Morality Of The Death Penalty Analysis

Good Essays
The article “The Morality of The Death Penalty in New Hampshire” is an adopted review taken out of the New Hampshire Bar Journal. Published in the Summer of 2011, the article was written by James M. Reams and Charles T. Putnam. The article focuses on how standards of morality are not synonymous with statutes and that determining the indecency of an statute requires a lot more than moral intuition. The authors employ a wide range of argumentative strategies in order to base their claim that some statutes are necessary and serve a purpose but that it is necessary for individuals to understand determine for themselves what laws are necessary and indecent.
Putnam and Reams introduce the topic of the paper by examining the commission in charge
…show more content…
Although the two words may be an issue of linguistics and political correctness, Reams and Putnam analyze the use of morality in order to discern the problem with the death penalty. They make the case that a moral precept or a universal epistemology would be the best judgement for setting legislative laws. However, since there is a wide variety of held views and no objectified moral precept, laws are relatively set by a legislator. The authors main point follows after they address the problem with trying to connect the issue of the death penalty with widely held moral views. They assert that the real question concerning the death penalty is the issue of whether capital punishment can be administered in an acceptable way, not if the death penalty is moral or not. Ultimately, it is evident that Putnam and Reams defend the New Hampshire statutes of the death penalty. Yet, they acknowledge that it is up to the people of New Hampshire to decide on the decency of …show more content…
For example, by describing the problem that the commission came across when identifying the immorality of the death penalty they were able to transition the paper smoothly. They explain why morality is not a good precursor for setting laws because of the erratics of social understanding. They point out the advantages of employing moral precepts yet, it is flawed as they explain and so they attack this flaw. Using a conditional they state that in a democratic society it is within the people's interests to set laws according to their shared beliefs. It seems rather contradicting to make that claim since earlier they stated that it is impossible to align the views of individuals with governing bodies. It would have been more clear to make this distinction earlier in the introduction rather than building the argument to make that point. Nevertheless, the authors development skills worked well to transition an individual's own beliefs to fit with the authors. Although the article lacks substantive evidence, which is usually the case in morally centered debates, the authors make use of many examples to lambaste opposition. When the innocence of some death row inmates were presented to the commission the opposition against the death penalty felt that this probability was proof enough to denounce the taking of innocent life. The columnists addressed this concern and relates that if the death

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Therefore, we should use the death penalty”. This argument in my opinion tries to combat the issues brought up with the argument of what if someone is wrongly convicted, but does not necessarily solve the issue, because the deterrence factor like stated before is not proven, so in this situation an innocent life is still being taken. This goes along with my belief that the death penalty is permissible in principle, but not in…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In my opinion a Subjectivism system could resolve the dilemma our society is having with the death penalty. Stephen questions the moral concern in a particular matter, he argues against classic retributivist…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I will start with the cons or why people are against the death penalty. The first reason why people don’t agree with the death penalty is based on morality. Morality is one of the reasons why people believe that the death penalty shouldn’t be legal because they said that people who are rich are more likely to be treated better than those who are innocent and poor. Also there is a constant question in deciding whether it is mortal for the government to decide whether or not someone should be allowed to live or die regardless if they are guilty of a crime or not. Another reason people don’t agree with capital punishment is because of constitutionality.…

    • 1938 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In a Kantian world with moral laws, capital punishment does not seem to be a theoretical solution for punishing murders. But when someone does commit murder those individuals render their rights, and henceforth would acknowledge their action with consequences, such as capital punishment. Jeffrey H. Reiman presents various argument against the use of capital punishment with no adequate evidence of effectiveness. Capital punishment is a reasonable method to punish offenders for crimes committed, and is used for extremes heinous acts; it is also used under great scrutiny. Instead, Jeffrey H. Reimn conveys the notion of any violation of moral duties should be dealt with that same manner to the offender.…

    • 1490 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    To quote Gandhi, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” This quote holds some key evidence for the death penalty. Taking one man’s life to justify the murder of another is preposterous! Executing someone does not restore balance. At the start of researching the death penalty, my view was initially in favor of the death penalty, but after all the research and facts, my conclusive view is against the death penalty. I found that my views changed and even though I might have been for the death penalty at the beginning, after my research I found that the death penalty is nothing more than the government reminding everyone that in the end, they have the final say.…

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Nathanson who is an abolitionist is going to answer negatively to this whereas Haag response who is retentionists will answer positively. Nathanson believes the death penalty is immoral, he talks about two versions of what he calls equality, as a retributivist, where the punishment must fit the crime committed. The two versions are strict Lex talionis “eye for an eye” or that the punishment must bring about the same harm to the wrongdoer as it did to the victim. Nathanson argues that there are problems with Lex talionis, it suggests punishments that are morally unacceptable. Nathanson believes that punishment does not need to be hundred percent the same, it just needs to inflict the same amount of suffering.…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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.…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One such example is that of the death penalty. Cohen begins by saying that the death penalty is unempathetic and that instead we should focus on the possibility of changing the individual to be more empathetic. However, he directly contradicts this only a few pages earlier in saying terrorists killing others is not necessarily unempathetic because it is a belief. This poses the question, if terrorists killings are not necessarily unempathetic because of a belief, why is the death penalty unempathetic? Why isn’t it that we as a society believe some people to be a danger, so much so that they are not worth living?…

    • 2043 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If defendants were forced to testify they wouldn’t only have access to answering the questions from the defense attorney, possibly explaining the evidence against them, but they’d also be vulnerable to the cross-examination of the prosecution. The prosecution is supposedly supposed to uphold justice, meaning if they don’t have a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, then they should drop the charges. However, we can imagine that that rarely happens, even if the defendant is innocent. Therefore, if an innocent defendant is being cross examined, the prosecution should be convinced of their guilt, otherwise, they should have dropped the charges. It’s also important to note that an overwhelming majority, almost two-thirds, of those convicted of crimes haven’t graduated high school.…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    After noting the other sides’ claim that the death penalty doesn’t deter killings, he refutes this argument once again by getting the audience into the same mindset. He claims that it is invalid to say that the death penalty does not make California communities safer if the death penalty has rarely been in use in California and “endless legal appeals and procedures have made executions, for all intents and purposes, impossible,” (Boston…

    • 1467 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays