Walter Berns The Morality Of Capital Punishment

Improved Essays
"To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice." Desmond Tutu said this and I could not agree more. I think that capital punishment is morality wrong, and that Walter Berns’ “The Morality of Capital Punishment” article in Exploring Ethics fails on many grounds. Berns uses anger and a politically correct government to advocate the use of capital punishment. I am going to try and prove that Burns is wrong, and that by killing we are only fueling the fire and a continuous cycle. Also, by killing we are taking away a fundamental right we are born with: the right to live. Burns is stuck on this idea that by being angry, we show that we care; he states “ if someone does not become angry with an insult or an injury suffered …show more content…
The public has a huge impact in whether a guilty, or innocent verdict is handed out. So, I feel Burns promoting anger at the time of arrest, is hurting people in court, and potentially costing innocent people to do prison time or worse be sentenced to death. It is a well known fact that innocent people have been put to death over the years by the justice system. Since this is so, how does it affect Burns theory? If we accidentally put to death the wrong person according to burns we should feel angry, and someone should pay for this innocent persons death. So, following Burns theory should the Judge, the jury, or the executioner be put to death for this innocent person, or should all of them be put to death? They all had their part in this innocents death, and had a choice to not do it, even if it was their job. According to Burns someone has to be held accountable for this persons death, so who should be choose? This is where burns theory falls apart, because I don’t think burns himself could even answer this question without making, some sort of loophole in his theory. If we kill anyone of these people we are saying that the justice system can be wrong, and if that is true then burns idea, that the justice system is always right is flawed, and that the justice system is killing innocent …show more content…
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. Burns thinks that by killing the person we have alleviate the anger, and have rid the world of that wicked person. We have somehow, gained retribution for the act they have committed, and shown others that we do not allow this act. But, I believe by allowing the courts to legally kill we are promoting the act of killing. We are saying it is OK, to kill someone if they have killed someone you love. We are showing that anger is the answer, when someone does you wrong. Also, by killing someone we are taking away their right to live, and to anyone who is religious this is fundamentally wrong. I understand that allowing the person to keep these legal rights, it could be a challenge , because it is not easy to do all these things in prison, but the person being alive in prison

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Pro Capital Punishment

    • 1293 Words
    • 6 Pages

    This way, the criminal would then realize the severity of his actions and would pay for whatever he/she had done. Many believe that the “risk of a person being wrongly accused is almost nonexistent and is just an argument that opponents of the death penalty use to abolish the death penalty” (Kenneth 2005). “Supporters of the death penalty emphasize that opponents can’t prove that someone in modern time who was executed was actually innocent” (Kenneth 2005). On November 18 1998, Robin Lovitt was tried and sentenced to death on the count of murder (Kenneth 2005). Prosecutors said that an officer had “thrown away evidence [in a very intentional way]” which caused Lovitt to go back to court because of this solid piece of evidence that might have been the murder weapon which needed to be tested for DNA (Kenneth 2005).…

    • 1293 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Repeal Capital Punishment

    • 2254 Words
    • 9 Pages

    From my understanding, it is supposed to make criminals not commit crimes in order to get on death row but this hasn 't worked and will not work. Laws are intended to correct, by definition laws can’t obey, or isn’t intended to imitate or reproduce that nature of man. (Bedau, Cassell) The law says we can 't follow or obey the nature of man that 's exactly what we 're doing by following through with Capital Punishment. The by putting people on death row and to kill them is exactly what they did was murder because you 're taking someone 's life. This should be the start in stopping the Death Penalty because it 's morally wrong just like murdering is but just because it 's run by the government and the justice system doesn’t make it okay!…

    • 2254 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior 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
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Stop The Death Penalty

    • 1093 Words
    • 5 Pages

    It is a climate of violence and murder to avenge grievances. The death penalty has caused outrage in our society - A violent society breeds violence. It has brutalised society in a fundamental way – it has ruined demolished the states relationship with us citizens. “The state’s power to destroy innocuous life is a manifestation of the hidden wish that the state be allowed to do anything they pleases with life.” As said by George Kateb. If the death penalty is providing no benefit or outcome why are we letting this happen?…

    • 1093 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If that murderer were then put to death for their crime, it would be a violation of his or her rights. Therefore, wouldn’t capital punishment be immoral? Bedau responds to John Locke’s theory concerning this matter. Locke’s theory is that when a person takes away another person’s life, they have then forfeited their own right to live. Bedau reacts by addressing that there are other options for punishment other than the death penalty, and that nowhere states that a murderer must be put to death.…

    • 734 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kant’s ideology is to treat people as ends rather than as a means, meaning we respect the ends they choose for themselves, but we can’t allow them to use others as a means for their doings, so you have to punish them for their acts. Kant also believes the punishment ought to match the crime, if someone murders someone else, they themselves should be put to death. I go along with Kant’s idea of punishment, and disagree with Reiman’s thoughts on capital punishment. I believe if a person goes out of their way to kill someone for reasons other then defense or protection, then they are committing the worst possible crime. May it be revenge, religious reasons, or even enjoyment, none of these are acceptable enough to deem murder morally acceptable.…

    • 775 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Through some analysis, it can be found that this logic is flawed. The government should not have the right to kill its own citizens. The death penalty is an inefficient, unreasonable, and immoral policy. It should be banned from the United States. The following is the list of legal reasons for getting sentenced with the death penalty.…

    • 1676 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    It is what separates our mentality from the criminal’s mentality. We have a mind and a conscience that helps us decide what is morally right or wrong. In the article “Death Penalty,” it states how a man sentenced to death testified that he felt his whole body being burnt (Kiener). Problems like these make the death penalty inhumane, giving a strong reason for it not to be legal in America. Why do we need to practice it?…

    • 1982 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Another reason people don’t agree with capital punishment is because of constitutionality. People that are against the death punish believe that the concept of death itself is something serious and shouldn’t be taken lightly when it comes to killing a human being. They believe that the methods of execution are cruel ways for someone to die, and that the death penalty violates the eight amendment of the constitution. A third reason why people don’t agree with the death penalty is because of retribution itself. Retribution has the same meaning of revenge, and people believe that if the government decides to kill someone because they killed someone close to the victim then that would just continue a cycle of violence.…

    • 1938 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Simulating Murder Summary

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Humans want to be quilt free which requires them to pin the blame on other for their actions. Murder is a huge crime, which goes to show that it’s hard to justify such action even if done for the sake of another. Free will goes into play in all this, which explains the classic scenario where one is made to kill someone unless they want to be killed or someone else gets killed. When stripped of their free will, people find it morally ok to perform actions of harm when otherwise they wouldn’t. Morality is a big factor but also can become an instigator to produce this…

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics