On The Sword By Hubmaier Analysis

One of the many things that has been highly controversial and still is to this very day is how to properly punish and treat criminals. Here in America we now have the Eighth Amendment to protect us from cruel and unusual punishment. This was based off of a Parliament Act of 1689 that created England’s Bill of Rights. Before England had come up with the idea that humans should have guaranteed basic rights, it wasn’t a matter of whether or not a criminal would die, as much as it was a matter of how they would die. Torture devices such as the guillotine, the stake, the brazen bull, and the rack were used to spread the idea of fear and punishment that was ineffectually used by leaders to try and control their people throughout the history of Europe.

People that support the death penalty argued that death penalty is righteously justified when enforced in murder especially with disturbing elements such as for multiple murder, child murder, serial killing, torture murder, mass murder, terrorism, massacre or genocide. It is said that the death penalty for murder is and should be "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

In the cases of capital punishment killing can be justified. According to the article, When Murder Is Punished with Death, fewer criminals will murder, “The deterrent power of punishment is axiomatic, criminal law would be meaningless without it” (Jacoby). In

“Who so sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” (Genesis 9:6) There is an ancient tradition going back to biblical times that a fitting punishment for murder is the execution of the murderer. In this paper I will critically explain Pojman 's “Defense of the Death Penalty”. I will go over what his opinion on the death penalty and the deontologists and consequentialists point of views.

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.

     Throughout history the human race has fought over what was fair and just punishment for the killing of another human. The bible tells us, “Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death” (Numbers 35:31). Methods of execution have included such practices as crucifixion, stoning, drowning, burning at the stake, impaling and beheading (Mircrosoft Encarta, 2002). Most of all these events were made public so as to show a deterrent to others, “warning so to speak that this awaits you when you murder”. Public executions were a common place event in society until the 1830’s due to the deterrent effect of them. In the 1900’s through this deterrent event wasn’t public anymore for the reason society wanted to hide its manners from the public eye to save ourselves from the horror of the event itself (Microsoft Encarta, 2002). Executions have been said to have a deterrent effect on the crime of murder, although there is little to no evidence to prove this. The decision to kill antoher human is dependent on numerous different events that are in turn influenced by religion and beliefs. Example of a more commonly used verse is in the bible itself, “ And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye,

The immense sickness wasn’t the only thing dark about Europe’s Middle Ages. The monarchs were cruel and unruly to their subjects while enforcing brutality upon their land and citizens. The laws enforced by these kings and queens were nothing short of diabolical, for there was no set list of limitations and rules meaning that the monarchs could punish anyone for anything, even if that meant simply disturbing the king. The executions of the ‘accused’ were public to the citizens, and were “a pitiless affair” (McGlynn). The kings ruled with an iron fist as their methods of justice were murderous as executions “sent out a message of warning and deterrence” and “offered the ultimate guarantee against repeat offenders”. The message monarchs tried to send while carelessly shedding blood was that they desired to make a statement, and scare citizens into not committing crimes, for they would know the gruesome consequences. If not death, the “standard, mandatory sentence” of all accused peoples was mutilation of “eyes, noses, ears, hands, feet and testicles”. To sum it all up, punishment in the Middle Ages was much more unforgiving than in this modern day of age; being burned at the stake or beheaded by the guillotine are still some of the most spine-tingling punishments to this day. In all of the depressing fog of the Middle Ages, could there truly have been a beneficial factor?

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.

Should we execute murders? That is the debate that we have been struggling with when talk about the death penalty. A famous philosophy professor by the name of Hugo Adam Bedau has a distinct argument on this topic that he explains in his paper, How to Argue About the Death Penalty. He opposed the death penalty on solely moral principles and excludes the augments he believes are strictly factual. I will show that Bedau’s case against the death penalty fails because his “facts” he excludes are morally sound arguments.

Capital Punishment is a moral controversy in today’s society. It is the judicial execution of criminals judged guilty of capital offenses by the state, or in other words, the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws can date back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. and the ethical debates towards this issue have existed just as long. There is a constant pro-con debate about this issue, and philosophers like Aristotle and Mill have their own take on this controversy as well. Aristotle is against capital punishment, while Mill believes it is morally permissible.

The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.

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”.

However it is absurd to think that such needless killing, raping, stealing, and torturing could be morally permissible. Moreover, to believe that God could have commanded these things is to destroy whatever grounds one might have for praising or worshiping him. And if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act.

In order to maintain a safe society justice and order must be upheld at all times. Machiavelli agrees with this belief in his “Qualities of a Prince” writing when he says “it is absolutely necessary that he not worry about being considered cruel; for without that reputation he will never keep an army prepared or ready for combat.” Though Machiavelli was speaking about an army, the concept could be applied to society, specifically the death penalty in general. This is because it could be argued that taking another human life is cruel, no matter the circumstances; but if the threat of taking a life is the matter that keeps a potential murderer from

“Early eightieth century BC records of legalised death penalty laws have been uncovered in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes.” Famous philosophers Plato and Bentham have given their ethical viewpoints; from there assumptions can be drawn on their views on capital punishment. The Catholic Church also has its ‘Anti-death penalty’ position. Capital punishment has been a part of human communal society for centuries. Within these three ethical viewpoints society can use them as scopes as to whether it should be acceptable in their community. Contextual analysis is paramount to being able to apply these ethical thought methods to a contemporary issue. “Many that live deserve death.