Comparing Two Arguments on Capital Punishment
In these two short essays, one by Anthony G. Amsterdam and another by Ernest Van Den Haag both authors make two very important views. Although one supports capital punishment and one is against capital punishment, both authors have good reasons to support their case. Amsterdam believes that capital punishment is a brutal process that a murderer has to go through. Amsterdam believes that the murderer should be punished for their actions, but should not go through capital punishment. Although Ven Den Haag agrees that capital punishment is one of the harshest penalties, it should nevertheless be used. Ven Den Haag believes that a murderer should take responsibility for their actions, and they should have no mercy.
In the short essay “Capital Punishment” by Amsterdam, he states that capital punishment is a brutal way of punishing a convict. Amsterdam makes a comparison to war, “Some evils, like war, are occasionally necessary, and perhaps capital punishment is one of them.” (pg. 325) Amsterdam implies that even though something “evil” was done, people should not be legally killed because of their actions. Killing a person because he/she killed someone else is kind of contradicting the law. The law states that it is illegal to kill someone, but in return the law is allowing them to be killed. Amsterdam also writes that if killing someone is really necessary then there should be a “very good and solid reason with sufficient evidence” (pg. 325).
Amsterdam also references errors that may occur. He states that “Capital punishment not merely kills people, it also kills some of them in error, and these errors which we can never correct.” There are many times ...
... middle of paper ...
...cussed. I agree with both sides on different levels. I especially agree with Ernest Van Dan Haag about the guilty party knowing his or her consequence when they commit the crime. As a child, everyone grew up with punishments when they committed a wrongful action. For example, when a child draws on the wall, they are punished by their parents because they did something that isn’t right. This was a way to teach their child, the parents punish their child so they will not make the same mistake again. Murderers who are guilty should obviously know the severe punishment when taking a life and committing wrongful actions. If someone suffers because of you, it is only morally right for you to suffer as much and possibly more. And with Amsterdam, I believe that once someone is dead it is hard to prove their innocence. At the end, both authors make very good points.
Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.
' The notion that punishment is needed as an example asserts that the punishment for murder, or the punishment any crime for that matter, should be employed as a deterrent and to inspire fear that will prevent others from fulfilling the said crime in the future. This illustrates a depressing and gloomy view of human nature, as being corrupt at its core and that fear remains the only thing that prevents us from committing evil acts. Rather, I believe that laws and the punishments associated with the infringement of laws are an agreement between a citizen and the society they live in about what is appropriate and agreeable behavior that protects the basic rights of all citizens and holds all citizens as equal in front of the law. Thus, if someone kills another person and the circumstances of the crime are not within the previously established laws, then the person should be held responsible regardless of whether one would kill that person if they could help it or
Opponents of capital punishment are outspoken and vehement in their arguments. They believe the death penalty does not does not deter crime. They also hold the opinion that endin...
Capital punishment is an age-old practice. It has been used in civilizations for millennia, and will continue to be used for millennia to come. Whether used for the right or wrong reasons, capital punishment is unmistakable in its various forms. From hangings, to firing squads, to lethal injections, capital punishment and the associated proceeding have evolved over time. There have been many arguments against capital punishment, many of which still hold true. As capital punishment has evolved over time, however, many of the most valid arguments have been proven all but null. Capital punishment still has its ethical and moral concerns, but as it has evolved over time these concerns have not necessarily become less valid, but fewer in number when specifically addressing capital punishment. The proceedings that come hand-in-hand with capital punishment, however, have become increasingly more rigorous and controversial and are the main focus of most capital punishment concerns.
Proponents of capital punishment believe that killing criminals is a moral and ethical way of punishing them. They feel there is justification in taking the life of a certain criminal, when in fact that justification is nothing more than revenge. They also feel that the death penalty deters crime, although there have been no conclusive studies confirming that viewpoint (Bedau).
The one thing about this argument, though, if it were valid, it would not show that capital punishment is never proportionate and just, but only that it is very rarely so. The implication of this argument is not that we ought to do away with capital punishment altogether, nor that we ought to restrict it to those cases of murder where the murderer had warned the victim weeks or months in advance of what he was going to do, but we ought to reexamine the procedure of carrying out this kind of
throughout the whole world--the last murderer lying in prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that every one may realize the desert of his deeds, and that blood-guiltiness may not remain on the people; for otherwise they will all be regarded as participants in the murder as a public violation of justice.” (Rachels, 2010)
Narration: When it comes to the death penalty there are Opponents and Proponents and although both aim to defend and protect society from crime their beliefs differ in how to accomplish this.
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
The first argument, which I agree, from van den Haag is the distribution of the death penalty regarding discrimination. For example, the death penalty has been targeted the white criminals more than the black criminals. Through this example, he states that the way that the death penalty is applied, evenly or unevenly, is unrelated to the morality of the death penalty. I agree with this argument because one cannot make the death penalty become moral just by applying it equally to every ethnic group; the death penalty and morality are irrelevant to each other. I believe one should not question the morality of the death penalty because it is pretty personal and emotional to judge the death penalty this way. Instead, one should question whether the criminal truly deserves the death penalty or whether the death penalty is just or unjust, not whether it is evenly or unevenly applied. The second argument that I agree with van den Haag is the death penalty is a better deterrent to crime. Even though he does not show why it is a better deterrent, but I still agree that it can prevent other potential criminals from committing crimes because of its threat on death. Some crimes are so inherently wrong, which many more might occur in the future, thus, they are required more strict penalties. Furthermore, the death penalty will certainly prevent the murderers who executed from committing crimes again. For instance, if we charge imprisonment on vicious murderers and after they get out, what if they commit the same crimes again. Therefore, they must be executed to help preventing more crimes in the future. The third argument that I agree with van den Haag is the justice in the death penalty. He states that even though the death penalties can be repulsive, but it is not unjust to execute the murderer because
(Baude, 21). This quote provides details of why the finality in the decisions regarding death may not accurately represent the justice the accused deserves. It augments the ultimate overarching point made by Scheck and Rust-Tierney that we should not determine death. Despite the strong points made throughout the debate, there were key issues that Schneck and Rust-Tierney adequately refuted. The first was their failure when they lacked a counter to Scheidegger’s point on how inmates are often treated in the facilities themselves.
While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that capital punishment is being used for vengeance or as a deterrent. Capital punishment has been used worldwide, not only by the governments to instill fear, but to show that there are repercussions to ones actions. From the time we are born, we are taught to learn the difference between right and wrong. It is ingrained in our brains, what happens to people that do bad things? Capital punishment is renowned for being the worst thing that could be brought amongst ones life.
There are many people that still believe that Capital Punishment is the best way to go to punish people who murder and commit other drastic crimes. I believe that murders should have the Death Penalty imposed to punish them for taking someone. else's life, although everyone has their own opinion and that is fine. to have a different opinion. Whether Capital Punishment is ethical is also up to your own beliefs, and I hope this essay has given you an insight into Capital Punishment and help you determine your own.
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
Capital punishment is now illegal in many countries, like the United Kingdom, France and Germany, but it is also legal in many other countries, such as China and the USA. There is a large debate on whether or not capital punishment should be illegal all over the world, as everyone has a different opinion on it. In this essay, I will state arguments for and against the death penalty, as well as my own opinion: capital punishment should be illegal everywhere. Firstly, many believe capital punishment should be reinstated in the United Kingdom because of the financial cost of prisoners. Annually, it costs about £26,978 per prisoner when they are in jail.