The Death Penalty In Stephen Nathanson's An Eye For An Eye?

According to Hinman (5), just punishment is the one that happens to those who are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is important because capital punishment is irreversible and hence only the guilty should be executed. However, there are many cases of innocent people who have been sentenced to death only to have their appeals granted at the last minute, or worse, denied and executed. It is on these grounds that Bedau (2007) argues against the death penalty because it is unjust and unfair. About unfairness, he goes on to add that racial and economic discrimination are also a factor to consider when meting out capital punishment. For example, it is correct to argue that people who kill white people are treated far worse than those who kill other races regardless of the offender’s own race. Between January 1977 and December 1995, 313 people were executed, 249 had murdered a white person. (Bedau, 2). This inability of capital punishment to show equality is one of its limiting factors.

Death penalty or capital punishment is a legal procedure carried out by the government of a state which sentences a convicted person to death. Capital punishment has been a matter of controversy in various countries for decades now. In this essay, Coretta Scott King talks about why she is against the death penalty. The main purpose of this critique is to focus on King’s arguments and evaluate their authenticity and credibility.

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

In his essay, "The Death Penalty," David Bruck hypothesizes that the American people will eventually find that the death penalty is not the best way to punish a convicted murderer. Bruck develops this hypothesis by countering all pro-death penalty arguments with previous cases and specific statistics that apply to the argument. David Bruck's purpose is to persuade the readers to think for themselves on the topic and use what they know as a basis. Bruck uses an educated tone to establish credibility with the reader. He takes apart the views of the local mayor in an attempt to prove anyone wrong who might disagree. The author immediately establishes all counter claims and knocks them out of the way in order to change the reader's opinion. He

Is the death penalty an effective and justified punishment? This is a topic many Americans have discussed for a long time, and has caused much controversy. Both sides have their pros and cons, and they will be discussed.

Through the decades, crime and crime control have been analyzed in an attempt to find the causes of crime and decide how to combat them. The United States showed an increase in their prison population in the 1970s when the country turned towards a more punitive justice system. Referred to as just deserts theory of crime, the aim is to inflict as much pain on the offender through harsh prison sentences, in hopes to cause as much pain as the crime they committed. The worse the crime is, the worse the punishment the criminal will endure. The issue surrounding just deserts theory is the vast amount of offenders who return to prison after being released, also known as the recidivism rate. Although just deserts theory does not seek to lower the rate

Shafer-Landau explains to us ‘lex talionis’ as it is the principle that “tells us to treat criminals just as they treated their victims—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Shafer-Landau 380). Nathanson states the eye for an eye view about capital punishment is not only immoral but illogical. Nathanson makes the argument “to justify using the ‘eye for an eye’ principle to answer our question about murder and the death penalty, we would first have to show that it worked for an entire range of cases; giving acceptable answers to questions about amounts of punishment” (382). According to Nathanson, if we followed the principle of ‘lex talionis,’ we must not only kill murderers, but we must also rape rapists, torture torturers, and kidnap kidnappers. It is argued in this reading that not only would lex talionis-grade punishments be immoral, they would also be illogical. Nathanson continues to argue against capital punishment by arguing not only against the equal punishment principle but also the proportional retributivism view. While Nathanson believes proportional retributivism plays an important role our determination of appropriate punishment for criminals, it does not, however, apply nor aide arguments in favor of the death

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.

I will be discussing the key facts and critical issues presented in various roles/goals within the United States (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2015). The

“In Our Names”: Rewriting the US Death Penalty by Kimberly K. Gunter theorizes that the idea of who deserves the death penalty is largely dictated by external factors including literacy, socioeconomic status, education, and exposure making certain classes and groups of people more prone to receive the death penalty. I theorize that the death penalty is biased leaving certain people and classes of people more likely to receive a sentence of death and that the sentence of death should be based on a more algorithmic method that factors in the same elements for each person to be placed on death row.

In 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, Jackson v. Georgia, and Branch v. Texas (known collectively as the landmark case Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238), the issue of unpredictability of the death penalty was again be conveyed before the Supreme Court. Capital Cases results in in arbitrary and capricious sentencing, said Furman. Under the Eighth Amendment, Furman was a challenge, different to McGautha which is a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. By a vote from 5 to 4 and in 9 separate opinions, the court apprehended that Georgia’s death penalty decree could result in haphazard condemning, which bequeathed the jury widespread sentencing discretion. The court believed that the scheme of chastisement under the ruling was consequently “cruel and unusual” if it was too unembellished for the crime, if it was arbitrary, if it affronted societies sagacity of justice, or if it was not more operative than a less unembellished penalty.

Nathanson first takes a look at the Equal Punishment principle, citing Kant when it comes to long held traditions of thought in reference to the death penalty. If punishment is truly meant to be in an “eye for an eye” setting, then the murderer should be killed, sodomizers should be sodomized, and those who torture should be tortured in

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.

In conclusion the idea that the death penalty should be abolished can be supported by many reasons that include extensive evidence. With the death penalty still established we are putting innocent people's lives at risk, spending millions, and continue with racial segregation. The idea that someone's opinion in court can decide the fate of another person is

Since the beginning of time the old saying of "Ye have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" (The Holy Bible) shows that capital punishment of execution as taught in the book of scriptures was polished thusly. Mencken expressed that uplifters contend on two most regular contentions that the occupation of an executioner and the witness is horrible business and revolting and that being sentenced to death is presently pointless, for it doesn't prevent others from the same wrongdoing (Phillips and Bostian, 524). Both of these two contentions have some legitimacy inside of the article which has both qualities and shortcomings that will be examined and displayed in