In Greg Miller’s Wired article “Did Brain Scans Just Save a Convicted Murderer From the Death Penalty?”, John McCluskey, a prisoner escaped from an Arizona prison, carjacked a retired couple, shot them inside the camping trailer they were towing behind their truck and set the trailer on fire with their bodies still inside. Despite his reprehensible act of crime, John McCluskey’s lawyers successfully convinced the jury that the convict has several brain defects and that his action was a result of his impulsiveness as he is incapable of planning such things in advance. As a result, the jury decided that they had been unable to come to a consensus on the death penalty, in other words, John McCluskey is getting a life sentence without parole.
Suppose
…show more content…
First, some might argue that John McCluskey is blameworthy for the death of the couple. And, if we gave up the belief that he is blameworthy, we could no longer legitimately judge between a good action and a bad action. I would counter-argue that even though we believe that McCluskey is not morally responsible for the death of the couple because of the brain abnormalities he had, we can still say that his actions were morally wrong, and that nobody should have acted the way he did to the couple. Therefore, even though we believe that McCluskey is not blameworthy for his action, it does not mean that we are threatening the judgements of wrongness or badness. Next, some might be wondering how can we be so sure that we are any saner than John McCluskey. The answer lies within the widespread consensus achieved by our society and also the considerable achievement and progress humans have made so far. It is true that we are not in a position to say we are all-mighty and understand everything in this world. However, I have every reason to believe that everyone can agree that what John McCluskey has done to the couple is not what a sane people would do. Thus, the argument that I make here, is not that we are saner than John, but that John’s action is less than fully sane. So, John McCluskey should not be hold responsible for murdering the couple. In this section, I will argue that life sentence without parole is the sentence he should receive, instead of death penalty. Even though I believe that John McCluskey is not responsible for committing the murder, I do believe that he should receive a life sentence without parole based on the deterrence theory that punishing criminals is justified for the reason that it deters future crime. And, my reason is based on the grounds that the right to punish on the right to self-defense. One might argue that there seems to be a conflict between my belief that
First, some might argue that John McCluskey is blameworthy for the death of the couple. And, if we gave up the belief that he is blameworthy, we could no longer legitimately judge between a good action and a bad action. I would counter-argue that even though we believe that McCluskey is not morally responsible for the death of the couple because of the brain abnormalities he had, we can still say that his actions were morally wrong, and that nobody should have acted the way he did to the couple. Therefore, even though we believe that McCluskey is not blameworthy for his action, it does not mean that we are threatening the judgements of wrongness or badness. Next, some might be wondering how can we be so sure that we are any saner than John McCluskey. The answer lies within the widespread consensus achieved by our society and also the considerable achievement and progress humans have made so far. It is true that we are not in a position to say we are all-mighty and understand everything in this world. However, I have every reason to believe that everyone can agree that what John McCluskey has done to the couple is not what a sane people would do. Thus, the argument that I make here, is not that we are saner than John, but that John’s action is less than fully sane. So, John McCluskey should not be hold responsible for murdering the couple. In this section, I will argue that life sentence without parole is the sentence he should receive, instead of death penalty. Even though I believe that John McCluskey is not responsible for committing the murder, I do believe that he should receive a life sentence without parole based on the deterrence theory that punishing criminals is justified for the reason that it deters future crime. And, my reason is based on the grounds that the right to punish on the right to self-defense. One might argue that there seems to be a conflict between my belief that