Ernest van den Haag, “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense of Capital Punishment” (Analyzing Moral Issues, 234-238 in the 6th Ed.)
Ernest van den Haag idea for government role was “securing rights and duties by specifying them through laws and enforcing the laws.” Haag argues that capital punishment is morally permissible on the arguments of retribution rather than deterrence it can be clearly reflected in his work. Ernest also addresses the idea of justice, and deterrence. Ernest van den Haag main point was, if the government should not only have the right to punish but to also enforce more extreme laws. The big law, Ernest was behind was the death penalty and how the government should be able to enforce an eye for an eye type of polices. Van …show more content…
He stands firm on his first argument, saying that the death penalty is not only the best but the only deterrent to crime. Ernest says the objection of life imprisonment is a light slap on the wrist and is not geared enough. Imprisonment only gives murderers more time to plot and scheme it does not change other criminal minds about making the same mistake. Some opponents of Haag stand argue that people have a right to life and morally we should not use capital punishment. An objection that Haag uses is that the right to life is forfeited if the crime that is broken is severe enough. While the counter argument to this is that some rights should be taken, but to kill another human being is not the only form of punishment. Once a life is taken, it cannot be returned, it’s a dark road that has no return. Some state that imprisonment does nothing to deter the next crime of committing that same crime. So sense the argument finds that life imprisonment seem to be a sensible punishment. While the death penalty is far too harsh because of its finality. This means that capital punishment is not morally …show more content…
He becomes a big supporter of the death penalty which is dominant in his paper where he list different objections to the death penalty than counteracts them. Koch starts off by saying that the death penalty is simply barbaric. The action itself is not barbaric due to its purpose of killing without suffering. A down side of killing people is you cannot take the death penalty back. 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
Ernest van den Haag idea for government role was “securing rights and duties by specifying them through laws and enforcing the laws.” Haag argues that capital punishment is morally permissible on the arguments of retribution rather than deterrence it can be clearly reflected in his work. Ernest also addresses the idea of justice, and deterrence. Ernest van den Haag main point was, if the government should not only have the right to punish but to also enforce more extreme laws. The big law, Ernest was behind was the death penalty and how the government should be able to enforce an eye for an eye type of polices. Van …show more content…
He stands firm on his first argument, saying that the death penalty is not only the best but the only deterrent to crime. Ernest says the objection of life imprisonment is a light slap on the wrist and is not geared enough. Imprisonment only gives murderers more time to plot and scheme it does not change other criminal minds about making the same mistake. Some opponents of Haag stand argue that people have a right to life and morally we should not use capital punishment. An objection that Haag uses is that the right to life is forfeited if the crime that is broken is severe enough. While the counter argument to this is that some rights should be taken, but to kill another human being is not the only form of punishment. Once a life is taken, it cannot be returned, it’s a dark road that has no return. Some state that imprisonment does nothing to deter the next crime of committing that same crime. So sense the argument finds that life imprisonment seem to be a sensible punishment. While the death penalty is far too harsh because of its finality. This means that capital punishment is not morally …show more content…
He becomes a big supporter of the death penalty which is dominant in his paper where he list different objections to the death penalty than counteracts them. Koch starts off by saying that the death penalty is simply barbaric. The action itself is not barbaric due to its purpose of killing without suffering. A down side of killing people is you cannot take the death penalty back. 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