![]() Furthermore, contradictions to the state’s law of death penalty will allow the same thing to be said for other crimes such as time in prison being “contradictory to the legal protection of liberty” (Primoratz 370, 373).Ībolitionist can easily say that Death Penalty is immoral and injustice and should be abolished immediately because the hard truth is that they have never been in a situation in which their loved ones are brutally killed without any reason to by someone who has no regard of a human life and, thus, is undeserving of it. Firstly, how do we regard someone human, giving them the same rights as other non-murdering citizens, when they have forcibly taken other people’s rights to life and humanity themselves? If for some reason, abolitionists regard the right of living as absolute, they too, will have to dismiss the actions of “war, revolution, and self-defense”. Many of the abolitionists believe that “capital punishment violates a murderer’s right to live” and that “criminal law system which includes this punishment is contradictory, in that it prohibits murder and at the same time provides for it perpetration”. That being said, a concrete reason to retain the death penalty can be constructed from the arguments against the death penalty itself. ![]() Give us your paper requirements, choose a writer and we’ll deliver the highest-quality essay! Order now And for this principle to be used as one of the reasons to retain the death penalty, it must be bulletproof, without anyone criticizing and arguing against it. I agree with his reasons for the fact that the principle ‘an eye for an eye’ is not a justifiable argument for anti-abolisher to use as it does not hold accountable for all the different crimes. Though I disagree with Nathanson’s notions to abolish capital punishment, let me be extremely clear: if and only if a homicide or any intentional killing was the case, should the last resort of capital punishment ever be used. Throughout the excerpt from his book, Nathanson argues against this principle believing that one, it forces us to “commit highly immoral actions”raping a racist, for instance, or torturing a torturer” and two, it is not applicable for all crimes”what punishment should we give for drunk drivers or embezzlers? (Nathanson 380). ![]() According to Stephen Nathanson’s “An Eye for an Eye?”, he believes that capital punishment should be immediately abolished and that the principle of punishment, “lex talionis” which correlates to the classic saying “an eye for an eye” is not a valid reason for issuing the death penalty in any country, thus, abolishment of Capital Punishment should follow.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |