In Stephen Nathanson’s book, An Eye for an Eye, he argues against capital punishment by discussing the problems of the most common argument for the death penalty: the Equal Punishment Principle. He also discusses the problems with sub-category theories of the Equal Punishment Principle: quality/proportional retributivism, and ends by offering the reader what abolishing the death penalty would grant to society. Nathanson believes the Equal Punishment Principle if fallible, because it is difficult and implausible to be able to use “eye for an eye” for every act of crime. For example, thieves would receive theft, embezzlers would be embezzled, spies would be spied on etc. All of those actions would be an eye for an eye, but would not necessarily
…show more content…
One view which I found contradictory was Nathanson’s biggest argument: that no crime takes away all decent human rights, and therefore society can not take away their life. When discussing the respect for human life, Nathanson states, “In defense of human well-being, we may punish people for their crimes, but we ought not to deprive them of everything, which is what the death penalty does” (386 Shafer-Landau). Nathanson uses the word ‘everything’ to imply life itself, but I believe everything also implies everyday life as well: the ability to be free, to work as you please, to own and buy property to have love etc. That being said, are there not other punishments in which someone would lose ‘everything’ as well? In American society, imprisonment is the most common punishment for crimes committed. Is imprisonment not in turn immoral for essentially depriving them of their lives? I understand that what Nathanson implies by using the word ‘lives’ is that of actually being alive, but is being imprisoned, especially if so in solitary confinement, actually a life to live? The Americans Friends Service Committee offers statistics of jail life specifically on solitary confinement. Their website states that “ There are more than 80,000 men, women, and children in solitary confinement in prisons across the United States, according to the Bureau of Justice
One view which I found contradictory was Nathanson’s biggest argument: that no crime takes away all decent human rights, and therefore society can not take away their life. When discussing the respect for human life, Nathanson states, “In defense of human well-being, we may punish people for their crimes, but we ought not to deprive them of everything, which is what the death penalty does” (386 Shafer-Landau). Nathanson uses the word ‘everything’ to imply life itself, but I believe everything also implies everyday life as well: the ability to be free, to work as you please, to own and buy property to have love etc. That being said, are there not other punishments in which someone would lose ‘everything’ as well? In American society, imprisonment is the most common punishment for crimes committed. Is imprisonment not in turn immoral for essentially depriving them of their lives? I understand that what Nathanson implies by using the word ‘lives’ is that of actually being alive, but is being imprisoned, especially if so in solitary confinement, actually a life to live? The Americans Friends Service Committee offers statistics of jail life specifically on solitary confinement. Their website states that “ There are more than 80,000 men, women, and children in solitary confinement in prisons across the United States, according to the Bureau of Justice