There’s a fine line between what is moral and what isn’t. It’s all a matter of perspective, really. As we’ve seen with the same sex marriage debate, one side views it as immoral to deny human rights and the other sees it as immoral to go against the word of the Holy Book. Whatever side of morality and rationality you’re on, you have an opinion. However, capital punishment and the mentality of it leaves me with a giant question mark. There isn’t necessarily a definitive answer to the question of whether or not we should have the death penalty be a part of the system of justice. My stance on this issue has ranged from the absolutist to retributive and back again. With every article, with every opinion, I’ve learned that there is no right answer.
…show more content…
As mentioned previously, a major factor contributing towards the absolutist view is that the death penalty is that it is immoral. However, “maldistribution of any punishment among those who deserve it is irrelevant to its justice and morality.” For example, if I get a parking ticket for parking in the visitor 's parking lot when I’m not technically a visitor and a college student who doesn’t want to pay for parking doesn’t get a ticket for parking in the same area, this is a maldistribution of justice. This isn’t to say that I didn’t deserve the ticket, but that the other party should as well. Even if there is a maldistribution of justice, that shouldn’t determine the abolition of the parking ticket. It’s still just, even if it isn’t fair. Ernest Van den Haag spends the majority of his respective article refuting all the arguments against capital punishment, which in turn leads the reader to see a very clear example of why capital punishment is just. “The severity and finality of the death penalty is appropriate to the severity and finality of murder.” To legitimize the death penalty, Van den Haag makes the case that it is equal and appropriate and that anything less would not be just. Another point of concern that the author addresses is the degrading factor that comes along with the death row stamp. However, in his usual fashion, he dismisses this argument swiftly. “By murdering, the murderer has so dehumanized himself that he cannot remain among the living.” Van Den Haag argues that the act of murder essentially revokes one’s card of humanity. To do something so heinous deems one less than worthy of the life they were given. There’s a part of me that was drawn to this argument upon first reading it, because he nullifies all other arguments with his own counter-arguments. However, some murderers can go just fine without the death penalty and they should not be
As mentioned previously, a major factor contributing towards the absolutist view is that the death penalty is that it is immoral. However, “maldistribution of any punishment among those who deserve it is irrelevant to its justice and morality.” For example, if I get a parking ticket for parking in the visitor 's parking lot when I’m not technically a visitor and a college student who doesn’t want to pay for parking doesn’t get a ticket for parking in the same area, this is a maldistribution of justice. This isn’t to say that I didn’t deserve the ticket, but that the other party should as well. Even if there is a maldistribution of justice, that shouldn’t determine the abolition of the parking ticket. It’s still just, even if it isn’t fair. Ernest Van den Haag spends the majority of his respective article refuting all the arguments against capital punishment, which in turn leads the reader to see a very clear example of why capital punishment is just. “The severity and finality of the death penalty is appropriate to the severity and finality of murder.” To legitimize the death penalty, Van den Haag makes the case that it is equal and appropriate and that anything less would not be just. Another point of concern that the author addresses is the degrading factor that comes along with the death row stamp. However, in his usual fashion, he dismisses this argument swiftly. “By murdering, the murderer has so dehumanized himself that he cannot remain among the living.” Van Den Haag argues that the act of murder essentially revokes one’s card of humanity. To do something so heinous deems one less than worthy of the life they were given. There’s a part of me that was drawn to this argument upon first reading it, because he nullifies all other arguments with his own counter-arguments. However, some murderers can go just fine without the death penalty and they should not be