Jeffrey Reiman's Arguments Against Capital Punishment

Punishment is an infliction of a penalty that resulted from an offence. Punishment is also naturally justified when administered to those who deserve it. Retributivists claim that people who break the law deserve the punishment they get. Retributivism views punishment as a fair judgment and believe that the state should punish those who are found guilty of their wrongdoing because they deserve it. A person deserves the same treatment they inflict on others.

They want to make sure when punishing an immoral act, there is benefit to society. Shaw says this because utilitarianism does give established laws and reasoning behind them. Shaw also says that Utilitarians say that our system of punishment as it functions, succeeds in rehabilitating many convicts and discourages them from future mistakes. his reasons for saying this. I think that Utilitarians favor exploring the alternatives because doing something to someone, even a criminal, who has committed a heinous crime, morally wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right, it is setting the wrong view for society.

She and Hilton Barber, Poncelet’s lawyer, initiate with the goal of making Poncelet’s humanity obvious to the court, employing the logic “it’s easy to kill a monster, but it’s harder to kill a human being” (DMW). Through the disillusion of Poncelet’s barbarity, a greater a toll is taken on the morality of those who condemn him therefore lessening the impact of their justifications. By showing the humanity of a convict, it removes any detachment formed through the belief that they are a monster and instead shows them a fellow human being- a . This in

Nathanson uses his essay, Does It Matter If the Death Penalty Is Arbitrarily Administered, to combat the notion that capital punishment is an effective outcome for criminals. It is my goal to propose that capital punishment in itself is as fair outcome, and point out that it should remain established as long as the ones sentencing criminals to this fate are held to higher, more fair standards. The driving force behind Nathanson’s argument against capital punishment is statistics. While no one comes forth to outright say that race plays an important role in the decision on who receives capital punishment, there are statistical findings put forth by Bowers and Pierce state that killers of whites have the highest chance of being executed

I don 't think it should be abolished simply because innocent people have been executed. There are many more innocent people that would be killed due to there being no capital punishment. As well as this capital punishment works as a deterrent and makes people think twice about comitting as they are aware of the consequences. A crucial reason why I think capital punishment shouldn 't be abolished is the fact that it leaves the majority of society happy. Some critics of my viewpoint might point out that capital punishment goes against our human rights.

In conclusion, assault weapons should not be banned. Previous bans have not been successful,

That’s an average of 99 gun deaths a day” (Pratt). This explains how dangerous guns could be when it’s in the wrong person’s hands, and how it’s logical if less people have guns, then less gun violence will happen. In addition to gun violence, stricter gun laws are necessary because guns give people the ability to cause great destruction on others and cause a huge threat. In a Tylt article, it states that, “In most of these other countries, the worst thing that might happen is somebody gets hit with fists, or a glass bottle, or even stabbed, and in those cases there probably won’t be any deaths. But when there’s a gun, it really makes it so much more likely that something terrible will happen” (Hemenway).

However, the severity of punishments and the methods used by the law were beneficial and practical and they helped to reduce the amount of crime in England. The article “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” expresses that crime was an issue in Elizabethan England, and a threat to the stability of society. To maintain order the penalties for committing minor crimes were generally punished with some form of public humiliation. For major crimes including thievery, murder, and treason those convicted were put to death. The sheer ruthlessness of the punishments discourage any sort of crime as they will scare the citizens into never breaking the law in fear of the consequences.

That is some of the opportunities I would give them but I do not believe they deserve a whole lot because they are some of the worse criminals and do not care at all what happens to them. I believe that when you go to seek the death penalty you better go in knowing that the person you are trying to charge is a guarantee to get the death penalty.   If not you will be just wasting a bunch of time of your attorney general and deputy attorney general, when you go to them for authorization to go through with the death penalty (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2015).   We all know that the cost of the death penalty is extremely high per one person on death row that we have to execute.

Although the death penalty may bring some closure to families of the victims and even the victims themselves it still should be abolished because the negatives outweigh the positives. People could be murdered by the state even if they are innocent. They are taking away any chance these people have at a normal life even though it's a life that they deserve and did nothing to have it taken away. 6. Conclusion

Capital Punishment Punishment is the imposition of a penalty as retribution for a crime, and the retribution deserves those who do the crime. The main idea of this chapter is whether the killer deserves to die or not, and we ought to kill them or not. Stephen Nathanson argues against the punishment that leads to execution. He said that the actual and moral beliefs based on the death penalty are wrong and must be repealed. Many people said that the death penalty is the best way to deter murder and thus save lives.

While there are far more subjects to discuss regarding to this issue, I feel it necessary to state that I believe the death penalty should exist in a perfect society. I believe that certain crimes and certain situations warrant the punishment of death. However, the our society is not perfect. The justice system has failed to fairly use this punishment in far too many instances, and concludes that they cannot justly wield this

Violence is a better choice than non-violence because if we can use violence to kill one evil person to stop a war then it will be worth it. Kitta and Vidya are in the middle of a fight about if we should use violence or nonviolence in the war between the axis powers and Kitta claims, “What if by killing one evil man like

This is certainly a conflicting issue. While it is fair to value the welfare of law abiding citizens over the welfare of convicted felons, placing restricting on felons presents the issue of those felons lacking the ability to become a contributing member of society. Like you mentioned, that can provide the push needed for them to return to crime rather than working towards a steady life of their own. Further research into the costs and benefits of such restrictions is necessary to determine whether these types of restrictions actually do benefit society overall like they intend to.

Jury selection in capital cases often takes weeks, if not months, as the “death qualified” jurors are isolated by the State. Numerous studies have shown that those who survive the death qualification process are inherently biased towards conviction. People who have no qualms about the death penalty favor the State. They would be more likely to convict in a jay-walking