Analysis Of The Arguments For And Against Capital Punishment

There are many arguments for and against capital punishment. Ernest van den Haag described some justifications for capital punishments. One of the main points he makes is even if the use of capital punishment is discriminatory leading to an unjust distribution, which he argues that it is not discriminatory, it should make no difference because it does not matter on the quantity of those executed, but it is more about the fact that these criminals are all guilty. Therefore it does not make sense to get rid of capital punishment on the basis that the system is discriminatory because those executed are guilty and therefore deserve their punishment. Another point he makes that ties into the first point is that making everything equal, such as making the amount of

Bedau justified why we should not have capital punishment. The first point he makes is that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent. The death penalty does not work as a deterrent because it is extreme inconsistent. It takes years between when the ruling is given and when the criminal is executed. Another problem is capital punishment only works as a deterrent if the murder is premeditated. Therefore capital punishment does not work as a deterrent. Another point he makes is that capital punishment is irreversible. This ties into convicting innocent people. Once a person is dead there is no way to take back what is done or make up for it. Capital punishment does not allow for the mistake to be made of convicting an innocent person and sometimes the mistake is made and innocent people are executed. If these people had been given life in prison they might have been able to be given there lives back when found to be innocent. Lastly, Bedau talks about how executing someone because they killed someone is not necessarily right. Responding to a murderer by executing them does not make what the murderer did right. It also does not correct the wrong that was done by committing the same wrong