Nathanson Death Penalty Research Paper

Better Essays
This paper will focus on whether our society should retain or abolish the death penalty. The death penalty is an important topic because it is portrayed/used as a means of getting even or a severe punishment for one’s actions and or behavior. In this paper I will talk about the debate to retain or abolish the death penalty, using Nathanson and Haag’s morals theories. I will explain first from Nathanson point who is a retributivist, proportionally standard, and abolitionist. Following that I will then go into Haag’s point who is known to be a retentionist, and a consequentialist. The side I will be arguing for is to abolish the death penalty, favoring Nathanson’s theories. Next I will give a counter example to why one would want to retain …show more content…
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. The retributivist Nathanson is he cannot support the death penalty. His theory states that he is proportionality based, where you can choose the highest severity for a crime but never reaching the death penalty. This is where a ranking system is created, setting the most upper limit to life in prison avoiding a barbaric punishment. Nathanson believes that human dignity matters, we may punish people for their crimes but deprive them everything which is what the death penalty does (Nathanson, p.544). The other side to this argument is to retain the death penalty, Haag who is a supporter, defends the morality of the death …show more content…
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. Nathanson states that this does not solve the problem at all because we are still acting barbarically to those who are guilty of a barbaric crime. If we continue to punish the wrongdoers with the same violent actions, we are setting an example that violence is the answer to our problems and that it is morally right. That is not what should be done we should not have to punish the wrongdoer with a severe punishment like the death penalty to get our point across. Like Nathanson says we should want the state to set the right example, and the only violence that is

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    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.…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 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

    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

    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

    In the debate “Abolish the Death Penalty”, Robert Blecker argues against the motion. He concludes that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for extreme crimes. His examples of extreme cases include terrorists, mass murderers of vulnerable victims (especially children), rapist murderers, contract killers, and torture killers. According to Mr. Blecker the other option for punishment, life without parole, does not fit the crime in these extreme cases. The argument he uses expresses disbelief that prisoners doing life without parole are indeed receiving the punishment that fits their crimes.…

    • 1244 Words
    • 5 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

    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

    (1350)Against the Death Penalty: An Analysis of Reiman’s “Moderate” Retribution Theory This argument against the death penalty will examine the “moderate retribution theory of Jeffrey Reiman. In this theory, the premise of retribution for murder defines the validation of the death penalty, yet not in the abuse of justice found in the American criminal justice system. Reiman believes that the death penalty should be abolished because criminals are not always cognitively aware of the crimes that they commit, which demands the rehabilitation of the individual. Reiman argues against the death penalty because it offers an extreme form of punishment for crimes that are rarely “conscious” in the mind of the criminal. This moderate form of retribution…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He is also a widely recognized opponent of the death penalty. Bedau argues that the act of capital punishment goes against the principle of respect for human life. He recognizes that when a person murders another person, they have taken away that person’s right and ability to life. Regardless if the person has committed murder, wouldn’t they still have their right to life? If that murderer were then put to death for their crime, it would be a violation of his or her rights.…

    • 734 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Killing defenseless human beings enacts the defeat of that person. Although execution may be physically painless, it causes an intense and severe psychological pain. He also believes that we, as a society, should place capital punishment in the same category as torture: things that we should never do to human beings, even when they deserve them, because how horrible they are. Reiman believes that punishing a murderer with life in prison, instead of with death penalty as the lex talionis would demand, would meet the necessary conditions he specifies for an acceptable and just alternative…

    • 961 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays