Analysis Of An Eye For An Eye By Stephen Nathanson

Improved Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    I honestly do not full heartedly support the death penalty, but I think there are rare cases in which it would be just and in the best interest of the safety of the general public. Justice can be defined as being “fair, impartial, [and] giving a deserved response” (“List of the Virtues”). If the trial for the crime is fairly administered, and we are certain with no doubt that the person on death row is guilty, the death penalty ought to be justified. Not every crime or even murder mandates the use of capital punishment. However, if the just punishment for the crime is the death penalty, the executioner and those involved in the conviction could still be considered virtuous because they are being just.…

    • 1641 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Certainly, Reiman’s moderate theory of retribution provides a pathway to abolishing the death penalty because many individuals that are given the death penalty are victims of an aggressive and overly reactionary criminal justice system. This is one way to argue in favor of removing the death penalty through Reiman’s argument on reactionary cycle of a “eye for an eye” mentality, which creates extreme judgments that cannot be overturned if the individual is later found to be innocent. Reiman is aware of the long tradition of the death penalty as a form of retributive justice, but he finds it impractical in terms of being an accurate judge of the intent and motives of the alleged…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    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.…

    • 1244 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Death Penalty is the execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. Death penalty should be distinguished from extrajudicial executions carried out without due process of law. The term Capital punishment is sometimes used interchangeably with death penalty, though imposition of the penalty is not always followed by execution (even when it is upheld on appeal), because of the possibility of commutation to life imprisonment. The terms "death penalty" and "capital punishment" are frequently used to mean the same thing. However, some people believe that a difference exists because "death penalty" refers to the penalty received and not necessarily its implementation while "capital punishment"…

    • 1690 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Burns this punishment should be death, but what about the person’s fundamental rights 's to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Although Burns does not directly address it in this chapter, I believe he feels that when you commit a crime you lose these fundamental rights. But are these not fundamental rights that everyone is guaranteed under the Constitution? Their is no clause in the Constitution that says unless your a murder, you lose these rights. Allowing the government to legally kill the guilty person is wrong, and violates this person’s legal rights.…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Ethical Reasoning - Death Penalty Threatening to kill someone, does that deter crime? The United State remains in the vast minority of nations throughout the world who still uses death as a penalty for certain crimes ("The Death Penalty Worldwide," n.d.). In this paper I will argue that the death penalty should be stopped, it’s morally wrong, expensive, and an ineffective deterrent to crime. The death penalty is both morally and ethically wrong. Society, as a whole, believes that killing another individual is wrong.…

    • 1309 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Killing defenseless human beings enacts the defeat of that person. Although execution may be physically painless, it causes an intense and severe psychological pain. He also believes that we, as a society, should place capital punishment in the same category as torture: things that we should never do to human beings, even when they deserve them, because how horrible they are. Reiman believes that punishing a murderer with life in prison, instead of with death penalty as the lex talionis would demand, would meet the necessary conditions he specifies for an acceptable and just alternative…

    • 961 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He is also a widely recognized opponent of the death penalty. Bedau argues that the act of capital punishment goes against the principle of respect for human life. He recognizes that when a person murders another person, they have taken away that person’s right and ability to life. Regardless if the person has committed murder, wouldn’t they still have their right to life? If that murderer were then put to death for their crime, it would be a violation of his or her rights.…

    • 734 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is thought that the death penalty is a good way to deter others from committing similar crimes because if they see that a person is sentenced to death they will not want the same out come, resulting in the person not committing the crime. This idea is not proven but is a concept that many people stand behind, for example Ernest van den Haag believes that the death penalty is still justified in use even if the evidence is inconclusive because it is the only possible deterrent. Van den Haag has three arguments that he uses to back his views on the death penalty being used as a deterrent. His three arguments are: The common sense argument, the outcome argument, and the death penalty as only possible…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    I also think we should abolish the death penalty because killing a human for what they did wrong such as murder, will not solve the problem or give the victim permanent relief, it will only be temporary and we are just as wrong as them when they committed the crime. Nathanson states that this does not solve the problem at all because we are still acting barbarically to those who are guilty of a barbaric crime. If we continue to punish the wrongdoers with the same violent actions, we are setting an example that violence is the answer to our problems and that it is morally right. That is not what should be done we should not have to punish the wrongdoer with a severe punishment like the death penalty to get our point across. Like Nathanson says we should want the state to set the right example, and the only violence that is…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays