1. Capital Punishment- ethical and moral debate of the death sentence
According to Thomas Long, the author of “Capital Punishment- ‘Cruel and Unusual’?”, Long argues that Capital Punishment is unconstitutional because pain and suffering from Capital Punishment is not justified. He claims that until capital punishment is regarded as more effective punishment than less severe punishments, capital punishment cannot be justified.
On the contrary, Robert S. Gerstein, the author of “Capital Punishment- ‘Cruel and Unusual’?: A retributivist Response”, contrasts Long’s argument by taking the retributivist side. Gerstein argues that Long only took a narrow view of Capital Punishment, and Long did not consider the legitimacy of capital punishment. Gerstein also claims that while the society rejects retributivism and considers it to be unethical, they do not fully understand the idea of retributivism. Gerstein believes that the most common misunderstanding of retributivism is that people …show more content…
Nathanson argues that the decision should be made by the majority. He affirms that while some claim that criminals deserve death penalties for their sins, many regard death penalty as a threat to innocent lives instead of the guilty. Because government’s goal of protecting innocent citizens’ lives is more important than executing harmful individuals, governments should go with the majority and stop executions. Nathanson also argues that the cost of death sentences and execution procedures are far more expensive than the benefit of executing criminals. Finally, Nathanson argues that our legal system is not compatible with capital punishment. The legal system consists of multiple goals for safety. While all the goals are important to the society, sacrifice is needed to satisfy people and
According to Thomas Long, the author of “Capital Punishment- ‘Cruel and Unusual’?”, Long argues that Capital Punishment is unconstitutional because pain and suffering from Capital Punishment is not justified. He claims that until capital punishment is regarded as more effective punishment than less severe punishments, capital punishment cannot be justified.
On the contrary, Robert S. Gerstein, the author of “Capital Punishment- ‘Cruel and Unusual’?: A retributivist Response”, contrasts Long’s argument by taking the retributivist side. Gerstein argues that Long only took a narrow view of Capital Punishment, and Long did not consider the legitimacy of capital punishment. Gerstein also claims that while the society rejects retributivism and considers it to be unethical, they do not fully understand the idea of retributivism. Gerstein believes that the most common misunderstanding of retributivism is that people …show more content…
Nathanson argues that the decision should be made by the majority. He affirms that while some claim that criminals deserve death penalties for their sins, many regard death penalty as a threat to innocent lives instead of the guilty. Because government’s goal of protecting innocent citizens’ lives is more important than executing harmful individuals, governments should go with the majority and stop executions. Nathanson also argues that the cost of death sentences and execution procedures are far more expensive than the benefit of executing criminals. Finally, Nathanson argues that our legal system is not compatible with capital punishment. The legal system consists of multiple goals for safety. While all the goals are important to the society, sacrifice is needed to satisfy people and