I could use some help. For my ethics class I had to pick between the three views of the nature of legal punishment (which are deterrence, retribution, and Reformation/Restoration) I choose retribution (more specifically the death penalty). For this final paper we have to conduct a poll of 20-50 people to include in our paper. If anyone would be so kind as to provide a opinion on this question (are you in favor of the death penalty, why or why not) I would be ever so greatful.
Here's a little information on the three views...in case your unsure what they mean.
The three views of the nature of legal punishment are:
Deterrence - This refers to legal punishments which aim to prevent the perpetrator of a crime from committing a crime again, and/or to prevent other people from committing a crime. Part of the idea is that while a criminal is in jail, he or she will not be able to participate in criminal acts (although from what I hear, there's more crime inside of prisons than outside). Another aspect is that the punishment will teach the criminal not to break the law again. And another aspect is to warn people in general that if they break the law, they will face that punishment. So don't break the law.
Retribution - Well-known phrases such as "an eye for an eye" and "he got what he deserved" and "he paid his debt to society" fit here. Retribution is concerned with the offender "paying for his crime." It is retaliatory and vengeful. People who espouse this view aren't likely to care about whether the punishment prevents crime (as in deterrence) or helps turn around the life of the criminal (as with reformation) or even really if it helps the victim (restoration).
Reformation/Restoration - Reformation and restoration are focused on the well-being of the people involved. Reformation seeks to, as it suggests, reform the offender and return them to a productive member of society. Restoration seeks to make the victim whole again. They can go hand-in-hand, or be separate activities.
- sweetblonde2
- 06-28-2012, 12:53 PM
- lezgohawks
- 06-28-2012, 04:29 PM
So you want an opinion on the death penalty with respect to only retribution or encompassing all three views?
I am in favor of the death penalty with stipulations. There must be clear, overwhelming evidence, such as video or the defendant is aware of details only the killer would know, etc. Lifers w/o possibility of parole will no longer contribute anything to society, will never have free will, will only deplete public resources, etc.
On the other hand, if there is even a minuscule chance that the ruling could be overturned at some point, then I don't think the death penalty should apply. I know there have been cases where inmates were cleared only after they were executed and that's disgusting to me.
Hope that helps.
I am in favor of the death penalty with stipulations. There must be clear, overwhelming evidence, such as video or the defendant is aware of details only the killer would know, etc. Lifers w/o possibility of parole will no longer contribute anything to society, will never have free will, will only deplete public resources, etc.
On the other hand, if there is even a minuscule chance that the ruling could be overturned at some point, then I don't think the death penalty should apply. I know there have been cases where inmates were cleared only after they were executed and that's disgusting to me.
Hope that helps.
- target
- 06-28-2012, 07:48 PM
I am in favor of the idea of retribution and killing certain people. However, I don't trust human beings to not mess it up in practice.
- TeaBag_Plain
- 06-28-2012, 08:34 PM
Support--in the situation of overwhelming evidence and heinous nature of the crime. This person must have no qualities that would redeem him in the face of what he has done. Basically, are we better off with this person dead?
- Bigh1955
- 07-09-2012, 05:10 PM
SB2, Ethics paper?...my opinion?...take it with a grain of salt...I'm a hobbyist. lol
You pose an interesting question in that the subject matter tends to blur/confuse the lines between ethics, social conventions, religous beliefs, and the law - always a bone of contention for profs grading ethics papers. haha. (Not all religous beliefs are ethical - slaughtering non-believers being a good example. Not all social conventions are ethical - case in point: Nazi Germany. Since laws normally emerge from social conventions, we can not assume the law is ethical. Reasonable people are required (and normally do) give priority to what is ethical - a fact (and responsibility) made clear at the Nuremburg trials.) Ethics is about conducting yourself in a manner that serves the "highest good" for all parties.
I generally support retribution, except in the case of the death penalty when imposed by law (vs imposed by necessity). My overly simple reason for this exception is the margin for error is zero. Society has a right to impose penalties for wrong doing, otherwise the rule of law would end and chaos would ensue. Chaos is not good for a society, nor for most individuals. So, penalties support the society as a whole. (BTW - I also believe retribution deters crime - I spent 4 years in Saudi Arabia where there are few instances of theft and fewer murders). Returning to my objection - it would be difficult for me to ethically agree with capital punishment given my belief the findings in the courts are often wrong, and death can hardly be "the highest good" afforded to a potentially innocent person. I have no objection to a private citizen shooting or even killing someone who is attempting to harm them or someone unable to sufficiently defend themself. I think this goes to necessity, proximity, and timeliness.
All above - MHO
You pose an interesting question in that the subject matter tends to blur/confuse the lines between ethics, social conventions, religous beliefs, and the law - always a bone of contention for profs grading ethics papers. haha. (Not all religous beliefs are ethical - slaughtering non-believers being a good example. Not all social conventions are ethical - case in point: Nazi Germany. Since laws normally emerge from social conventions, we can not assume the law is ethical. Reasonable people are required (and normally do) give priority to what is ethical - a fact (and responsibility) made clear at the Nuremburg trials.) Ethics is about conducting yourself in a manner that serves the "highest good" for all parties.
I generally support retribution, except in the case of the death penalty when imposed by law (vs imposed by necessity). My overly simple reason for this exception is the margin for error is zero. Society has a right to impose penalties for wrong doing, otherwise the rule of law would end and chaos would ensue. Chaos is not good for a society, nor for most individuals. So, penalties support the society as a whole. (BTW - I also believe retribution deters crime - I spent 4 years in Saudi Arabia where there are few instances of theft and fewer murders). Returning to my objection - it would be difficult for me to ethically agree with capital punishment given my belief the findings in the courts are often wrong, and death can hardly be "the highest good" afforded to a potentially innocent person. I have no objection to a private citizen shooting or even killing someone who is attempting to harm them or someone unable to sufficiently defend themself. I think this goes to necessity, proximity, and timeliness.
All above - MHO