Argumentative Capital Punishment

1297 Words6 Pages
Capital punishment is usually considered acceptable, at least in certain circumstances. Many people may find a retributivist argument compelling and decide that because of this capital punishment is permissible, at least in the case of punishing a murderer. I, for one, do not find this argument compelling. I do not think that capital punishment should be used, let alone that the retributivist argument justifies its use. Many people find that capital punishment is just when it comes to killing a murderer. They may find that capital punishment is acceptable in this case due to retribution-based arguments. These arguments look back at what has already occurred and from that decide what the best punishment is for the criminal. They may also find that capital punishment is acceptable in certain cases due to the deterrence-based argument, however, I will not discuss these arguments because there is no definitive proof that capital punishment works as a deterrent in all cases and I think that there are more important points in the argument than just its deterrence. Instead, I will be tackling the retributivist arguments…show more content…
The first position is that the guilty deserve to be punished. The second is that only the guilty should be punished. And the third is that the guilty should be punished proportionally to the crime that they commit (A Defense of the Death Penalty, 2). These positions seem to make sense and seem to hold true in most cases. Let me start off by saying that I agree with Pojman’s three stances. I do believe that the guilty and only the guilty should be punished and that they should be punished proportionally to their crime. However, proportional and equal are not the same thing. By supporting capital punishment you would be supporting the killing of a murderer and that would be punishing a criminal with an equal punishment, which is not necessarily a proportional
Open Document