Equal Punishment Principle Nathanson Analysis

Stephen Nathanson criticizes the Equal Punishment Principle used to justify the death penalty. He believes that the idea of equal punishment, which is backed by common sense and tradition, has many flaws that need to be considered (Timmons, 2007, pg. 541). Nathanson explains why the Equal Punishment Principle would not work in actual practice and the constructive messages we can send by ridding of the death penalty. The Equal Punishment Principle, adapted from the “an eye for an eye” principle, requires that we treat people based on how they treat others. This view, held by generations of philosophers, is attractive because it satisfies our belief that people deserve to be punished if they have done something wrong and because it is a universal, traditional moral standard. The Equal Punishment Principle is probably the most attractive to philosophers because it appears to deliver a measurable way to develop punishments for law-breakers; …show more content…
He claims that the death penalty supports the belief that the criminal made himself insignificant and without any value by the crimes he committed. Nathanson does not believe that this is our place to determine a human’s worth. Once a criminal no longer stands a threat to anyone, they should not be considered so worthless that we take their life. When a person commits a crime, they lose some rights. But according to the constitution, they still have the right to life because it is a natural, inalienable right. The right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is not earned but it is acquired just from being a human and it cannot be lost (Timmons, 2007, pg. 545). Similarly, Nathanson believes that by abolishing the death penalty we can send the message that the inalienable rights are in fact treasured and the core of human dignity. It shows that even criminals deserve minimal respect and that human value cannot be