Ethics

What are the two messages that would be sent by abolishing the death penalty according to Nathanson? How does he reply to the objection that murderers forfeit their right to be respected as human beings? Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not?
Why is deterrence not a decisive factor in the debate about the morality of the death penalty according to van den Haag? Explain your answers. Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not?
Why is “an eye for an eye” an attractive view according to Nathanson? What are the two main problems he raises for this view, and what are the possible replies an advocate of such a view might make?

ANSWER

Ethics

According to Nathanson, what are the two messages that would be sent by abolishing the death penalty?

According to Nathanson (2019), abolishing the death penalty, there is an expression of respecting human dignity. The first message that would be sent through abolishing the death penalty is respect for life. This means that all human lives deserve respect despite what they have done. Nathanson agrees that there is a need to punish people for their crimes, but there is no need to deprive them of everything. The death penalty means that the convict’s life is worthless and that they lack value as a human. Nathanson (2019) believes as a human being; no one has the right to affirm that a person’s life is worthless. Although people think that it’s morally free to kill a murderer, they still are human beings like the rest. The argument on and against the death penalty speaks about the kind of people all humans are, the nature of the society, and values. The morality of anger theory accepts capital punishment would not be morally legitimate and that the anger one feels about others does not guarantee the authority to kill the wrongdoers.

The second symbolic message is that Nathanson considers abolishing the death penalty to restrain violence. Discouraging capital punishment will ensure that society eliminates the sequence of violence that results in retribution and counter retribution. A country can convey the message to the public about restraining murder, denouncing the death penalty. Nathanson argues that the death penalty is not an answer to self-protective violence and thus should be rejected. Society can demonstrate value and respect for human life by restraining committing punishment for murders. Respecting life and restraining from violence can signify that the death penalty is against the universal law, which demands dignity and respect for human life.

How does he reply to the objection that murderers forfeit their right to be respected as human beings? Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not?

In the objection that murders tend to lose their rights to be valued as human beings, Nathan states that people fear death, which indicates that they respect life. Murderers do not forfeit their respect as humans since they fear death inflicted by the law (Nathanson, 2019). Additionally, by large, every person extends has the value of his life, and society needs to place high regard and preserve it. However, I disagree with Nathanson since murderers fail to respect the rights of others. I agree with the rights forfeiture theory of punishment that states that punishment is justified since the criminal has forfeited their right not to be subjected to hard treatment.

Why is deterrence not a decisive factor in the debate about the morality of the death penalty, according to van den Haag? Explain your answers. Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not?

Van Den Haag rejects the notion of the death penalty due to its discriminatory manner. He suggests that the death penalty is mal-distributed since it’s more executed among minority people (Reiman, 2017). Ideally, deterrence argues that punishment acts as a threat of executing a crime in the future. Many people tend to refrain from committing crimes due to deterrence. Relying on deterrence in the death penalty means that certain murders will be deterred from committing crimes. Van den Hagg states that he would favor retaining the death penalty as a reward for punishment even if the threat of execution cannot deter prospective murderers, but a few are not deterred by the thought of imprisonment and the fact that it’s more feared than imprisonment. I agree with Van Den Haag that sparing the lives of the prospective victims is more effective than protecting the lives of the imprisoned murderers.

Why is “an eye for an eye” an attractive view, according to Nathanson? What are the two main problems he raises for this view, and what are the possible replies an advocate of such a view might make?

An eye for an eye is an attractive consideration since it focuses on doing what you would like done to you by others. Nathanson believes that the death penalty should be abolished since an eye for an eye is not a valid argument for issuing capital punishment. One of the main problems with the death penalty aspect is that there is no real guidance in determining the most suitable punishment for a crime. Another issue is that the death penalty is inconsistent with the value of justice. Ideally, most individuals with death penalty punishments are victims of the reactionary criminal justice systems and extreme judgments that cannot be overturned if an individual is innocent (Hood and Hoyle, 2015). An advocate for the death penalty would argue that an eye for an eye would offer a pathway to let the punishment fit the crime. An eye for an eye in capital punishment is based on retribution. Advocates of an eye for an eye argue that capital punishment is done to get back at offenders for their actions.

References

Nathanson, S. (2019). Does It Matter If the Death Penalty Is Arbitrarily Administered?. In retribution (pp. 135-150). Routledge.

Reiman, J. H. (2017). Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag. In Correctional Ethics (pp. 117-150). Routledge.

Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. OUP Oxford.