Russ Shafer-Landau provides us with two separate arguments about the death penalty in his academic book The Ethical Life, fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems. In the first argument, Justifying Legal Punishment, Igor Primoratz gives us substantive reasoning that opts favorably toward the necessity of the death penalty. Contrasting Primoratz, Stephen Nathanson, through An Eye for an Eye, provides us with an argument that hopes to show us that capital punishment, like murder, is also immoral and therefore, unjust. By the end of this essay, I intend to show that while capital punishment may not be the easy choice for a consequence and punishment to murder, it is, however, the necessary one.
Within this framework, individuals are considered to make rational choices, equally capable of reason and therefore shall be deemed responsible for their actions and deterred through potential threat. Today, classical thinking is evident in sentencing via the “just deserts” approach. This approach to sentencing assures that someone who is found guilty of a crime must be punished for the crime. The just deserts approach rejects individual discretion and rehabilitation – insisting “justice must be
From a utilitarian perspective, the potential deterrent effect of capital punishment is questionable, as research has shown that it does not significantly reduce crime rates (Equal Justice Initiative, 2023). Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of violence and retribution that undermines the ultimate goal of
Equal treatment under the law reinforces the idea that under utilitarianism everyone’s well-being is important
As we know consequentialism is the focus of an action that does more intrinsically good than bad, one kind of consequentialist theory is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an action that produces consequences that are more good over bad for everyone involved. In order to produce an action that is the best one a utilitarianist would consider both long and short term effects. Two sub categories of utilitarianism include act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. act utilitarianism bases an action on the overall well being produced by an individual.
As we know, there are many ways criminals can be punished. When sentencing happens, the defendant is usually sentenced to the following punishments, listed from minor to extreme: Fines Community service Diversion programs Probation GPS monitoring Jail Prison Death penalty (Rio Salado, 2022). Most of these punishments can be listed under either the utilitarian or retributive theory of punishment. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to 'deter' future wrongdoings.
Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty. " In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal.
The United States and the Soviet Union had very different plans for the future development of their countries. Under Soviet communism, the state controlled all public or private property and economic activity, however in the American system, private citizens controlled almost all economic activity also voting done by the people is how people elected a president. In the Soviet Union, the Communist Party built a complete totalitarian government with no opposing parties. Stalin had supported the Allies only because Hitler broke a promise he made to Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union on June 1941. Both powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, used the United Nation as a conference to spread their influence over others.
The traditional goals of sentencing are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation (Stinchcomb, 2011). A more contemporary goal of criminal sanctions is restorative and community justice (Stinchcomb, 2011). Retribution is founded on the principle that offenders should receive their ‘just desserts’. However, the penalty must be proportionate to the offence committed (Welch, 2004, p.83) Deterrence aims to reduce criminal offending.
It can be noted that the way one is punished is often unjust. “The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to…. have one or more of the following objectives: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other persons from committing offenses; to separate offenders from society” (Pratt, January 26th, 2016). Even though there is a fundamental purpose of sentencing most of the time, the crime does not fit the offender (Pratt, January 26th, 2016).
The attractiveness of this theory is primarily based on the ethical code that Hampton subscribes to, which is that pain-inflicted punishments should not be condoned when it comes to disciplining wrongdoers. Rather, constructive analysis done pertaining to why certain actions are morally wrong in society would be intellectually stimulating and productive for both the wrongdoers and the public, all while avoiding the infliction of physical pain. Compared to the retributivist argument, which circulates around the idea that the purpose of punishment is to make wrongdoers pay for their misdeeds, and that they should be treated the way that they have treated others, the MET is a more humane way to treat wrongdoers, and in the long run, would perhaps help them emerge from confinement as better citizens within society, rather than as potential repeat offenders. Therefore, the appeal of the MET stems from the positive implications of treating wrongdoers with respect and dignity, all while teaching them why their actions were wrong while simultaneously instilling positive and moral values in their psyche before allowing them to re-enter
In this essay, I will discuss whether the claim that retributivists are making are right by justifying whether their assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded. A person who has committed a crime must be punished. Punishment makes sure that the offender pays their debt to the society or state. Retributivism justifies that punishment is payback for crime and its main goal is to give the offender their just deserts.
The Act Utilitarianism is Judges an act in terms of the consequences
Consequentialism is a theory stating morality is dependent on an action’s outcomes; the most noteworthy example of this theory is utilitarianism. Consequentialism is contested as critics find it overdemanding for application on the virtue of its extensiveness in the individual’s life and reliance on unpredictable consequences, and due to the depth of logic override necessary to maximise happiness in some situations. Rebuttals have been made, and in this essay, I will explain the principles of consequentialism and utilitarianism and argue that the refutations are unsuccessful. Consequentialists, as aforementioned, strive to create best overall consequences for the largest amount of people. Moral agents must aim to maximise happiness and minimise pain.
In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.
