Deontological people argue for the death penalty through retributivism which states that the punishment should resemble the crime, meaning that if you kill a person the only just punishment would be for the guilty person to be killed. One way a Consequentialist argues against the death penalty is, “that life in prison for murderers result in greater overall happiness or goodness for society than sentencing them to death.” (351). Human life for consequentialists holds great value so by keeping someone alive it brings more happiness. A deontological view can be taken to argue against the death penalty by affirming that, “human beings have inherent value and dignity, all persons have a right to life, punishment should be fair (and the use of capital punishment discriminates against minorities and the poor), or the punishment should fit the crime (and
Second, those favoring capital punishment contend that society should support those practices that will bring about the greatest balance of good over evil, and capital punishment is one such practice. Capital punishment benefits society because it may deter violent crime. While it is difficult to produce direct evidence to support this claim since, by definition, those who are deterred by the death penalty do not commit murders, common sense tells us that they will die if they perform a certain act, they will be unwilling to perform that act. If the threat of death stays in the hand of a would-be murder, and we abolish the death penalty, we will sacrifice the lives of many innocent victims whose murders could have been deterred. But if, in fact, the death penalty does not deter, and we continue to impose it, we have only sacrificed the lives of convicted murderers.
In the words of Kenneth Jost, one of this view 's main proponents, “the irrevocable nature of the death penalty renders it an unsustainable and indefensible remedy in an imperfect justice system” (Jost "Death Penalty Debates" 984). According to this view the growing number of exonerations
Immanuel Kant, a supporter of capital punishment, offered us of the most complicated, if not ambiguous, views on the subject. In fact, he would’ve ironically disagreed with its modern proponents. Those who advocate capital punishment today often do so for utilitarian reasons. For example, the death sentence would protect society by not only preventing a purpertrator from committing the same crime again, it would also deter others by setting an example. Kant would’ve argued the rights of the condemned are being trampled; by using him as an example, we are using him as a means to an end.
Self-defense and just wars are cited as cases of morally justified killing. Accepting these premises, I point out that when cases of justified killing in self-defense are altered to include an element of delay, disarming and premeditation, they too become murder. Since the death penalty clearly involves the elements of delay, disarming and premeditation, I conclude that the death penalty is murder in the biblical sense and ought to be abolished in any God-fearing (or otherwise moral) society. Traditional opposition to capital punishment has generally been based on one or more of the following claims: (1) Capital punishment is immoral because all killing is immoral, (2) Capital punishment is unjust because killing is irreversible, or (3) Capital punishment is ineffective because killing is not a deterrent to killing. I propose to argue instead that capital punishment is immoral because of the kind of killing it is, rather than because it is a kind of killing simpliciter.
Social utility cannot justify the existence of capital punishment, nor can it be used as rationale to reject it. Retributivism fails as well because the death penalty may be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment. Absolutism seems to be the only school of thought that cannot be logically dismantled. No evidence exists that would demonstrate the benefits of capital punishment and statistically the only thing that is accomplished is another death in society.
Death Penalty 1) Two major claims: death penalty serves as a deterrent and death penalty is morally justified because murderers can’t live and you have a right to kill them. 2) The premises and conclusions that the author of the letter outlines are as follows: Death Penalty serves as a deterrent. a. Criminals fear the death penalty. b.
The utilitarianism theory holds that an action is moral if it produces the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people that are affected by the consequences of the action DeGeorge 44). Jeremy Bentham believed that one should measure the intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, or purity and their opposites when evaluating for each person that is affected (DeGeorge 46). For example, a consequence that gives a more desirable quality like pleasure would be favored, just like if one would receive a good immediately rather than at a later time, the sooner would be favored. To know whether the action produces the absolute greatest good, one must compare it with alternative actions as well. To determine whether an action is moral or not, one should calculate the action and its opposite.
Therefore, to inflict harm to one,it is simply useless. However, the punishment fits the crime therefore, it is morally just. Capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at offensive conduct. This may be appealing to many but it is essential in an ordered society. It asks our citizens to rely on legal procedures rather than to self-help their wrongs doings.
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates the consequences of a person’s action to determine if their actions are right or wrong (Slote 34). According to the theory, a morally right act is one that has more good outcomes than bad ones. In this ethical theory, the end justifies the means; hence, it argues that people should first determine the good and bad consequences of actions before they do them. After determining the total outcomes, it is important to investigate whether the total good consequences are more. If the good ones outweigh the bad ones, then that action is morally right, but if it is the reverse, then the action is morally wrong.