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
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