Stephen Nathanson: The Debolism Of Abolishing The Death Penalty

Decent Essays
In this chapter Stephen Nathanson discusses the symbolism of abolishing the death penalty, and claims that we express a respect for each person’s rights by refraining from depriving a murder of someone’s life. The death penalty has been an argument for decades now and still discussed if someone actually does deserve the death penalty. Stephen explains his view towards this claim, and identifies how this moral problem could be resolved. There are ways you could solve this problem but resolving claims in a certain way always have its’s cons as well. 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
…show more content…
The system doesn’t require treating those guilty of barbaric crimes barbarically. Proportionality principle can play a role in our thinking about punishments; again it doesn’t help with death penalty advocates. Out of all these main beliefs they all fail to reveal a distinguished supporting system with the death penalty. Could we just abolish the death penalty and not worry about it at all. Stephen reclaims that we as humans have respect for human dignity, we can punish people for their crimes but we can’t deprive them of everything, which the death penalty does. With the death penalty it’s basically saying to that convict that your life is basically worthless and has no human value. Nathanson believes we are not in any right position to affirm that to anyone. The main reason why this is such a big dispute is that people think a murderer has forfeited is rights as a human being, or morally free to kill him or her. To me though they do forfeit some of their rights but at the same time they are still a human being like the rest of us. Moral meaning of the constitution even bans cruel and unusual punishment to any given …show more content…
This would change our view towards every person that has committed murder, or even people who committed horrific crimes. With a Subjectivism system, I would have a certain amount of people be the judge of a person’s case. This could change the death penalty completely; it gives people an opportunity to observe a case deeply, not just to judge a person on what his actions were. Actions don’t describe a person as a human being, and that’s why I think Stephen eye for an eye system was wrong. You can’t punish someone based on what they did; Subjectivism will give anyone on this planet a chance to avoid the death penalty. How you might ask, to someone murder might be the biggest sin in the world, but in this system that’s not a moral fact. It’s just how you feel and your opinion towards the objective but again there is no moral objective fact towards your statement. A view like this is what we need, other people can justify that a murderer doesn’t deserve the death penalty. People will open their minds more broadly and look at the person as a human being. We are human beings and have rights, when someone murders we should look at them as a human being not this horrible nightmare that deserves to

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    I agree with Nathanson statement that if we were to take a criminal’s life we are conveying him of being worthless and having no human value. I do not think we should have the option of doing that to anyone. Even though we may hate or have so much anger towards the criminal, we still should not take his life. Also Nathanson says we should respect human dignity and well-being, so we can punish people for the crimes they committed but we should not deprive them of everything which the death penalty does (Nathanson, p. 544). I also think we should abolish the death penalty because killing a human for what they did wrong such as murder, will not solve the problem or give the victim permanent relief, it will only be temporary and we are just as wrong as them when they committed the crime.…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    There is no room for vengeance and a revenge stance in our justice system. The arguing stance for the death penalty says it deters murders, but in reality, the death penalty just leads to another loss of human life - regardless of the murder being an execution. When somebody tortures another human being, the government does not decide to torture that person in return. It’s the same for a rapist; the government does not rape the rapist. So, why does the government decide to murder the murderer?…

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Once they are dead its over no mulligans, so it should be difficult to make this decision. Koch has a great quote where he says; “If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn 't exist, government wouldn 't function at all.” meaning that government his flawed at all levels and should not be trusted with life. The most important replay Koch gives is does the death penalty cheapen the cost of a life. The death penalty must be seen as the ultimate punishment and not throw around. Yes Koch says if you cannot measure the cost of a human life, but murder can be a ruthless crime, but to condemn another man to death is not only costing that man his life but the emotional weight on the judge jury and the…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    But a number of people are still against the death penalty for moral reasons, even though, it would bring them safety. In Stanley Marcus’s article, “Public Safety Requires the Death Penalty” Marcus questions convicted murderers about their crimes, “they had no hesitation in killing again and again because they were subject to no more severe punishment than if they were convicted of robbery - and often even less.” (New York Times Article Marcus). We need capital punishment to frighten criminals and to get rid of them when they do wrong. Clearly, these criminals have no morals about killing, so why should we risk our safety to keep them alive? The convicted killers even admitted that they had no hesitation in killing the first time and they would have no hesitation killing again.…

    • 1122 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Some people may get closure from executions, others will move with their lives. Yet, some individuals never find peace. So, it would not be right to say that the death penalty gives closure to the victim 's family. In addition to this, the proponents of the death penalty argue that it is moral to kill the murderers. They seem to believe in an eye for an eye justice.…

    • 1902 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For example one argument that would go against the idea is presented from the view of a Kantian. This argument says you cannot treat a person as a mere means. This is saying that even though someone may of committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, it is not permissible for the person to receive it because that would be treating them as a mere means. In addition to the death penalty being used for retribution another way it can be used is for deterrence. It is thought that the death penalty is a good way to deter others from committing similar crimes because if they see that a person is sentenced to death they will not want the same out come, resulting in the person not committing the crime.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Against Death Penalty

    • 1736 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Should the death penalty be abolished? The answer is a resonating, no. I say this because even though the death penalty in my mind is against what I believe about not killing humans, we have human killing other humans. So with that there must be a punishment that can help deter the murderers of this world not to kill. That is exactly what the death penalty does it helps deter someone from killing another person by threatening their own life by capital punishment.…

    • 1736 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    According to Burns this punishment should be death, but what about the person’s fundamental rights 's to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Although Burns does not directly address it in this chapter, I believe he feels that when you commit a crime you lose these fundamental rights. But are these not fundamental rights that everyone is guaranteed under the Constitution? Their is no clause in the Constitution that says unless your a murder, you lose these rights. Allowing the government to legally kill the guilty person is wrong, and violates this person’s legal rights.…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Actually I do not want to say that all mentally handicapped people should be exposed to the death penalty because it is not good for rule of society and humanity. However, some people pose fatal danger to the society in highly an inhumane way, like as this example. In such a way, the death penalty becomes crucial for the benefit of the society. I claim each criminal, do not care how inhuman s/he is, and should be given the minimum one chance to modification him/herself. So, I do not recommend the death penalty for people who have done only one killing.…

    • 1259 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I would like to ask you, what would you feel if a relative or family member of yours was accused wrongly of doing a crime he did not commit and then given capital punishment? Even if he were proven innocent later on, would that be enough compensation for taking his life away? Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I firmly believe that death penalty or capital punishment should not be legalized. First, it is inhumane.…

    • 719 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics