Equal Punishment Stephen Nathanson Analysis

The essay, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life”, written by Edward I. Koch is written to persuade the reader to accept the favor of the death penalty. The writer not only states a variety of facts, but he also tries to generate sorrow or even anger at times. He expresses different topics that lead to these emotions throughout the text by using ethos, pathos, and logos. Koch was successful at making the reader favor the death penalty not only because he used these techniques, but he also kept the reading concise.

Alfie Kohn is an American author and speaker who focuses on human behavior. In his book Punished by Rewards, Kohn makes the statement, “If children feel safe, they can take risks, ask questions, make mistakes, learn to trust, share their feelings, and grow.” This statements legitimacy and truth may address many concerns, one being the debated topic on whether or not teachers should have access to weapons in a school building. Once the pros and cons are weighed out, letting schools have armed teachers in the building provides safety, creates a better, safer learning environment and helps form a bond of trust between students and their teacher. Having armed teachers provides security for both the students and other staff in the building. In our country, whenever the unfortunate events of a school shooting happen, many debatable topics are brought to attention; many of them on gun laws.

In recent years, anti-death penalty propagandists have succeeded in stoking the fear that capital punishment is being carelessly meted out. Ironically, Of the 875 prisoners executed in the United States in modern times, not one has been retroactively proved innocent. The benefits of a legal system in which judges and juries have the option of sentencing the cruelest or coldest murderers to death far outweigh the potential risk of executing an innocent person. First and foremost, the death penalty makes it possible for justice to be done to those who commit the worst of all crimes. The execution of a murderer sends a powerful moral message: that the innocent life he took was so precious, and the crime he committed so horrific, that he forfeits

The death penalty has been a major topic of debate in the United States as well as various parts of the world for numerous years. At this time, there are thirty-one states in which the death penalty is legal. Nineteen states have completely abolished it (“States with and without The Death Penalty”). Since its initial development back in the 1600’s, the death penalty has taken a different course in the way it is utilized. In its early days, the death penalty was greatly used and implemented for several offenses. Generally, the public sought out the stern implementation of the death penalty. But contrary to this, the use of the death penalty,

In Miller v. Alabama, the United States Supreme Court declared that mandatory juvenile life without parole sentencing schemes violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment (Rhodes, 2012).

Racism has redesigned itself to adapt to our society today– it’s known as mass incarceration. Bryan Stevenson, a Southern lawyer for underprivileged people who were harshly sentenced or wrongfully condemned, takes us on his personal, extensive journey through the cruel criminal justice system. Over the course of Just Mercy, he gives historical context, statistics and personal anecdotes to shed light on the huge issue of mass incarceration and its brutal effects. Stevenson’s overall argument is that the criminal justice system’s use of harsh punishment perpetuates violence instead of discouraging it. Instead, we should use mercy and empathy to rehabilitate these individuals because it is “strong enough to break the cycle” of suffering and cruelty.

Herbert Packer believed in a two-model form within the criminal justice system: crime control and due process. With the 1996 film, A Time to Kill, most of society watched this eye-opening and astonishing film and saw nothing but the conflict between races. As individuals studying for the future of criminal justice, it is imperative that we are able to analyze cases in movies and everyday life creating a second nature mindset of the rights and wrongs within cases. Packer explains and introduces to society in his article, Two Models of the Criminal Process, of the idea that crime control and due process are the key elements within the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the film A Time to Kill presents due process but little to no crime control through the court trial

Innocent until proven guilty; this is America's renowned criminal justice principle. It states that a suspect is to be considered innocent until proven guilty with solid evidence; however, this was not the case in Lester Bower's death row sentence. After enduring thirty arduous years on death row upon reasonable doubt and being executed on June 3, 2015, Bower's innocence was confirmed (Executed But Possibly Innocent). Not only does this wrongful conviction contradict what America stands for, but a life that could have been justifiably spared has unpardonably perished. The world wide debate over capital punishment has been a heated topic over the years and is not going to appease any time soon. Capital punishment is not only immoral, but contradicting

The United States remains in the minority of nations in the world that still uses death as penalty for certain crimes. Capital punishment is seen by many as barbaric and against American values, while others see it as a very important tool in fighting violent pre-meditated murder. One of the supporters of the Death penalty was a man named Walter Berns (a professor of American constitutional law and political philosophy.) He wrote clearly about his view on the death penalty in his Crime and Delinquency article, “Defending the Death Penalty.” He argued that the “Opposition to capital punishment is a modern phenomenon, a product of modern sentiment and modern thought” (p. 504) and with the help of historical references and logical reasoning throughout

Western punishment doesn't just involve separation from society and living in a locked cell. This is a strong piece of evidence because it brings into question what really goes on in prisons, something which most would rather not think about. It shows how a society can condemn another’s form of punishment yet not take a step back and analyze its own. Another piece reason brought up is that prisons do not do what they were initially intended to do: retribution, specific deterrence, general deterrence, prevention, and rehabilitation. Instead prisons only seem to do one thing and that is punish. If all prisons do is punish then why does society really need them? Chapman is able to use good logic in constructing this reason as it is something which is commonly talked and argued about. However, all the evidence Chapman brings up is the soaring prison rates in the United States in the past 20 years. It leaves more evidence and statistics to be wanted in order to make this reason more justifiable and credible. A final reason Chapman uses to prove his argument is that middle eastern use of torture and physical harm are more effective and possibly even more humane. To support this reason Chapman brings up how one person can have a quick yet brutal punishment for a crime while

Joshua Marquis is neither a scholar, a jurist, or a crusader for the wrongly accused. Instead he has spent most of his time as a prosecutor. His essay is written from a personal point of view where he supports the death penalty; however, his essay is unlike the average supporter. Joshua Marquis believes capital punishment should be decided based on the following: each case on its own, within its own context, using the specific facts of the case, considering the community where the crime occurred and the background of the defendants. With that being said, Marquis believes that for certain cases the death penalty is appropriate. In fact, in 1991 and again in 1997 he stood before the jury and ask them to impose the death penalty.

Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty." In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal. The first objection is that the death penalty does not "provide a measure of moral desert" (Nathanson). For the second, Nathanson states "it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment." The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that

Capital punishment treats murders with more mercifulness and pride than the victim the murders has killed. The death penalty is the simplest method to cleanse the nation. Criminals would fear the action of government is willing to do. The act of crimes would decrease profoundly. The most common argument people like to claim is the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. The article “The Death Penalty Is Not Cruel and Unusual Punishment” acknowledges this statement “How is executing Karla Faye Tucker by lethal injection any [more] cruel than the way she used a pick-ax to viciously butcher two people to death?” People deserve the death sentence for committing a hideous and unethical crime. The government shouldn’t allow a person like Karla Faye Tucker to live. The government needs to purify and purge the nation by allowing more death penalty. The street would be cleaner and safer. The simple-minded fact that the death penalty is an impelling method to mete out punishment for atrocious, vile, monstrous crime. Those who commit barbarous crime should be put to death and not letting them free to society where it would be dangerous for the

Even though it is true that taking the life of another is not right, it is even truer that the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty is an exercise of justice that promotes retribution for crime and moral punishment for those who choose to take human life. Also, it prevents society 's worse offenders from re-offending, and it provides justice for the victims whose lives were cut short without a second thought. To better understand why capital punishment is a justifiable act, Kant 's theory gives a clear and logical understanding of the eye for an eye approach. Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending.

There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation. In addition,