Immanuel Kant's Theory Of The Death Penalty

The death penalty has been one of the most controversial debates in the United States. Some believe that an eye for an eye is an effective mean of punishment while others believe that such mean of punishment is not effective in modern society. Edward Koch believes the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life. In the article by Edward Koch, published in The New Republic, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life,’ he utilizes the rhetorical devices of ethos, pathos and logos to justify his position for the death penalty towards the people opposing the death penalty.

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

Let us begin by looking at why the death penalty is morally wrong on many levels according to Stephen B. Bright, president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, and a teacher of criminal law. He wrote an essay on this debate called, “Why the United States Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment.” We will also look at the other side of the debate (story), as to why the death penalty is morally legitimate in the views of Louis P. Pojman, whose essay is called, “ Why the Death Penalty is Morally Permissible,” which is just an excerpt from, Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment?

The topic of capital punishment presents a test of values. The arguments in support of and opposition to the death penalty are complex. In the end, this is a question of an individual’s values and morals. The topic requires careful thought to reach a reasoned position. Both sides of the argument are defensible. Support for capital punishment requires valuing retribution over rehabilitation. Those who favor capital punishment value highly the closure it provides to the families of the victims, and they believe that it deters would be murderers from killing. Retribution, closure and deterrence are the main reasons in favor of the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment generally believe that it is hypocritical and immoral for the state

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

The death penalty is a sentence that has no use. The process has become too slow over the years to the point where some people die before they get executed. Similar to the case of Max Soffar who may have been innocent, but died of cancer before he had the chance to fight for the freedom he may have deserved(Houston Press). This also shows that the death penalty has taken and ruined the lives of innocent people. A study shows that 4% of defendants sentenced to death penalty are innocent(The Guardian).The second reason is the high number of botched executions that happen in the USA. The only one without failed executions is the most intense one which is the firing squad.

Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society.

“Retribution” or “Retributive justice” can be defined as “a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime.” (Wikipedia, 2016)

Step into the shoes of Cameron Todd Willingham. He was one of the 59 accused criminals sentenced to death by the United States judicial system in 2004. Thought to have murdered his three children by arson in the family home, Willingham was put on death row on January 8, 1992. However, he was different from the other convicts. Willingham was actually innocent. The fire was an accident. The truth got out many years too late though, and Willingham died by lethal injection on February 17, 2004 at the age of 36 (Eric). From 1973 to 2015, more than 150 innocent men and women have been sentenced to death row.

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.

Some see the death penalty as the only means to extract justice for victims. Others see it as a morally reprehensible act where a second wrong is committed in order to make something right. With recent issues surrounding the death penalty in which execution hasn 't gone as planned sparking a nationwide debate, this is my outlook on why I 'm for the death penalty not only being abolished in the state of Texas but in addition to the entirety of the US..

The Death Penalty, loss of life due to previous crimes and actions, is believed by some to be extremely costly, inhumane, and cruel unlike some others whom believe it is just, right, and provides closure. The Death Penalty is not a quick and easy process. Most who get sentenced to deaths row wait years for their ultimate punishment of death. Some believe that it is not right to punish and kill a human for actions they have done because, they believe that the inmate should have another chance. Then others believe that it is right to punish someone for their actions especially if their actions involve killing another or multiple humans.

‘’An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,’’ said Mahatma Gandhi. The execution of someone who has possibly done a crime is an inhuman act. Death penalty is hypocritical and flawed. If killing is wrong, why do we kill when a criminal has done the crime of killing someone? In this essay, I will write why death penalty should end by writing about the violation of human rights, execution of innocent people, the fact that it does not deter crime and money.

The death penalty has been a system of punishment since its establishment in 1608 when Captain George Kendall became the first recorded execution in the new colonies. As the deaths caused by the death penalty per year began to lower, the levels of controversy surrounding its use began to rise. Today the death penalty has become more of a burden than a boon to society. I believe that in its current form the death penalty is a costly, discriminatory, and cruel system that needs to be reformed.

In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime. Motivation is a key factor; many criminals are motivated by desires, rage and desperation. It is very possible that criminals are not thinking rationally when committing a crime. In other words, the severity of a punishment is largely irrelevant when criminals are not thinking clearly at the time, the very fact that they committed the crime in the first place is already evident that they never considered the consequences. Therefore, it is untrue that harsher punishments are more