Equal Punishment And Proportional Retribution

Death penalty means sentencing the convicted to execution as carried out by the state and the judicial system. Set it in stone that the definition of death penalty is much more deeper than this. The argument of the death penalty is something that might not see an end anytime soon. It is deemed controversial because at stake is the life of an individual,his values, his morals, and dignity. Whether he still obtains morals and dignity is in the eye of the beholder but nonetheless should be taken into account. Ideals of utilitarian as well as retributivism are taken into account when discussing the death penalty and whether it is morally just, or immoral as well as ethical. Retribution along with the key words previously stated are just as

The death penalty is a serious punishment in the United States with many citizens being split on the idea of whether the practice is moral or not. American sociologist and social critic Ernest Van Den Haag, defends the death penalty by looking at the topic through consequentialist and retributivist perspectives. In this essay, I am going to argue that Ernest van den Haag is accurate in his belief in the morality of the death penalty.

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

These standpoints go hand and hand when discussing capital punishment. One point of view states retribution is punishment given to someone for committing a wrong or criminal act. According to Pat Buchanan, “The decision to execute a murderer is an act of just retribution, not revenge. If the death penalty were truly vengeful, criminals would be executed by the same means that they used to kill their victims” (Mitchell, 99). Further described by Louis P. Pojman, “Retributivism is the theory that the criminal deserves to be punished and deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her crime” (ProCon.org, 2). Both explain that the death penalty is not a vengeful act, but more of an eye for an eye theory. Which states that a person should be penalized to the same degree as their crime. An example from the Law of Hammurabi says, “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death...” (Fieser, 2). Retribution ties in closely saying an eye for an eye is in this case a life for a life. Through capital punishment the state partly “pays back” what the criminal has permanently taken away, a human life, which can never be created again (Mitchell, 1). In addition Buchanan states, “Retribution means paying back, making restitution to a victim of what has been unjustly taken away” (Mitchell, 1). In summary, both of the viewpoints of capital punishment is retribution and capital punishment is an eye for an eye are both arguable

“The use of the death penalty in the United States has been rapidly declining since the end of the 1990s” (Dieter, 2015). This is contrast to the believes of the Founding Fathers where “the death penalty was widely accepted at the time the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified” (Gardner & Anderson, 2014). While the crimes have not changed, aspects of capital punishment which were once viewed as constitutional, today are deemed cruel and unusual. The prevailing liberal view sees the death penalty as morally unjustified and a vengeful form retribution. “It is the most brutal form of state power, requires massive state administrations and it costs significantly more than life imprisonment which is both more humane and equally effective” (Davidson, 2015). They point to the lack of deterrence it provides and highlight the racial and gender biases of the criminal justice system and the potential for the execution of the innocent by the State. In contrast, those in favor of capital punishment see it as a valid, moral and constitutional punishment as punishments should be imposed in proportion to the crime. The death penalty is reserved for the most violent of crimes in society and without it, justice is not achieved for victims and their families. The death penalty must be viewed again as a valid, moral and legal

Hugo Adam Bedau provides an argument against retribution as he states, “Retribution does not yield a coherent and comprehensive system of punishment” (p. 42). Beau argues that the principle by itself does not provide a defense for the death penalty; it is fully satisfied by a lesser

In American courts that strive for justice, the idea of justice through retribution aligns with logic. For example, if somebody is guilty in a car accident, they are expected to pay the repairs. However, issues arise when one attempts to offer repairs for the damage caused by murder. How does one offer monetary retribution for a life? Despite America’s measurement-obsessed society that places a price tag on every aspect of life, can a death be quantified to bring justice? Due to this discrepancy, the idea of capital punishment arose millenniums ago, and despite its violent nature, the penalty still exists in American justice systems today. While, logically, the life of a murderer may seem an equal tradeoff for the life of the victim, morally and socially this approach complicates matters. Is this approach not just fighting fire with fire, resulting in greater harm than peace? Even more troubling, these state-administered murders directly contradict the teachings of many religions that teach the right to life. To best align with Christianity, capital punishment should be virtually unpracticed except in extraordinary cases when no other alternative can protect the common good.

Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.

Unlike in most countries, the United States criminal justice system is not represented by a single, all-encompassing institution. Rather, it is a network of criminal justice systems at the federal, state, and special jurisdictional levels like military courts and territorial courts. Criminal laws at these levels vary, although these are all based on the US Constitution. Often times people confuse retribution with revenge. Vengeance means to signify inflicting harm on someone out of anger because of what he/or she has done. Retribution is the punishment inflicted on someone as justice for a wrong or criminal act. The death penalty is a necessary and appropriate punishment. One cannot reject capital punishment because it is retribution; the issue is whether it is an appropriate form of retribution.When a society fails to punish criminals in a way thought to be proportionate to the gravity of the crime, the danger arises that the public would take the law into its own hands, resulting in vigilante justice, lynch mobs, and private acts of retribution. Everyone agrees that there should be some punishment for murder. This mandate turns capital punishment into a necessity when nothing else serves as real punishment for a

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

An innocent man is wrongly executed whilst a man who raped and murdered a mother and her thirteen year old daughter spends the rest of his life with three meals a day and cable television. Which of these is the bigger injustice? The use of the death penalty to punish serious crimes is a very controversial topic and there is much debate surrounding the issue. This paper will briefly discuss arguments supporting and against the use of the death penalty.

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.