To Whom It May Concern: Though The Death Penalty Is Administered

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.

Many contend that the death penalty is morally impermissible due to some irreversible miscarriages of justices . However, capital punishment can be defended in both consequentialist and deontological terms. Kantian ethics claims that, for exceptionally heinous crimes committed with malice aforethought, the penalty of death is not only morally justifiable but is morally obligatory. Consequentialists can substantiate the use of capital punishment through the claim that the death penalty is more effective than other more moderate punishments in averting the murder of innocents through inducing the fear of consequences in

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies – which took

The death penalty is a serious punishment in the United States with many citizens being split on the idea of whether the practice is moral or not. American sociologist and social critic Ernest Van Den Haag, defends the death penalty by looking at the topic through consequentialist and retributivist perspectives. In this essay, I am going to argue that Ernest van den Haag is accurate in his belief in the morality of the death penalty.

In the argument for the death penalty, we take a look at “lex talionis”, the eye for an eye principle. Humans deserve praise for good deeds, and punishment for bad ones. This punishment could arguably range from the harshness of death, to a smack on the head, but in either example, the punishment must fit the crime. The eye for an eye principle ensures that no matter the crime, there is a just and understood punishment for all people. If we take the lex talion literally, and the criminals do deserve those punishments, but in turn, we must be prepared to deliver those punishments. Executing murderers prevents them from committing their crime again, and thus protects innocent victims. However, punishment does not apply itself to the culprit after

The five theories of punishment, therefore, tend to be associated with the laws ensuring justice. The Rational Choice Theory, or deterrence, is a Utilitarian approach that attempts to discourage others from committing a similar act. It focuses the mind on the consequences that will befall if they choose to follow the same course. This, however, is nonsensical to assume that criminal acts are results of rational behaviour, which future criminals can be dissuaded from by merely evoking fear. B. Hoose, a classical utilitarian, says do the act that produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Capital punishment therefore is justifiable because not only does it act as a deterrent but it also rids society of dangerous and undesirable citizens. Although even though capital punishment may have a good effect on one person, it would make a terrorist a martyr and therefore unfortunately encourage further crime. Retribution, another central theory of punishment, fits naturally with people’s feelings because it suggests that wrongdoers should have to pay for what they did. The principle of just deserts

This piece concludes by stating that when punishment is made to serve the purpose of deterrence, consequentialist undermines the dignity of man and rather end up changing individual to suit what society wants them to be rather than what they desert for their moral faults. If this is so then punishment is not justified. For this reason I stand to the notion that unless punishment is a response to moral fault it is

The retributive rationales present a substantive justice issue because it is based upon what constrains and directs human behavior on many different prospective levels. There can never be a balance between the rights of victims and offenders in today’s society. The law must be fair and just. The Utilitarian rationales are not sufficient because their criteria of reflective equilibrium is lacking in the principles of justice (Amatrudo, 2016). The perpetrator must commit the crime intentionally and not as an accident. Regardless of the effects, criminals are to be sent to prison. The utilitarian justification for punishment relates to what is best for society in general and over a long period of time. For instance, when an individual is sent

The rationale and modes of death penalty have evolved dramatically over the last several centuries. From harsh and public punishment to technology based executions, death penalty has always been at the center of the debate in criminal justice where perspectives such as rehabilitation, deterrence humanitarianism came into conversation.

Those who are in favor of punishing wrongdoing find that there are many theories they can choose from to aid in defending their stance. Different theories can offer differing viewpoints on why someone should be punished after committing a crime. Two theories that stand out amongst others are the retributivist theory of punishment and the utilitarian theory of punishment. Though they both argue in favor of punishment, their reasoning in doing so differ I will be arguing, out of those two theories of punishment, that the retributivist theory of punishment should be favored and that that theory argues in favor of the death penalty.

Supporters argue, “That there is a powerful moral aspect to putting convicted killers to death” (Should capital punishment be allowed in the United States?). The intentions of the act to be moral and humane towards intense murderers seems as righteous as it can be. Of course it is only fair that “they maintain, the punishment fits the crime”. In which it is clarified that if one is to break the law then the law in which they have accepted to break should be their own punishment; per say death is the law in which they have broken then death is what they should be punished by; it seems only equivalent in justice. But on the other side of the window, it is all the

The issue of capital punishment involves analyzing the morals that are used to justify its implementation or rejection. There is no one “correct” set of morals, making this issue extremely divisive. For instance, it is arguable that the punishment for a crime should be comparable to the crime committed. However, one may counter by asking who decides what is a comparable punishment for a crime and how can one go about ensuring that no undeserved punishment is being practiced. Thus, because the discussion of the issue elicits various views about how effective punishments are and what is morally “right or wrong,” it is difficult to reach a consensus about what the appropriate stance on the

The classical conception of lex talionis is defined as someone being “rightly paid back for the harm they have caused another with a similar harm” (White, 222). To simply put it, lex taliones is known as “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” which is a concept commonly associated with retributive justice.

Punishment for committing a crime is a common and widespread practise across the world. The moral reasons as to why punishment is used in response to crime can vary greatly. Two theories of punishment include consequentialism, the belief that punishment should be performed because of the good consequences that come from it; and retributivism, the belief that it is morally justified to punish criminals because they deserve it, regardless of the consequences. These theories of morally justified punishment are also used in response to justifying the use of capital punishment however, these theories do not adequately justify how capital punishment can be morally justifiable. This can be shown by having a look at how consequentialism fails in regards to justifying capital punishment, how retributivism also fails to justify capital punishment, and lastly how the two theories are hypocritical and inconsistent with other morals.

Under this theory, offenders are rebuked for criminal behavior because they deserve punishment. Criminal behavior upsets the peaceful balance of society, and punishment helps to restore the balance. The retributive theory focuses on the crime itself as the reason for imposing punishment. Whereas, the utilitarian theory looks forward by basing punishment on social benefits, the retributive theory looks backward at the transgression as the basis for punishment. In the retributive theory capital punishment is a way of vengeance rather than retribution; this is morally ambiguous concept. The anticipatory suffering of the criminal, who may be kept on death row for many years, makes the punishment more severe than just depriving the criminal of