About 25 years ago, in Furman versus Georgia, the United States Supreme Court considered if the death penalty violated the 8th Amendment on prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. According to the court, lack of uniformity in the standards of application of the death penalty led to arbitrary and discriminatory sentencing, and through this the eighth amendment was violated. Through this the penalty was rendered unconstitutional. The state however, in response to this, modified the death penalty legislation to create room for concerns of the court and in a later listening of the case, the upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty as applied in the new statutes. It has since been applied mainly through crucifixion, beheading, injection, electrocution or shooting (Blumenon, 2007).
The Lex Talionis principle of justice has been used to j
...ustify “two-wrongs-make-a-right” reasoning. This law tries to define a sort of combination of retribution and compensation and the point there in is no more than an eye could be taken for an eye. Lex’s idea was that the compensation for a wrong done should be equivalent to the wrong but not similar. In view of two-wrongs-make-a-right, capital punishment can be described as emotional not logical (Blumenson, 2007). The writer here tries to imply that since there is no logic reason a murderer can give for killing, then the law should not mind a logic reason to kill that criminal. Her point is actually that capital punishment is the society’s response to murder.
The truth of the matter is as Lex Talionis puts it that the compensation should be equivalent to the wrongful act done but not similar otherwise the action won’t be logical (Blumenson
2007). Even if death penalty was proven to be a logical fallacy, I do not belief in its efficacy. Studies have indicated a minimal deterrent effect on crime by capital punishment. At some point it will save lives due to fear of death in the murderers.
However, politicians will use this to show their toughness in crime control but in return they will cause extra deaths. Despite reducing murders, the initiative will lead to a reduction in population, a double loss. There are also great costs associated with the executions which are also a burden to the tax payers.
References
- Blumenson, E. (2007). Killing in Good Conscience: What's Wrong with Sunstein and Vermeule's Lesser Evil Argument for Capital
- Punishment and Other Human Rights Violations?. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 10(2), 210-238.
- Affirmative Action essays
- Assisted Suicide essays
- Capital Punishment essays
- Censorship essays
- Child Labour essays
- Child Protection essays
- Civil Rights essays
- Corporal Punishment essays
- Death Penalty essays
- Empowerment essays
- Euthanasia essays
- Gay Marriage essays
- Gun Control essays
- Human Trafficking essays
- Police Brutality essays
- Privacy essays
- Sex Trafficking essays
- Speech essays
- Acceptance essays
- Age Of Enlightenment essays
- Child Observation essays
- Confucianism essays
- Conscience essays
- Critical Reflection essays
- Destiny essays
- Determinism essays
- Empiricism essays
- Environmentalism essays
- Epistemology essays
- Ethics essays
- Ethos essays
- Existence essays
- Existentialism essays
- Fate essays
- Free Will essays
- Functionalism essays
- Future essays
- Good And Evil essays
- Human Nature essays
- Individualism essays
- Meaning Of Life essays
- Metaphysics essays
- Natural Law essays
- Personal Philosophy essays
- Philosophers essays
- Philosophy Of Life essays
- Political Philosophy essays
- Pragmatism essays
- Reality essays
- Relativism essays
