Diana Nguyen
Enforce Capital Punishment Capital punishment should be enforced because people who have committed crimes and broke the law should be punished in proportion to their crime. Capital punishment is a severe punishment; however the person who committed the crime opened themselves to the consequences. In a Virtue Ethics point of view the death penalty is a more personal theory and that it is up to a person’s virtues. Capital punishment can be supported based on the idea of retributivism which is the theory that a criminal should pay back for the crime they inflicted onto others. Capital punishment is about justice for those affected by crimes people have committed. Also, regardless of the consequences, justice entails punishing as …show more content…
William H. Shaw argues from a utilitarian perspective and argues that retributivism is not morally right. He claims that the death penalty will have no benefits towards society and that it will just cause a cycle of violence. Shaw focuses on the future effects and believes in modifying a person’s behavior. To others, retributivism is a way of revenge; however retributivism does not have to do with hatred, but justice. In addition, there are arguments on whether or not an eye for an eye is truly practiced because other than murder, we do not rape rapists for their crimes and also we do not truly know if the criminal suffers equally or more than the victim; however the victim does not deserve all the pain and suffering whereas the criminal does. Capital punishment is for people who deserve to pay for their crimes; however it has other negative issues such as misdistribution and miscarriages of justice. In Van den Haag’s essay, he argues that misdistribution is not important and is irrelevant to debate of capital punishment. In other words, justice is more important than equality and that justice is the only thing that matters. Miscarriages of justice are unjust in the view that we are executing innocent people; however although there are a number of people who are innocent and are sentenced to the death penalty, capital punishment is morally …show more content…
In Reiman’s essay, he says that retributivism is the idea that the criminal should be punished with the suffering he deserves and as he goes on he compared lex talionis to the golden rule which both have to deal with doing unto others as you want them to undo to you or as they have undo to you. Lex talionis defends the argument that capital punishment based on the idea that people who have committed heinous crimes should be punished and suffers in proportion to his crime. Van Den Haag argues that misdistribution between the guilty and innocent is unfair; however misdistribution towards the guilty is irrelevant to justice. Justice is about punishing as many guilty individuals as possible, regardless of the consequences. He also argues that even if people on death penalty are innocent, it is not more important than justice because capital punishment is good for society and also everyday human activities cost the lives of the innocent, yet we continue to practice them. In addition, capital punishment is more effective and better than alternative punishments; we enforce punishments in order to deter crimes and the justice for crimes that were not deterred. 1. In theory, Reiman agrees that the death penalty can be imposed following lex
Enforce Capital Punishment Capital punishment should be enforced because people who have committed crimes and broke the law should be punished in proportion to their crime. Capital punishment is a severe punishment; however the person who committed the crime opened themselves to the consequences. In a Virtue Ethics point of view the death penalty is a more personal theory and that it is up to a person’s virtues. Capital punishment can be supported based on the idea of retributivism which is the theory that a criminal should pay back for the crime they inflicted onto others. Capital punishment is about justice for those affected by crimes people have committed. Also, regardless of the consequences, justice entails punishing as …show more content…
William H. Shaw argues from a utilitarian perspective and argues that retributivism is not morally right. He claims that the death penalty will have no benefits towards society and that it will just cause a cycle of violence. Shaw focuses on the future effects and believes in modifying a person’s behavior. To others, retributivism is a way of revenge; however retributivism does not have to do with hatred, but justice. In addition, there are arguments on whether or not an eye for an eye is truly practiced because other than murder, we do not rape rapists for their crimes and also we do not truly know if the criminal suffers equally or more than the victim; however the victim does not deserve all the pain and suffering whereas the criminal does. Capital punishment is for people who deserve to pay for their crimes; however it has other negative issues such as misdistribution and miscarriages of justice. In Van den Haag’s essay, he argues that misdistribution is not important and is irrelevant to debate of capital punishment. In other words, justice is more important than equality and that justice is the only thing that matters. Miscarriages of justice are unjust in the view that we are executing innocent people; however although there are a number of people who are innocent and are sentenced to the death penalty, capital punishment is morally …show more content…
In Reiman’s essay, he says that retributivism is the idea that the criminal should be punished with the suffering he deserves and as he goes on he compared lex talionis to the golden rule which both have to deal with doing unto others as you want them to undo to you or as they have undo to you. Lex talionis defends the argument that capital punishment based on the idea that people who have committed heinous crimes should be punished and suffers in proportion to his crime. Van Den Haag argues that misdistribution between the guilty and innocent is unfair; however misdistribution towards the guilty is irrelevant to justice. Justice is about punishing as many guilty individuals as possible, regardless of the consequences. He also argues that even if people on death penalty are innocent, it is not more important than justice because capital punishment is good for society and also everyday human activities cost the lives of the innocent, yet we continue to practice them. In addition, capital punishment is more effective and better than alternative punishments; we enforce punishments in order to deter crimes and the justice for crimes that were not deterred. 1. In theory, Reiman agrees that the death penalty can be imposed following lex