrendous offense deserving of the death penalty. Bedau, on the other hand, explains retribution, by using Leiser’s argument in a sentence “Some murders seem improperly punished by death at all; other murders would require methods of execution too horrible to inflict; in still other case any possible execution is too deliberate”. The implications doesn’t ask us, to disregard the death penalty, moreover

“We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.” C.S. Lewis

How to become a good justice, especially a Supreme Court Justice, whose decision can hugely affect the interpretation of constitution in the subsequent cases around the country. In Tinker v. Des Moines, justice Fortas provided a great example of how to become a good justice. The majority opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines makes a reasonable, coherent and solid argument, which is stronger than the dissent in the decision.

Hugo Bedau argues that a society is not required “to invoke the death penalty for murder – unless one accepts lex talionis” that is his first premise and follows it by stating since it is not completely accepted, lex talionis

We learn about Kant’s views on punishment and the Categorical Imperative. Kant is retributivist. He believes that justice is the only logical punishment. Kant writes, “If legislation makes an action a duty and at the same time make this duty the incentive is juridical.” (Kant, page 544) He believes in punishing people because they did something wrong and denied the moral law. He believes that if you do something wrong and you know it is wrong, you deserve to be punished. The Categorical Imperative states that you cannot use a person as a means to an end. It also teaches that you should act in such a way that what your doing is a universal law for everyone else to follow. We should act in such a way that everyone in this world affirms these fundamental truths and beliefs. In my opinion, I do not agree with Kant’s retributivist attitude. Rather, I feel as though I agree with Hauerwas’ opinion.

Kant chooses to stick with the principle of retaliation even when dealing with capital punishment. He believes that “every murderer —anyone who commits murder, orders it, or is an accomplice in it— must suffer death.” (Kant 107) In order for justice to be made, the murderer must suffer the same consequences as his crime. If the murderer is not punished with death, it would not be a fair punishment because people would rather choose to live a tough life than die a quick death; and if this were the case, living would imply a less than equal punishment for the crime. Kant does say, however, that a criminal should only be punished for retribution. Any other reasons for his punishment, such as deterrence, are unacceptable because a human being should “never be treated merely as a means to the purposes of another.” (Kant 105) Doing so would violate the criminal’s rights as a human being.

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

One of the points that Kant tries to make is to never treat “humanity”, whether it be yourself or another person, as a means the same time as an end (Wells-Quash, 2010). On the topic of capital punishment, it can be viewed that just simply killing someone out of revenge for a heinous act is against the notion of Kant’s system.

The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

Many people are in prison today because of unjust sentencing legislation such as mandatory sentencing laws, which “... often make no distinction between, say, armed

For example, Kant states, “If he has committed a murder he must die. Here there is no substitute that will satisfy justice. . . Accordingly, every murderer – anyone who commits murder, orders it, or is an accomplice to it – must suffer death; this is what justice wills in accordance with universal laws that are grounded a priori. . . This fitting of punishment to the crime is shown by the fact that only by this is a sentence of death pronounced on every criminal in proportion to his ‘inner wickedness’ (even when the crime is not murder but another crime against the state that can be paid for only by death)” (Kant, 1996). Here we see that Kant strongly believes in retribution (revenge). He believes that equality is established when legal punishment responds to guilt. He also strongly believes in the death penalty as a form of punishment and justice and believes it is the only proportional punishment to murderers and those who have wickedness inside of them. Kant (1996 b) believes that “in every punishment, there must first be justice”. Therefore he believes that all punishment (including the death penalty) is a way of giving justice, and a failure to punish, would be societies failure of giving justice. Not everyone has the right to give justice. Punishment must be given by someone in authority (either a single person or a group) and is either carried out under a system of law or in other social settings (such as within a family). Kant

The functionality of the criminal justice system can potentially be flawed by the lack of a clear, concise sentencing guidelines. Studies have shown that the circumstances of the offender, their families, as well as the community can be affected by any biased views in sentencing guidelines (Doerner, 2012).

The most severe form of punishment of all legal sentences is that of death. This is referred to as the death penalty, or “capital punishment”; this is the most severe form of corporal punishment, requiring law enforcement officers to actually kill the offender. It has been banned in numerous countries, in the United States, however an earlier move to eliminate capital punishment has now been reversed and more and more states are resorting to capital punishment for such serious offenses namely murder. “Lex talionis”, mentioned by the Bible encourages “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” mentality, and people have been using it regularly for centuries. We use it in reference to burglary, adultery, and various other situations, although,