Ernest Van Den Haag A Defense Of Capital Punishment Analysis

Improved Essays
Ernest van den Haag, “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense of Capital Punishment” (Analyzing Moral Issues, 234-238 in the 6th Ed.)
Ernest van den Haag idea for government role was “securing rights and duties by specifying them through laws and enforcing the laws.” Haag argues that capital punishment is morally permissible on the arguments of retribution rather than deterrence it can be clearly reflected in his work. Ernest also addresses the idea of justice, and deterrence. Ernest van den Haag main point was, if the government should not only have the right to punish but to also enforce more extreme laws. The big law, Ernest was behind was the death penalty and how the government should be able to enforce an eye for an eye type of polices. Van
…show more content…
He stands firm on his first argument, saying that the death penalty is not only the best but the only deterrent to crime. Ernest says the objection of life imprisonment is a light slap on the wrist and is not geared enough. Imprisonment only gives murderers more time to plot and scheme it does not change other criminal minds about making the same mistake. Some opponents of Haag stand argue that people have a right to life and morally we should not use capital punishment. An objection that Haag uses is that the right to life is forfeited if the crime that is broken is severe enough. While the counter argument to this is that some rights should be taken, but to kill another human being is not the only form of punishment. Once a life is taken, it cannot be returned, it’s a dark road that has no return. Some state that imprisonment does nothing to deter the next crime of committing that same crime. So sense the argument finds that life imprisonment seem to be a sensible punishment. While the death penalty is far too harsh because of its finality. This means that capital punishment is not morally …show more content…
He becomes a big supporter of the death penalty which is dominant in his paper where he list different objections to the death penalty than counteracts them. Koch starts off by saying that the death penalty is simply barbaric. The action itself is not barbaric due to its purpose of killing without suffering. A down side of killing people is you cannot take the death penalty back. Once they are dead its over no mulligans, so it should be difficult to make this decision. Koch has a great quote where he says; “If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn 't exist, government wouldn 't function at all.” meaning that government his flawed at all levels and should not be trusted with life. The most important replay Koch gives is does the death penalty cheapen the cost of a life. The death penalty must be seen as the ultimate punishment and not throw around. Yes Koch says if you cannot measure the cost of a human life, but murder can be a ruthless crime, but to condemn another man to death is not only costing that man his life but the emotional weight on the judge jury and the

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Nathanson believes that punishment does not need to be hundred percent the same, it just needs to inflict the same amount of suffering. The retributivist Nathanson is he cannot support the death penalty. His theory states that he is proportionality based, where you can choose the highest severity for a crime but never reaching the death penalty. This is where a ranking system is created, setting the most upper limit to life in prison avoiding a barbaric punishment. Nathanson believes that human dignity matters, we may punish people for their crimes but deprive them everything which is what the death penalty does (Nathanson, p.544).…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There is no room for vengeance and a revenge stance in our justice system. The arguing stance for the death penalty says it deters murders, but in reality, the death penalty just leads to another loss of human life - regardless of the murder being an execution. When somebody tortures another human being, the government does not decide to torture that person in return. It’s the same for a rapist; the government does not rape the rapist. So, why does the government decide to murder the murderer?…

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    But a number of people are still against the death penalty for moral reasons, even though, it would bring them safety. In Stanley Marcus’s article, “Public Safety Requires the Death Penalty” Marcus questions convicted murderers about their crimes, “they had no hesitation in killing again and again because they were subject to no more severe punishment than if they were convicted of robbery - and often even less.” (New York Times Article Marcus). We need capital punishment to frighten criminals and to get rid of them when they do wrong. Clearly, these criminals have no morals about killing, so why should we risk our safety to keep them alive? The convicted killers even admitted that they had no hesitation in killing the first time and they would have no hesitation killing again.…

    • 1122 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    A result from that, they believe, is that it would lower crime. An attorney, Steven D. Stewart had stated, “The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal” (ProCon). He is referring to if the judicial system makes a mistake by sentencing an innocent person to death. Everyone makes mistakes so in his mind, the death penalty cannot be taken away or else many other things that could possibly cause mistakes should be taken away. On the other hand, the con side believes that the death penalty should be removed from the judicial system.…

    • 2346 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    You can’t punish someone based on what they did; Subjectivism will give anyone on this planet a chance to avoid the death penalty. How you might ask, to someone murder might be the biggest sin in the world, but in this system that’s not a moral fact. It’s just how you feel and your opinion towards the objective but again there is no moral objective fact towards your statement. A view like this is what we need, other people can justify that a murderer doesn’t deserve the death penalty. People will open their minds more broadly and look at the person as a human being.…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Reiman is not talking about crazy killers. This fear plateau is for common sense people like you and I that are going to go kill someone. Pojman argument that killers are above this range is correct, but this is not the people I am talking about in my article. Killing is killing, no matter on who does it. The argument on the best bet is the better choice is the human being.…

    • 1193 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In the surveys to the general public, when given the alternative of life imprisonment without parole as opposed to the death penalty, the approval rate for the death penalty dropped. The death penalty should be abolished due to its inability to carry out one of its purposes of preventing other crime from oc-curring. In a perfect world, the death penalty would not ensue any racial or geographical bias, and there would be an even-handedness or general way of carrying out this punishment. Howev-er, this nation’s method fails to distribute it equally. The value of a human’s life cannot be meas-ure; consequently, the life’s worth cannot be equated with that of another’s life.…

    • 1610 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I do not believe that Van Den Haag, in applying his philosophy, would commute the death sentence of Williams. The main reason for this is that he views the death penalty as the only punishment which is proportional to the crime of murder, in terms of retributive justice. Thus the only fitting punishment for the crimes of Williams would be execution. However, Van Den Haag also, in formulating his “best bet” theory, also states that the primary (though not the only) concern of punishment is deterrence, and that the number one argument for the death penalty is that it is our best bet for deterring crime. Given this, would Van Den Haag allow for partial clemency in recognition that Williams was seemingly reformed and doing good works?…

    • 877 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Gelernter felt that there was no powerful statement against him. Issuing Richard Ramirez the death penalty makes a powerful statement that the lives he took mattered, and that the crimes he committed was evil, similar to the Unabomber. It shows society that we value human life, and we stand up for that. Richard Ramirez did not show value for human life. If the United States did not execute him, then they would not be giving out a communal proclamation that murder is not tolerated and human life matters.…

    • 987 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It’s not making things better, but only worse, specially to their families! The Death Penalty is a violation of natural rights. We need to replace the Death Penalty and make it a safer and more inexpensive option. It does not guarantee safety for innocent victims, and it does not follow the goals and promises to our nation. The Death Penalty is very effective, and does not make things get better.…

    • 1323 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics