Post by Derek Nahigyan on Jul 21, 2009 0:42:51 GMT -5
Capital Punishment: There are two main theories involved with the death penalty. Retributive theory, as in, an eye for an eye; they deserve punishment equal to what their crime is. And Deterrent theory, what punishment will prevent the most crime in the future? Best explained by, if the death penalty prevents more murders than life in prison, it is justified.
I would like to begin by arguing why capital punishment is valid. Ernest van den Haag says that if you are against the death penalty then you should change the rules and laws that merit the death penalty. Since capital punishment is only applied to murder and rape, it is a valid punishment for both retributive and deterrent theorists (retributists as well since they will not endorse the raping of a rapist). However, manslaughter, which is reckless killing (as with drunk driving or killing without malicious intent), does not immediately condone the death penalty. Thomas Hurka explores this further by using the upper limit qualification. The example he uses is: if you have a right to not be tickled and someone violates that right by tickling you, are you allowed to kill in self-defense of your violated rights? The reason he argues this is because, if you have no way to prevent or stop this right from being violated but you do have a gun, if you shoot him, does that constitute murder in self-defense or the death penalty for murder? Hurka says that, in that particular situation, to kill the person who is tickling you is a violation of the violator’s rights since the two are not equal rights. Van den Haag says, “Justice authorizes penalties [matching] the gravity of the crime.” (309) Therefore, you could only kill that person if they were going to kill you. Similarly, if you had access to a tranquilizer gun and a pistol, you should use the least means required to stop the violator. This works as an excellent example as to what deterrent theorists believe, the least possible means to prevent the violation of rights.
Ernest van den Haag argues, as a deterrent theorist, that the death penalty is moral. Another one of his arguments that I will argue is, “justice and equality are not identical.” (311) As we clearly saw with Thomas Hurka in the previous paragraph, it is injustice to be tickled (given that that is your right), but it is not equal to kill him because of the violation, because the two rights are not equal. He continues to debate that not everyone is put to death from committing a crime, likewise, not everyone is given a speeding ticket for speeding, but that does not make it undeserved. “Injustice [is] unjust while unequal justice is still justice.” (311) By making this point, van den Haag, has made it perfectly clear that while we cannot punish everyone for the same crime, even by punishing one, we are deterring further crimes. While Stephen Nathanson is against the death penalty, he shows support for van den Haag’s argument in talking about how one hero is rewarded for a heroic act, while other worthy heroes go unnoticed. This does not change the fact that they are heroes, or that they are less deserving, it actually encourages people to continue being just and good so that they may, one day, be presented an honors or award. Van den Haag does not consider the racial issue Nathanson goes into, however I believe that’s a different sort of debate, where I intend to go now is why deterrent theory is better suited than retributive.
Deterrent theory outweighs retributive because it prevents future crime. The best argument against this is by C.S. Lewis. Lewis determines that deterrent theory is referring to crime as a disease, and the death penalty (or other punishments) the cure. It seems almost ironic that Lewis should relate this to Christians being marched into rehabilitation centers to be reformed—just as the Nazis did with the Jews in World War II (via concentration camps). Lewis’s argument is that to treat crime as though it can be cured is impossible, since there are those who don’t want to be cured—and if you don’t wish to be cured, you won’t be. Likewise, if there could be a punishment that would deter crime more so than the death penalty, such as having them tortured, medicated (with casualties and deformities and other uncontrollable variables), the deterrent theorists would do it. Now, this argument can be refuted with Thomas Hurka’s upper limit qualification, such as that, using the least means to prevent future crimes; this is also why a speeding violation will never result in years in prison, because that’s taking the extreme and is a violation of the violator’s rights. Lewis argues that murderers should be punished for what they did, because it is equivalent. But once again, as van den Haag calls to our attention, justice and equality are not identical, they are different.
Also, though you may be able to identify all Christians, you can’t identify all murderers, so the best way to stop those in the future (or second time offenders) is to show what happens when they are caught. Learn by example, experience is the teacher.
I would like to begin by arguing why capital punishment is valid. Ernest van den Haag says that if you are against the death penalty then you should change the rules and laws that merit the death penalty. Since capital punishment is only applied to murder and rape, it is a valid punishment for both retributive and deterrent theorists (retributists as well since they will not endorse the raping of a rapist). However, manslaughter, which is reckless killing (as with drunk driving or killing without malicious intent), does not immediately condone the death penalty. Thomas Hurka explores this further by using the upper limit qualification. The example he uses is: if you have a right to not be tickled and someone violates that right by tickling you, are you allowed to kill in self-defense of your violated rights? The reason he argues this is because, if you have no way to prevent or stop this right from being violated but you do have a gun, if you shoot him, does that constitute murder in self-defense or the death penalty for murder? Hurka says that, in that particular situation, to kill the person who is tickling you is a violation of the violator’s rights since the two are not equal rights. Van den Haag says, “Justice authorizes penalties [matching] the gravity of the crime.” (309) Therefore, you could only kill that person if they were going to kill you. Similarly, if you had access to a tranquilizer gun and a pistol, you should use the least means required to stop the violator. This works as an excellent example as to what deterrent theorists believe, the least possible means to prevent the violation of rights.
Ernest van den Haag argues, as a deterrent theorist, that the death penalty is moral. Another one of his arguments that I will argue is, “justice and equality are not identical.” (311) As we clearly saw with Thomas Hurka in the previous paragraph, it is injustice to be tickled (given that that is your right), but it is not equal to kill him because of the violation, because the two rights are not equal. He continues to debate that not everyone is put to death from committing a crime, likewise, not everyone is given a speeding ticket for speeding, but that does not make it undeserved. “Injustice [is] unjust while unequal justice is still justice.” (311) By making this point, van den Haag, has made it perfectly clear that while we cannot punish everyone for the same crime, even by punishing one, we are deterring further crimes. While Stephen Nathanson is against the death penalty, he shows support for van den Haag’s argument in talking about how one hero is rewarded for a heroic act, while other worthy heroes go unnoticed. This does not change the fact that they are heroes, or that they are less deserving, it actually encourages people to continue being just and good so that they may, one day, be presented an honors or award. Van den Haag does not consider the racial issue Nathanson goes into, however I believe that’s a different sort of debate, where I intend to go now is why deterrent theory is better suited than retributive.
Deterrent theory outweighs retributive because it prevents future crime. The best argument against this is by C.S. Lewis. Lewis determines that deterrent theory is referring to crime as a disease, and the death penalty (or other punishments) the cure. It seems almost ironic that Lewis should relate this to Christians being marched into rehabilitation centers to be reformed—just as the Nazis did with the Jews in World War II (via concentration camps). Lewis’s argument is that to treat crime as though it can be cured is impossible, since there are those who don’t want to be cured—and if you don’t wish to be cured, you won’t be. Likewise, if there could be a punishment that would deter crime more so than the death penalty, such as having them tortured, medicated (with casualties and deformities and other uncontrollable variables), the deterrent theorists would do it. Now, this argument can be refuted with Thomas Hurka’s upper limit qualification, such as that, using the least means to prevent future crimes; this is also why a speeding violation will never result in years in prison, because that’s taking the extreme and is a violation of the violator’s rights. Lewis argues that murderers should be punished for what they did, because it is equivalent. But once again, as van den Haag calls to our attention, justice and equality are not identical, they are different.
Also, though you may be able to identify all Christians, you can’t identify all murderers, so the best way to stop those in the future (or second time offenders) is to show what happens when they are caught. Learn by example, experience is the teacher.