To think someone deserves to die may sound absurd to some of us, but is it really that absurd. Humans have their own approach to the concept of the death penalty, just like the philosophers that have their own philosophy about the death penalty. Some philosophers are for the death penalty like, Immanuel Kant, who is in favor of it. Then, there are some philosophers like Paul G. Cassell that found the death penalty incomplete, because of its unfairness to African Americans. The goal is to state the mentioned philosophers beliefs and their reasons to why they believe in their beliefs while inputting my own reasons on why I agree or disagree with them. I find myself agreeing with one philosopher’s philosophy meeting eye to eye, then slightly agreeing
…show more content…
Diving into the first philosopher, his name is Immanuel Kant, he is the one, that’s for the death penalty Lewis Vaughn, author of Contemporary Moral Arguments: Readings in Ethical Issues make it clear when he says, “In opposition to utilitarian views of punishment, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) holds to retributivism and strongly endorses the death penalty for murder” (352). He just don’t want to go and kill anyone that committed any crime, he likes to get even, and by even, I mean do what the criminal did back to him. Kant says, “It may be rendered by saying that the undeserved evil which any one commits to another, is to be regarded as perpetrated on himself” (353). For example, if I was to murder somebody it’s an “eye for an eye” I should be the perfect candidate for the death penalty when Kant says, “if you strike another, you strike yourself: if you kill another, you kill yourself. This is the right of retaliation (justalionis)… whoever has committed murder must die” (353). I agree with the “eye for an eye” saying, because if I didn’t deserve to die, I would want the murderer to get the death penalty, or if I was …show more content…
Throughout American history there’s been unfair treatment to people of color Paul G. Cassell argues that racism alters the way sentences are dispatched in America. Cassell says, “African American defendants are far more likely to receive the death penalty than are white defendants charged with the same crime” (374). I agree with Cassell the unfairness of how justice is distributed among blacks and whites, because of what I have seen for the past 28 years of my life. Cassell got proof, he says, “while 12 percent of the population is African American, about 43 percent of death row inmates are African American and 38 percent of prisoners executed since 1977 [have been] African American” (374). Having darker skin in the 1970’s would determine what kind of sentences you would get. The lighter you are, the less of a sentence you would get. This is why Kant’s an eye for an eye makes sense to me why can’t we give the same punishment equally, and do what they did back to them. What I’m saying is when someone rapes someone it should be done back to them, but not by a person. There should be an instrument used to “rape” the rapist, it sounds like sodomizing however, who told the rapist to rape I find this quite fair for the rapist. As for kidnapping I believe the law does that already if you kidnap the law would kidnap you and throw you in jail and to me that’s totally fair I’m still siding with
Diving into the first philosopher, his name is Immanuel Kant, he is the one, that’s for the death penalty Lewis Vaughn, author of Contemporary Moral Arguments: Readings in Ethical Issues make it clear when he says, “In opposition to utilitarian views of punishment, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) holds to retributivism and strongly endorses the death penalty for murder” (352). He just don’t want to go and kill anyone that committed any crime, he likes to get even, and by even, I mean do what the criminal did back to him. Kant says, “It may be rendered by saying that the undeserved evil which any one commits to another, is to be regarded as perpetrated on himself” (353). For example, if I was to murder somebody it’s an “eye for an eye” I should be the perfect candidate for the death penalty when Kant says, “if you strike another, you strike yourself: if you kill another, you kill yourself. This is the right of retaliation (justalionis)… whoever has committed murder must die” (353). I agree with the “eye for an eye” saying, because if I didn’t deserve to die, I would want the murderer to get the death penalty, or if I was …show more content…
Throughout American history there’s been unfair treatment to people of color Paul G. Cassell argues that racism alters the way sentences are dispatched in America. Cassell says, “African American defendants are far more likely to receive the death penalty than are white defendants charged with the same crime” (374). I agree with Cassell the unfairness of how justice is distributed among blacks and whites, because of what I have seen for the past 28 years of my life. Cassell got proof, he says, “while 12 percent of the population is African American, about 43 percent of death row inmates are African American and 38 percent of prisoners executed since 1977 [have been] African American” (374). Having darker skin in the 1970’s would determine what kind of sentences you would get. The lighter you are, the less of a sentence you would get. This is why Kant’s an eye for an eye makes sense to me why can’t we give the same punishment equally, and do what they did back to them. What I’m saying is when someone rapes someone it should be done back to them, but not by a person. There should be an instrument used to “rape” the rapist, it sounds like sodomizing however, who told the rapist to rape I find this quite fair for the rapist. As for kidnapping I believe the law does that already if you kidnap the law would kidnap you and throw you in jail and to me that’s totally fair I’m still siding with