In the debate “Abolish the Death Penalty”, Robert Blecker argues against the motion. He concludes that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for extreme crimes. His examples of extreme cases include terrorists, mass murderers of vulnerable victims (especially children), rapist murderers, contract killers, and torture killers. According to Mr. Blecker the other option for punishment, life without parole, does not fit the crime in these extreme cases. The argument he uses expresses disbelief that prisoners doing life without parole are indeed receiving the punishment that fits their crimes. He states, “…the reality is it’s nobody’s job to punish, and there is no punishment going on.” In addition, Robert Blecker does stand opposed to
…show more content…
Blecker’s answer explaining the correct reason to use the death penalty. He believes the reason to use the death penalty is because “they deserve it” therefore serving justice. This argument is supported by his opinion not evidence. He gives us a few examples of horrific and extreme crimes, yes, but he simply says, “They deserve to die.” Why do they deserve to die? Who has the right to make that decision? What gives a person the right to decide who lives and who dies? These are just some of the questions that came to mind when I read this argument. This would be the point where some research examples explaining the simple statement of, “They deserve to die” would be effective. This may be his reason, but why would that be my reason? Mr. Blacker believes the death penalty is justice for the extreme crimes …show more content…
Blecker’s? I do not believe this was taken in to account when he was posing his argument. Let us look at how Webster’s Dictionary defines justice: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. In other words, being just is making the right choice when conflicting variables influence the situation at hand. This leaves a lot to think about when it comes to someone’s life. When arguing for the death penalty this needs to be considered when posing one’s points. People differ in their opinions of what is just or unjust. Taking into account other options for justice, and sharing those options would give his argument an unbiased feel by using impartial
Blecker’s answer explaining the correct reason to use the death penalty. He believes the reason to use the death penalty is because “they deserve it” therefore serving justice. This argument is supported by his opinion not evidence. He gives us a few examples of horrific and extreme crimes, yes, but he simply says, “They deserve to die.” Why do they deserve to die? Who has the right to make that decision? What gives a person the right to decide who lives and who dies? These are just some of the questions that came to mind when I read this argument. This would be the point where some research examples explaining the simple statement of, “They deserve to die” would be effective. This may be his reason, but why would that be my reason? Mr. Blacker believes the death penalty is justice for the extreme crimes …show more content…
Blecker’s? I do not believe this was taken in to account when he was posing his argument. Let us look at how Webster’s Dictionary defines justice: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. In other words, being just is making the right choice when conflicting variables influence the situation at hand. This leaves a lot to think about when it comes to someone’s life. When arguing for the death penalty this needs to be considered when posing one’s points. People differ in their opinions of what is just or unjust. Taking into account other options for justice, and sharing those options would give his argument an unbiased feel by using impartial