The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States bans cruel and unusual punishments. A perplexing issue on the application of this amendment is the death penalty. The meaning of “cruel and unusual” is open to interpretation and the Court remains divided about its meaning. The Supreme Court has held that the death penalty is “inherently neither cruel nor unusual” (Epstein and Walker, 573). The controversy lies largely with the intent of the framers and with the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments state that no person can be deprived of life without due process of law, therefore if due process is observed; a person can be deprived of life (Epstein and Walker, 573). Similar
…show more content…
An action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action, not because of the product of that action. Deontology emphasizes the duty of each individual to make a morally right decision. According to deontological ethics, a violation of law or duty can be a personal or a social crime. The main difference between personal and social crimes is whether the damage is incurred by one person or the whole society (Avaliani). The deontological division of justice into two parts is similar to St. Augustine’s general theory of justice: distributive and commutative. Distributive justice is comparable to the whole society and commutative to one person. Even in those cases when a crime is committed against one person, deontological theory argues that person has no right to punish the violator (Avaliani). Aquinas would agree. Aquinas and deontological theorists both conclude that administration of punishment is always the state's function. A person cannot be punished for sake of the society's benefit in order to prevent others from committing the same crime. The Utilitarian theory of the justification of punishment stands in opposition to this retributive theory. According to the Utilitarian, the rationale of punishment is entirely to prevent further crime by deterring others from crime through fear of punishment …show more content…
Kant also supported the equalization of punishment with crime. The justification for this is that an aggressor loses his rights to the extent that he has violated the rights of another human being, “the murderer loses the right of which he has deprived another human being: the right to have one's life preserved from the violence of another person” (Rothbard). This sounds extremely similar to Kant’s argument in The Metaphysics of Morals. The murderer therefore deserves to be killed. The difference lies in Rothbard’s argument that if a crime is committed, it should be up to the victim to press charges. Kant and Aquinas believe this action is up to the state to decide. Rothbard favors the victim being able to order the state, or forbid the state, from punishing the victim. It is the right of the victim, not of society or the state who should bring charges and decide on whether or not to exact punishment and what that punishment should be. Rothbard gives this example: “suppose that A aggresses against B; but B is a pacifist or doesn't believe in punishment for whatever reason; the State should not be able, as it is now, to continue to prosecute A in the name of ‘society’ even though the victim may be urging otherwise.” One interesting conclusion Rothbard suggests is to instruct heirs and
An action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action, not because of the product of that action. Deontology emphasizes the duty of each individual to make a morally right decision. According to deontological ethics, a violation of law or duty can be a personal or a social crime. The main difference between personal and social crimes is whether the damage is incurred by one person or the whole society (Avaliani). The deontological division of justice into two parts is similar to St. Augustine’s general theory of justice: distributive and commutative. Distributive justice is comparable to the whole society and commutative to one person. Even in those cases when a crime is committed against one person, deontological theory argues that person has no right to punish the violator (Avaliani). Aquinas would agree. Aquinas and deontological theorists both conclude that administration of punishment is always the state's function. A person cannot be punished for sake of the society's benefit in order to prevent others from committing the same crime. The Utilitarian theory of the justification of punishment stands in opposition to this retributive theory. According to the Utilitarian, the rationale of punishment is entirely to prevent further crime by deterring others from crime through fear of punishment …show more content…
Kant also supported the equalization of punishment with crime. The justification for this is that an aggressor loses his rights to the extent that he has violated the rights of another human being, “the murderer loses the right of which he has deprived another human being: the right to have one's life preserved from the violence of another person” (Rothbard). This sounds extremely similar to Kant’s argument in The Metaphysics of Morals. The murderer therefore deserves to be killed. The difference lies in Rothbard’s argument that if a crime is committed, it should be up to the victim to press charges. Kant and Aquinas believe this action is up to the state to decide. Rothbard favors the victim being able to order the state, or forbid the state, from punishing the victim. It is the right of the victim, not of society or the state who should bring charges and decide on whether or not to exact punishment and what that punishment should be. Rothbard gives this example: “suppose that A aggresses against B; but B is a pacifist or doesn't believe in punishment for whatever reason; the State should not be able, as it is now, to continue to prosecute A in the name of ‘society’ even though the victim may be urging otherwise.” One interesting conclusion Rothbard suggests is to instruct heirs and