Ernest Van Den Haag defense of the death penalty is very will contested. However, his conclusion while contract is still lacking. Haag understanding argument of the death penalty is suitable. However, the problem lays with the fact Haag does not go far enough. One must understand Haag argument to correctly critique his argument.
Haag separates his argument into three question. the first is whether the death penalty is constitutional or not he separates this into five segments.The first of these segments is the consensus It states that there must have been a moral consensus that agrees politically and morally that the death penalty is right and good. The second segment is cruel where he questions if the death penalty is cruel he states that it is not. This due to the fact that it serves a purpose. The third segment is Unusual which Haag understands that the Death penalty is not unusual because it is abrtity . the fourth segment is Unavoidable capriciousness Where he states that Some cruelties can't be accounted for therefore It is understandable if it happens. avoidable capriciousness
…show more content…
The first New Evidence which is a segment that puts some statics that prove his point, however, these points have been disproven. The leads to Haag The Choice this come with two objects. The first is the future victim of convicted murders would be saved with the death penalty. The second is that it is more favorable if some are wrongly convicted it is a necessary evil. The third is Experiments? Is just use experiment to prove his point. The fourth segment The Burden of Proof of Usefulness which just states that the crime is should fit the punishment and more servy crime should have similar punishments. The fifth is The Threat of Death Needed in Circumstances. This segment includes that in special circumstances, like prisoners killing other prisoner, is a necessary reason for the death