Analysis Of An Eye For An Eye By Stephen Nathanson
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