Lex Talionis Arguement Analysis

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.

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.

The mother of a murder victim has stated “Responding to one killing with another killing does not [honour] my daughter”(Source F). The killing of another person doesn’t mean we should kill another for justice. In reality, the death sentences is based on emotional reactions as we try to sympathise with the victims. This should not be the way cases should be run, since they should be based off factual evidence. Society needs to realise that “The standard for depriving one of life should be higher than any other legal action”(Source C). The loss of a life is a difficult choice to make as a society, even if it’s the judgement of a criminal. However, we are no better than the criminal if we kill them as well. People need to learn from its mistakes, as well as help others learn from their

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.

“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

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).

[As their] murder [can be] thoughtful, deliberate and cunning in it planning and execution” (Weir 13) as this is cruel and an unusual punishment for the victims. We need to keep in mind that the victim could be a daughter, cousin, sister, mother, a loved one that’s why they need justice. Who know how much pain they were going through as they were getting attacked by a victim they thought was an average person like them. The worries about if they might live or not to see their loved one they thought would be able to see forever. This is why criminals need to take responsibility for their actions they

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.

The two types of criminal behaviors are justifiable homicide and excusable homicides (Schmalleger, 2002). Justifiable manslaughter incorporates the execution of a sentenced guilty party by a court arrange or the killing of an opponent by a military in the line of obligation. An excusable homicide, as a rule, includes the unintentional or non-careless killing of another person. This implies there is no proof to demonstrate the convict had aimed to kill the victim. So there is no confirmation of wrongful or imprudence with respect to the individual that is sentenced (Schmalleger, 2002). Be that as it may, criminal crime is legitimately isolated from two types of murder and manslaughter. All things considered, there are two contemplations that

Lindeen takes the perspective of gun control away from the people. He says the regulation of gun control does not need to be through gun control itself, but through the actions leading to the gun control. Lindeen states in his paper “ sloganeers make the concept of gun control or no control an easy thing to grasp and causes easy thoughts” (1659-1660). He looks at both interpretations of gun control and states there are other ways to help control violence then just taking away guns. According to him one of the problems is people do not know much about the data or the statistics. People only go with the facts they grew up with. People tend to not go on the computer and look up statistics about guns and deaths by guns. He also states the information

This can be a sticky issue when the subject of the death penalty is involved. A strong case could be made that when a subject agrees to such an evaluation, he or she may in fact be harmed by it’s results. A final factor to consider is future risk of dangerousness. While many researchers have found that future dangerousness is over compensated for, the best predictor for future behavior is still past behavior. Questions of guilt and remorse should be explored. These questions should not be in reference to the subject being caught or punished, but in regard to the harm they have inflicted on others and society in general. A callous attitude towards human life and it’s taking, should be strongly considered when evaluating a capital

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,

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