ProCapital Punishment and Abolishment stance on capital punishment
Vanden Haag: The Ultimate punishment
Theauthor’s strategy, as identified in our group, entails the advocacyfor capital punishment as a valid and justifiable way of dealingwith, deterring and preventing future crime. He begins by portrayingdifferent perspectives regarding the death penalty as a capitalpunishment measure and then proceeds to highlight the controversiesinvolved. Most importantly, the author speaks about howmaldistribution of any punishment among the people appears irrelevantto its morality and justice. These factors allow the author to bringout his thesis statement where he states that equal justice requiresequal distribution as opposed to equality. We believe that the authorbrings out these points, (Page 2), by using the example of theimposition of the death penalty on guilty black people but not whiteguilty people to depict the irrationally discriminatory as well ascapricious distribution. Additionally, Van den Haag points outvarious big ideas regarding the independence of justice todistributional injustices. For instance, he states that justicerequires guilty people should be punished regardless of whether otherconvicts have avoided punishment.
Consequently,we identified other ideas such as racial discrimination, miscarriagesof justice and deterrence to advocate for the use of capitalpunishment. However, his ideas seem to favor the retention of thedeath penalty as a way of seeking justice for crimes such as murder.These ideas are propagated by the author’s belief that the deathpenalty brings out fear and thus deters some prospective murderer asopposed to imprisonment. He managed to convince us about his opinionby using ideologies from various philosophers such as Sir JamesFitzjames Stephen who stated that some people abstain from murder forfear of the death penalty. On the other hand, the author contradictsus about his beliefs by using arguments of opponents who claim thatkilling convicted criminals encourages, endorses and legitimizesunlawful killing. Nevertheless, in using these arguments, he managesto bring out the abolitionist view that contends the fact that thedeath penalty violates some fundamental moral principles such as theright to life. These elements depict Durkheim’s influence on theauthor based on the belief that religion’s consequences functionwith the aim of serving many purposes for society and socialrelationships as well as for individuals. These objectives includedisciplinary, cohesion, vitalization and euphoria which the authoremphasizes that the death penalty in violation of the right to lifeonly accentuates the communal nature of religion as opposed to theindividual nature.
Thegroup identified the author’s strategy through the assessment ofthe failures and successes of the prison as a penal policy based onthe power-knowledge framework. He initiates the assessment bydescribing how capital punishment as a criminal policy can beunderstood through relating it to other state power-exercise schemes.However, the achievement of such an evaluation occurs through theincorporation of criminological research, a procedure which indicateswhether some particular penal sanctions bring about effectivemaneuvers in state power-exercises. The author employs these factorswith the aim of determining whether or not capital punishment createsan effective response to murder. He thus focuses on how otherphilosophers and writers conceptualize the interrelationship betweenpower and knowledge. Most importantly, these factors indicate thefact that criminological research shows that maneuvers built tocontrol crime bear no effects on rates of legally defined offences.The author suggests that these tactics facilitate in the productionof a net increase in career criminality, reinforcement of thelegitimization of the exercises of power over others and are costly.Nevertheless, these elements help in bringing out the author’sobjective that entails the determination of why these unsuccessfulcrime control stratagems are efficiently maintained. Additionally, wealso found the thesis statement propagated by the author in page 3,which involves the fact that the existence of the death penalty showsno significant deterrent superiority or inferiority as compared toother punishments.
Consequently,the author highlights various important ideas through the articlebased on the framework applied in capital punishment. Some of theseideas include illustrations of efforts made in deterring the rates ofcrimes and preventing future offences. Besides, he manages to bringout power-exercise depictions that define the nature of crime andcriminals as well as differentiate the divisions with the aim ofinvigorating state tactics in subjugation. These factors are followedclosely by the reinforcement of the fact that states are responsiveto crime victimization. Besides, the author utilizes perspectivesfrom other writers who assert that insufficient application ofcapital punishment undermines the deterrent effect. For instance, onthe fourth page, the author refers to Lehtinen’s proposal that theeffective response to such limited context would require execution ofall first-degree murderers which amount to about 3000 people everyyear. However, the implementation of such responses as mentioned bythe author would result in ethical and scientific challenges.Contrastingly, the author points out different researchers who statethat the deterrent, educational and moralizing long-range effects ofpunishment are largely independent of the nature of the penaltiesemployed. These plain facts bring out convincing ideas about capitalpunishment by highlighting different ideologies brought out byvarious writers. For instance, in the fourth and fifth page, theauthor quotes different beliefs on those who support and oppose thedeath penalty. Besides, the author employs an abolitionist’sinfluence in arguing that the death penalty in maximizing the welfareof society by preventing repeated crimes as well as deterring futurecrimes. Conclusively, the two authors bring about intersecting ideasregarding the execution of criminals who have committed heinousmurders with the aim of preventing future crimes.