Capital Punishment Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison. The most famous retributivist Kant, states that the guilty ought to get punished because they chose to act wrongly, and by punishing them, we are respecting them as a moral agents. This occurs because humans are given the ability to reason and act morally and thus if we don’t punish them we are not treating them as moral agents.
Capital Punishment When giving the definition for punishment and atonement, they can be perceived as the same thing. Punishment is ‘’the act of punishing someone or a way of punishing someone’ while atonement is’ ’reparation for an offense or injury. Atonement is more justified way of making right for a wrong doing. The duty of fixing what has been wrong is owed to the person most inflicted by the morally unjustified act. Kant would be in favor of killing the offender who has committed the crime; He believes there is no parallel between death and the most miserable life.
There were procedures that were put in place to stop Capital Punishment and God occasionally spared lives of people whose behaviours would have meant death. However, there were Christians that recognised that Capital Punishment was wrong in very early history: Pre-Reformation Christians in the 1400s stressed Christ’s instruction to ‘turn the other cheek’ and they therefore opposed Capital Punishment. But, for the most part of history, Christians recognised that capital punishment was needed to control society. As an example, Pope Innocent III, put forward the proposal that: "The secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood, provide... ... middle of paper ... ... Most Anglicans and Protestants Most Anglicans and Protestants have opposed Capital Punishment since the 1960s.
This belief does not make sense to me; if the life of the unborn is considered precious, then all life should be considered precious, including those who have allegedly committed terrible crimes. Opponents of the death penalty believe that the death penalty is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, is racially biased, can often times be meted out to an innocent person, and is not a deterrent against future murders. Let us begin by first dealing with the issue of the death penalty as being a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Are there terrible murders being committed in this country today? Absolutely.
“Surely we should want our anti-clericalists to have a touch of belief about them, especially when compared to the truly cynical.” Wolfe (¶ 14, 2002). In his book, Separation of Church and State, Philip Hamburger called many of the politicians “…opportunistic” however; their type of behavior is often seen throughout our society today. In his article, “Church and State Should be Separate,” Wolfe (2002) uses lawyers as an example; The history of American jurisprudence is filled with examples of lawyers seeking to build the strongest possible cases for their clients or causes, dropping one argument and employing another if it promises a greater chance of success, even if it seems to contradict the first. (¶ 13). Throughout his argument, Wolfe also cites the court case, “Everson vs. Board of Education,” which placed separation of church and state into constitutional law in 1947.
Cloning is condemned because of the violation of our dignity. Most religions are cautious against applying the new technology to humans, but for varying reasons. "Protestant theology emphasizes the view that nature is "fallen" and subject to improvement... But while they tend to support using technology to fix flaws in nature, Protestant theologians say cloning of humans crosses the line" (Herbert, Sheler and Watson 62). There are so many possibilities that cloning brings about; and most of them bring about nothing more than destruction of the human race.
There are still debates in these countries whether or not capital punishment is a just punishment for certain crimes. Many Christians feel that Capital Punishment is the right way to provide justice and many other Christians feel that Capital Punishment is just another cruel way to kill someone. In a sense both of the arguments are true. It does provide justice to t... ... middle of paper ... ... has the right to take it. After taking all this information into account, I have come to the co nclusion that all Christian's do not have to believe the same thing in order to follow the same God.
Christianity and Allowing Capital Punishment The question of whether Christians should allow capital punishment is controversial and is often argued between many Christians. This question can be answered by using the bible to help them understand their morale and ways of life. The Christians believe that Christians should allow capital punishment and they argue this by using the bible in Exodus 21 24 "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" this suggests that the bible is saying that if a person commits a crime such as murder then the criminal should be treated with the same crime. This shows that the bible says that if a person is guilty of murder then the criminal himself should be murdered which shows that the bible is supporting capital punishment. The Christians would argue that God himself commands the use of capital punishment.
Then, as the source of values, humans have dignity, which Immanuel Kant defines in his Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals as something so valuable that nothing could transcend it in worth. It follows that to be human, to have dignity, one must value above all else those things which give you dignity. This means one must value absolutely the rationality, freedom, and autonomy of oneself, but also of other individuals. However; there are some crimes, some murders, committed with such violence and complete disregard for life, that we stop valuing the rationality, the freedom, and the autonomy of the murder so highly. The question is how much do we devalue the criminal?
The person should have a punished that is equally cruel as the crime that has been committed. People do not agree that the punishment that the offender is receiving will bring back the dead or even ease the pain of their loved ones feel. For the sake of please society’s need for revenge, payback is justified by the punishing of the criminal that causes the criminal to suffer to the same level that their victims did. Statistics show that capital punishment does deter crime. Though, the retribution will never take the brutal behavior of the offender, it does serve for pleasing society’s need for restoring moral order, as retaliation would be required if punishment was not executed.