Justifying Legal Punishment
Igor Primoratz defends the retributivist idea that a punishment is justified only if it gives a criminal his just deserts. But what do criminals deserve? Primoratz argues for the following principle: criminals deserve to be deprived of the same value that they deprived their victims of. Primoratz regards all human beings as possessed of lives of equal moral worth, and believes that the human life is the most valuable thing. He thinks that murders deserve to die. Since justice is a matter of giving people what they deserve, it follows that justice demands for murderers to be executed.
Primoratz has the most popular arguments, and finds problems for each of them. Opponents claim that capital punishments violates a
…show more content…
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 …show more content…
Sometimes we can not always give what they deserve but, giving them less than what they deserve is unfair. The bible believes in an eye for an eye. Meaning you can kill someone who has killed. I believe in punishing murders and they should get nothing less than what they deserve, but an eye for an eye, to me, is not always the correct punishment. I am in favor of proportional retributivism because it allows flexibility within a range of murder cases. It would allow a more heinous murderer to receive the death penalty and a less severe murder criminal to receive life in prison without violating
Many positions can be defended when debating the issue of capital punishment. In Jonathan Glover's essay "Executions," he maintains that there are three views that a person may have in regard to capital punishment: the retributivist, the absolutist, and the utilitarian. Although Glover recognizes that both statistical and intuitive evidence cannot validate the benefits of capital punishment, he can be considered a utilitarian because he believes that social usefulness is the only way to justify it. Martin Perlmutter on the other hand, maintains the retributivist view of capital punishment, which states that a murderer deserves to be punished because of a conscious decision to break the law with knowledge of the consequences. He even goes as far to claim that just as a winner of a contest has a right to a prize, a murderer has a right to be executed. Despite the fact that retributivism is not a position that I maintain, I agree with Perlmutter in his claim that social utility cannot be used to settle the debate about capital punishment. At the same time, I do not believe that retributivism justifies the death penalty either.
Igor Primoratz’s article, “Justifying Legal Punishment” presents the argument which illustrates that the only punishment which is correlative to the offense of murder is the death penalty. In this article he speaks out that a murder’s equal punishment is to be killed. As long as the murderer is alive, he can experience some values which he took from another human being. He supports this argument with many inconsiderable reasons. One of the reasons is that there is a time period which is that lapses between the passing of a death sentence and its execution. This argument is then supported by the claim that this period can last from several weeks or months, and this can extends to years (390). However, this view does not support the view of abolitionists,
Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view
On the premise that punishment is justified so long as it meted out as retribution for the offense committed; asserting that punishment of death for murderers is morally justified simply because of the degree of the crime and requires a vengeful punishment. Could this premise be applied to other crimes such as rape, arson, or burglary?
In conclusion, although there are objections to this way of thinking, I believe that capital punishment can be morally justified. Not only will the use of capital punishment help provide the families of victims with a feeling of security and reduce the ever rising population in our prisons, but it will also act as a deterring factor. Again, my goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is in a way that reduces the use of this practice to a minimum. This means that capital punishment will not become an everyday practice, but rather would be used in extreme situations where benefits such as deterrence, closure, and a population decrease can arise.
Radelet & Borg address the most common arguments for and against the death penalty, and how views on capital punishment have changed over time in respect to six specific areas: deterrence, incapacitation, caprice and bias, cost, innocence, and retribution.
...e is a pretty good argument when it comes to legalizing the Capital Punishment. He claims that nothing actually confirms his belief that life imprisonment is actually worse than the death sentence, and poses a pretty good question: “Murder isn't rational, so why expect a rational response to incentives?” ("It's Time to Abolish the Death Penalty")
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
...l punishment as a just and morally sound method of justice. After all, "An eye for an eye" seemed to be a rationale that many embraced as fair. Now there is an era of closer examination of what is truly just and morally ethical, as well as economically sound. A consequence needs to be fair, humane, and effective. Does capital punishment meet these criteria? There are compelling reasons to change the system we have blindly acclaimed. Hopefully we are in the process of implementing a new way of dealing with an age-old dilemma.
The war between capital punishment and life without parole is an ongoing debate being waged between the states. Capital Punishment, or the death penalty, is the process by which an individual is put to death by the state for a capital offense, whereas life without parole is when a capital offender is sentenced to a life behind bars with no opportunity for freedom. The choice to adopt or abolish capital punishment is up to each state, and it is the state’s verdict to determine if capital punishment is unjust or not. I do not believe in the capital punishment for four very important reasons: to execute an inmate the humane and correct way costs more than a lifetime in prison, it is not a deterrent for crime, the innocent may be wrongly executed, and capital punishment offers those on death row an easy way out.
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
In past centuries, the problem was how to find the most painful way to execute a criminal, not whether criminals should be executed or not. Killing alone wasn’t an acceptable way of punishment (McCuen 8). Nowadays, 97.5% of crimes go unpunished in the United States, and the 2.5% who are punished are not being treated harsh enough (90). The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense (Kurtz). Criminals who murder, rape, kidnap, torture others, or commit treason should not have the same punishment as crimes of lesser value (Kurtz). This point is backed up by the bible, where it is stated in the first chapter. In Genesis 9:6 it says, “Yes, you must execute anyone who murders another person, for to kill another person is to kill a living being made in God’s image”. It is also brought up again in Exodus 21:23-24 where it states, “But if any harm results, then the offender must be punis...
It is morally right as the when the person is convicted, they must get the punishment. It is opinion of the public to the bad guy without concerning with the outcome of the punishment. This theory also is regarded as the offenders deserve to get the punishment not as to prevent from future wrongdoing . This theory also as the metaphorical to scared the society for not doing the same offense. Richard Swinbume, in his recommendation of retributive punishment, indicated that the state only has authority to impose punishment for criminal harm where it serves as a proxy for the individual harmed.' This is ‘‘one of the oldest and most basic justifications for
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.