Death Penalty Equality Retributivism Analysis

Thus bringing in to account the principle of lex talionis. Which is the right to be paid back with similar harm and the equality of persons. Meaning an eye for an eye, they deserve it because they did it therefore intimidating people from murdering because they don’t want to die. It is also to be said through Kantian ethics that a rational individual who kills another authorizes his own execution. Executing murderers sets as a statement that murder is absolutely evil and will not be tolerated.

Whether killing is ever justified or not, is a question that people face more than most would think. People such as police officers and soldiers meet that decision in their daily lives and in their situation killing is justified because it is necessary in saving their life or a civilian’s life. In the novella Of Mice and Men, written by John Steinbeck, George Milton was faced with a similar decision. When Lennie Small killed Curley’s wife, George decided to take the law into his own hands, and shoot his best friend instead of turning him over to the proper authorities for a fair, lawful, and just punishment. George should be punished for the death of Lennie because Lennie did not understand what he had done, he did not put George in any immediate

The court believed that the scheme of chastisement under the ruling was consequently “cruel and unusual” if it was too unembellished for the crime, if it was arbitrary, if it affronted societies sagacity of justice, or if it was not more operative than a less unembellished penalty. Reinstating the Death Penalty

Murder constitutes harm and abuse of power. 3. Capital punishment is murder 4. Therefore, capital punishment is unethical as it violates the government’s basic duty to protect its people.

The Unfair Advantage Theory All explained above was about the classical retributivism. At the end of the 20th century, because of some failings in practical theories and utilitarianism, retributivism was regenerated. In those years, somehow early 1980s, Michael Davis proposed his theory, named ' 'fairness theory ' ', about the punishment by which he advanced the retributivism theory and made it more evolved. He argued that the punishment should fit not only the crime but also the amount of ' 'unfair advantage ' ' which were achieved by the wrongdoer.

It is wrong to kill anyone for the reasons of it violates the rights of that individual, it is morally wrong and illegal to take the life of a person, as well as it proves the lack of responsibility on the individual that assists the person being murdered. It was wrong to kill Lennie in Of Mice and Men for the reasons that it violates Lennie's rights, it is morally wrong and illegal to take the life a medical or mental health patient, as well as it proves George’s

Reiman opposes capital punishment for several reasons. Reiman rejects the retribution rationale because retribution dehumanizes the person doing the punishing. As an alternative, Reiman advocates for humane punishment that is equal in severity, and that does not reduce deterrence. He stresses the importance of equal severity because a lack of equality will send the wrong message to society. Reiman believes strongly that: “[t]he available research by no means clearly indicates that the death penalty reduces the incidence of homicide more than life imprisonment does.”

The Death penalty can be justified when viewed from an egalitarian point of view. This view in relating to the death penalty holds that equal crime deserves equal punishment (MacKinnon & Fiala 2015). Therefore, if one causes death with intent to kill then that person should also be put to death with intent to kill. Many states would agree with this view.

Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30).

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.

Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life… Time and time again we have witnessed the specter of mistakenly convicted people being put to death in the name of American criminal justice. However, it is not the intention of those who support capital punishment to kill those who are innocent. Even though it does not happen often, it still happens, but anything that has to do with humans there will be human errors that occur.

Even though it is true that taking the life of another is not right, it is even truer that the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty is an exercise of justice that promotes retribution for crime and moral punishment for those who choose to take human life. Also, it prevents society 's worse offenders from re-offending, and it provides justice for the victims whose lives were cut short without a second thought. To better understand why capital punishment is a justifiable act, Kant 's theory gives a clear and logical understanding of the eye for an eye approach. Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending.

Summary of Major Ideas In this article “Death and Justice,” Edward Koch adequately defends the view of capital punishment on many fronts. He doesn’t, however, approach the topic in an offensive way. He defends the issue primarily by defending opposing vies by counteracting common arguments made against the subject. He shows that any argument someone could make against the matter he could undermine it through examples, statistics, and even the Bible.

The concept of punishment has recently demonstrated the lack of efforts to restore offenders and felons. Without the potential risks and the actual practice of punishment, the aim of social order can hardly be reached. Moreover, it is unfair to expect victims of illegal actions to cover the cost of their victimization. The current retributive justice system concentrates on punishment as the state where the victims of criminal acts and prisoners are considered in passive roles. Thus, the paper reviews the concepts developed within the punishment philosophy.

For an instance a person has killed another person, it is just fair that he give his own particular life consequently. Kidnapping and assault are likewise wrong that the individual who commits these acts deserves the best punishment, death. Justice requests that each individual be treated with others and by the society as he deserves. The individual who does great act should be compensated with good, and the individual who does abhorrent should endure detestable each in extent to the great or underhandedness done. The conception of justice understood in this argument has traditionally been delineated by the figure of a blindfold woman holding a set of balance scales.