The death penalty is a very controversial subject but is critical to discuss because of the rising impact it has in the United States. The death penalty has downfalls including it is biased towards race, jurors, lawyers, it is a violation of medical ethics and “brutalizing society”, it is more expensive than incarcerating a criminal for life, and the saddest fact is 1 in 25 criminals sentenced to death row have been found innocent since 1976. Many have mixed opinions on whether the death penalty should or should not be morally justified and on what grounds it should be. Stephen Nathanson attempts at the grounds that equality retributivism and proportional retribution can in no way justify the death penalty. I agree with Nathanson’s argument
…show more content…
Lex talionis expounds on the law of retribution principle which conveys the phrase “an eye for an eye.” When speaking in terms of “an eye for an eye” certain guidelines follow. One ought to treat others as they have been treated, and people earnings are determined by their own actions. Lex talionis seems moral although it is vague when determining the difference between rightfully and wrongfully treating other individuals. Thus, Lex talionis can be problematic because one can treat someone with complete disrespect because that might be how they want to be treated, thus, making the law of retribution to vague to be a moral way to justify the death penalty. The two objections mentioned following the idea that equal retributivism should be in fact a moral …show more content…
First off, one does not know how much suffering an individual goes through dead or alive. Each and every individual has different pain tolerances. Thus, it is hard to judge and determine the suffering one individual goes through and then apply that same amount of suffering onto another individual. The example mentioned in the first objection supports the claim that it is hard to determine ones suffering. The man who had worked so hard for everything he loved and had it all taken away from him because his family was gone experienced monumental suffering and life-changing tribulations. Let's say the criminal had nothing he loved in life as much as the man loved his family. In this case, it would be hard to allow the same suffering to the criminal as the victim went through. Then there are some crimes that do not produce any suffering. For example, let us say a wealthy man owns a few estates across the country. He ultimately only stays at his estate in Florida and does not bother to go to the other estates. Although, he does have a yard man, maids, and housekeepers to keep up with the estates he does not feel the need to go to them. He has so much money these houses are merely simple accessories to him rather than of importance to him. He hears that one of his estates gets
Lex talionis expounds on the law of retribution principle which conveys the phrase “an eye for an eye.” When speaking in terms of “an eye for an eye” certain guidelines follow. One ought to treat others as they have been treated, and people earnings are determined by their own actions. Lex talionis seems moral although it is vague when determining the difference between rightfully and wrongfully treating other individuals. Thus, Lex talionis can be problematic because one can treat someone with complete disrespect because that might be how they want to be treated, thus, making the law of retribution to vague to be a moral way to justify the death penalty. The two objections mentioned following the idea that equal retributivism should be in fact a moral …show more content…
First off, one does not know how much suffering an individual goes through dead or alive. Each and every individual has different pain tolerances. Thus, it is hard to judge and determine the suffering one individual goes through and then apply that same amount of suffering onto another individual. The example mentioned in the first objection supports the claim that it is hard to determine ones suffering. The man who had worked so hard for everything he loved and had it all taken away from him because his family was gone experienced monumental suffering and life-changing tribulations. Let's say the criminal had nothing he loved in life as much as the man loved his family. In this case, it would be hard to allow the same suffering to the criminal as the victim went through. Then there are some crimes that do not produce any suffering. For example, let us say a wealthy man owns a few estates across the country. He ultimately only stays at his estate in Florida and does not bother to go to the other estates. Although, he does have a yard man, maids, and housekeepers to keep up with the estates he does not feel the need to go to them. He has so much money these houses are merely simple accessories to him rather than of importance to him. He hears that one of his estates gets