Analysis Of An Eye For An Eye By Stephen Nathanson

Stephen Nathanson, who wrote “An eye for an eye?” suggests the factual and moral beliefs about the death penalty are wrong and need to be strictly abolished. The passage states, “ A person’s actions, it seems, provide not only a basis for a moral appraisal of the person but also a guide to how he should be treated”. Also stated, “ What people deserve as recipients of rewards or punishments is determined by what they do as agents”. The argument claiming people should get a punishment based on what they do is accurate. What is not accurate however, is suggesting if someone murders another person, they should receive capital punishment. Nathanson outlines two main stages of capital punishment, these being equality retributivism and proportional …show more content…
In most people’s eyes, they would disagree with Nathanson’s viewpoint and would suggest this argument is not a better deterrent than life in prison; it could actually be the opposite. Many people have thought that capital punishment is the only true punishment for murder, basically “an eye for an eye”. But in fact, Nathanson’s argument only discusses one aspect of the crime, this being crime to the victim. Nathanson in his writing suggests that in most cases there is no real guidance in determining the appropriate punishment for the crime.

Next, in Stephen Nathanson’s writing “An for an Eye”, he suggests the second stage is the death penalty in practice. Nathanson believes the death penalty is completely justified, but in most cases it could be unjustified in practice. Legal judiciaries that impose the death penalty are not the ones leading to the execution of innocent humans. Nathanson also suggested the death penalty is inconsistent with the value of justice in society specifically. Nathanson’s argument is inconsistent with the value of justice, because the death penalty was imposed due to the extent of the specific crimes committed. Frankly in practice, actual death sentences are the result of