Moral and Legal Issues Concering Capital Punishment
1. The main arguments David Gelernter makes related to the issue of capital punishment are focused in fact on the idea of strict justice and absolute equality between deeds. In this sense, he is the supporter of a certain sense of divine justice which at times must be made with a human hand. However, he questions the validity of the the actual act of the death penalty taking into account the fact that this punishment is in fact an arbitrary solution. In this sense, he asks himself in relation to a particular situation, but in fact under a general tone "Why did we execute the penitent and spare the impenitent?" (Gelernter, 1998). Therefore, he sets the question in relation to the actual fairness of the decisions taken when the issue of capital punishment is discussed. More precisely, he argues that indeed, the idea of divine justice is the actual engine which should drive the behavior of the individuals. At the same time however, there are situations in which mistakes are made and innocent or at least less guilty individuals suffer. At the same time, Gelernter argues the issue of the human nature. In this sense, he considers that indeed a murdered must be punished. At the same time however, it is rather hard to consider that murd
Regardless of the gravity of the punishment, criminals are not limited in their actions only by the fact that the respective crime is punishable by death. More precisely, it is clear that it is unjust and immoral to attack the physical integrity of any human being without defense, such as the suspect in custody. Another reason for which capital punishment is not effective is because of the historical background of this practice. His arguments are not convincingly in favor of the capital punishment because although we may consider talionlis lex as justifiable, we cannot take upon us the burden of limiting the life of a person under the conditions of a system of law which can be flawed. Secondly, capital punishment entangles the idea of taking a life, an element which is by definition and prom a biblical point of view, immoral. From this perspective, it is clear that it is not moral either because it does not enable the saving of other lives. Our big cities are full of murderers at large" (Gelernter, 1998). It represents a means of of deterrence precisely because the punishment can be revoked and thus can be one which is more serious because it does not gamble people's right to life. Indeed, from the start of the argument the facts lead to the conclusion that unless capital punishment represents a source of positive effects, it is immoral. In this sense, in the 17th century, there was a certain fear of the capital punishment because it occurred swiftly and with all the community present. Therefore, this starting point offers a completely different approach on the idea of crime. This is due to the fact that in the case of a misjudgment by the judicial system the sentence cannot be revoked after the execution of the accused.
Common topics in this essay:
David Gelernter,
East Asian,
capital punishment,
,
issue capital punishment,
capital punishment represents,
punishable death,
capital punishment effective,
punishment represents,
saving lives,
punishment effective,
gelernter argues,
death penalty,
human nature,
divine justice,
gelernter 1998,
|
Acceptance Essays
