Death Penalty Equality Retributivism Analysis

The Death Penalty: Unjustified This paper will argue that neither equality retributivism nor proportional retributivism justify the death penalty. First it will clarify the following concepts: equality retributivism and proportional retributivism. It will then outline the many points that Stephen Nathanson provides in an excerpt from his book “An Eye for an Eye?” These points will consist of how equality retributivism conjures issues when attempting to justify the death penalty as well as provide evidence to support the claim that proportional retributivism in no way justifies the death penalty. Next, it will refute the counterargument that equality retributivism is simple, lawful, and just when considering the death penalty. Finally, it will

This indicates that if one were to commit a crime, their punishment would have to be identical in order for it to meet moral standards that common tradition uplifts. Proportional retributivism, also known as jus talionis or the principle of “proportionality,” is a view that states instead of making criminals’ punishment directly equal to that of their crime, we should make it directly proportional to it instead. Not only does this allow for us to create a system that responds to a criminal’s exact crime, but it also allows us to make more than one punishment for one crime so that we can pick and choose which punishment deems fit to that specific

Although this may be the view of many, who is to say that the execution of a man is lawful or moral simply because he killed another man? At this time, technicalities come into play. For example, let’s say a woman is walking home one night when a man she does not know attacks her and attempts to rape her. She begins fighting back because she values her life and at this point has the mindset that it will be taken from her if she does not do otherwise. The man then draws a knife, frustrated with her and decides to kill her because she has seen his face. He is able to stab her in the arm, but she refuses to give up. In a fortunate turn of events, she gains control of the knife and jabs the knife at the man in an attempt to make him stop, only he does not. He lunges at her again and she thrusts the knife into his abdomen and runs to the police station. When the police get to the scene, he has bled out at the hand of the woman he attacked. In the sense of the equality retributivism, she should be put to death because she killed another man, but how is this moral? Just? What did she do to deserve this? Do the concept of an eye for an eye still apply? That is the fault in claiming equality retributivism justifies the death penalty, there are so many complications, such as self-defense and mental illness, to name a few, that would make deciding someone’s