Week 7A: Punishment and the Death Penalty
Describe the differences between the deterrence argument and the retributive argument for punishment. Then use each of these arguments to give 1) a defense of, and 2) an argument for capital punishment. Finally, which side do you take in the debate about capital punishment and why?
example 1: I firmly do believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The looming specter of execution may make the criminal think twice, at least, before he commits violent acts, such as murder. People are most unlikely to engage in serious crime when they know it will bring them the ultimate penalty.
Most studies indicate that murders decrease with the death penalty. Although some say that the relationship between the death penalty and the crime rate is not as clear, it seems reasonable to think that the severity of punishment does make a difference. Logically, if someone thinks that there is actually a possibility of being executed for taking away a life, it may make them reconsider the choices they make. In addition, capital punishment provides closure to the victims’ family by carrying out justice. In these cases where a close person is taken through a violent crime, it provides massive pain to the family. Knowing that such a person would be executed often comforts them in terms of justice, and this helps them to heal. In this case, it acknowledges their loss and reminds them that the society values life, and the breach of it will never be tolerated.
Apart from this, capital punishment can save society from the repetition of crimes by these dangerous criminals. Once a person has committed such an abhorrent crime, there is more likelihood that they will commit it again. Through execution, we ensure that that person cannot commit another crime and harm another human being. In my opinion, capital punishment is a necessary tool for maintaining safety and order in society, while at the same time serving as one of the strong deterrents to violent crimes.
example 2: It is essentially based on the notion that punishment deters crime because of the fear of some consequence. In this regard, the death penalty remains the most fitting deterrent against heinous crimes like murder. When a potential criminal knows they have to face the death penalty, they will always think twice before engaging in such acts. It is at this point that individuals are less likely to indulge in criminal activities as far as the perceived risks associated with their being caught and punished go.
Many proponents of the death penalty argue that it sends a strong message to society: murder is an offense that will be received with the severest of consequences. By execution, the society is ridding itself of dangerous people who menace others, and simultaneously deterring those who might commit such crimes. While various studies have shown mixed results on the deterrent effect of capital punishment against future murders, proponents assert that the threat of execution cools would-be murderers.
Execution of repeat offenders or those who commit heinous crimes may bring justice to victims and their families. It reassures society that the judicial system is taking stiff action against people who inflict harm on other human beings. Perhaps the threat of capital punishment would not just deter potential murderers but also serve to reassure the public that something in the line of surety is being created for security. It is thus from a deterrence viewpoint that capital punishment can be potentially justified as a tool to safeguard society and uphold the rule of law. I support the death penalty because it may reduce crimes and give justice to victims, thus making the world a safe place for each one of us.
example 3:Such an approach relies on the idea that harsh punitive measures, such as capital punishment, serve to prevent further crimes from occurring in the future because it deters the potential criminal away. Or, put otherwise, the greater the punishment for committing a certain crime, the less likely a person would be to commit it. The supporters of the death penalty believe that just the existence of the death penalty will deter violent crime, especially murder, by means of strong disincentive. Successive evidence has been mixed to support it, while numerous studies have found no real link between the death penalty and reduced crime rates. In contrast, the retributive view holds that punishment is justified because offenders deserve to be punished. This approach is concerned less with deterrence and more with moral justice. Supporters argue that capital punishment is proportionate to heinous crimes and society must be affirming on the value of life by assuring those who take lives face the ultimate penalty.
It can, through deterrence, prevent future crimes due to the very straightforward fear of the death penalty in potential murderers. Through retribution, it is said to be just since it punishes crimes proportionally in that the harshest crime receives the most severe form of punishment.
Critics further disagree on the issue of deterrence, citing studies indicating no correlation between the death penalty and reduction in murder rates. They challenge the notion of retribution by citing the unethical nature of governmental killing and the possibility of false convictions.
I am opposed to the death penalty because of the failure it has shown to reveal some deterring effects, possibilities of irreversible mistakes, and the moral consequences of killing legally authorized. Emphasis should be shifted to rehabilitation and restoration rather than punishment.
Week 7B: Animal Ethics
In this discussion board, I would like you to pick one of the topics discussed regarding animal ethics, i.e. vegetarianism, speciesism, hunting, animal research, etc. and provide one argument for and one argument against based on the readings in the text. Finally, after providing those arguments, what is your view on the matter? What are your reasons for holding that view?
Non-Human Animals: Crash Course Philosophy #42 (youtube.com)