Farnsworth 1 Cody Farnsworth Greg Spendlove PHIL 1120-003 25 November, 2013 A Tooth for a Tooth and Everybody Gums

Their Dinner and its Delicious It is argued that capital punishment, in all cases must be abolished in todays society. In reality, capital punishment is an elemental necessity, outweighing any burdens it may bring upon a nation. Therefore it must be preserved as a means to justly punish murderers with unquestionable guilt, in order to preserve justice. I will argue for the premises that make this statement true and then respond to what I consider the stronger abolitionist arguments. It should go without argument that when a crime is committed, there must be a reciprocating punishment. It is fair to say that that punishment should fit the crime. Murder, being the most severe crime, needs to be countered with the most severe punishment. Capital punishment is the only retribution suited for such a person with no regard for human life, who has chosen to destroy the life of another. Because they have robbed their victim of everything possible, so must the offender be robbed of the same. Admittedly, it does not right the situation. There can be no absolute restitution for the victim, but this is precisely why the death penalty must remain, for anything less severe would be an injustice. I propose that a person does in fact give up certain rights when they choose to murder. As Primoratz suggests, a law of reciprocity will permit the statement that one only retains for themselves, those rights in which they respect of others (161). It follows that, when one commits murder by unjustly taking the life of another, they have then forfeited the right to their own life.

Farnsworth 2 Otherwise a terrible injustice has been set forth, putting the life of the murderer above that of his victim. Therefore, we must say that a murderer has given up those rights. One of the stronger arguments for the abolishment of the death penalty from Richard Dieter, is that with no reason to believe that capital punishment can be used as the strongest deterrent to murder, and hence provide a safer society, why not lock up murderers and throw away the key (83)? Would this not be a more tolerant and simple approach while serving the same purpose? In response to this argument I would say life sentences are in fact not equal and therefore do not serve the same purpose as capital punishment. It is true a life sentence will effectively remove the offender from the common public and may seem to be a more tolerant practice. But the removal of the offender is not the sole purpose, nor is the purpose to accommodate the offender. I would argue the purpose behind capital punishment is to show the upmost respect for life by seeking justice. There can be no justice if a murderer is allowed to live out their life. In doing so, they are allowed the potential (be it even the slightest) of lifes experiences that their victim was robbed of. Because the victim ultimately lost all chance of lifes experience, justice can only be achieved by eliminating that same chance for the offender. Therefore life sentences cannot fulfill the justice required in cases of murder. Another argument for abolishment is that capital punishment does not encompass enough true value to compensate for the burden it places on society. If as Primoratz suggests, atonement of any kind is ruled out (159), how does killing the offender have any benefit when nothing can make up for the loss of life? And without a significant benefit to counter its negative effects on society, namely those of high cost, time, racial tension, and underlying disrespect for the law, capital punishment must logically be ruled out (Dieter 83).

Farnsworth 3 To this I would argue that capital punishment is not being used to compensate victims. The purpose is not to reclaim what was taken, but to condemn murder beyond all other crime. The intent is to realize justice. There are unarguably, negative consequences of capital punishment as mentioned above. I can argue that most of these consequences are side effects to any criminal case and not exclusive to capital punishment cases. These cases are only more prominent because of their finality. However they contain the same scrutinized factors of other less severe cases. Therefore I again make the argument that the issue of dispute here is not capital punishment, but that of a flawed system. The only relevant and exclusive argument would be for cost and the great amount of time required for most death penalty cases. These are valid issues, but only reflect upon the immense care and consideration put forth to ensure justice is served. The next argument for abolishment I will address is that a certain level of respect needs to be shown for all human life no matter the worth or circumstances associated with it. Indeed the constitution declares that all humans are born with inalienable and unforfetiable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How then can the state deny these rights to anyone, even a murderer? Should not the higher ground be taken as Nathanson would put it, to show respect for human dignity (138). A state cannot hypocritically allow itself to do just what it forbids its citizens. Therefore capital punishment must be abolished if the state is to follow its own law. In reply to the above, I must diverge back to the definition of murder. To be clear on what is meant by the term I will use the same definition Primeratz gave. Murder is the criminal homicide perpetrated voluntarily and intentionally or in wanton disregard for human life (Primeratz 158). Capital punishment does not fall under this definition, so the two cannot be described as the same. Therefore, the death penalty may be used free of the term murder by a just

Farnsworth 4 state having convicted the offender in a just trial. In so doing, an immense level of respect for human life is exhibited. I would argue that the state is absolutely setting the standard by declaring the value and upmost importance of human life by using the death penalty to eliminate those who would not place the same value upon it. Perhaps the most compelling argument against the death penalty is one that brings up wrongful conviction. To summarize, it states that if there is any chance whatsoever, of a wrongful conviction leading to the execution of an innocent person, then capital punishment must be abolished. For the duty of preserving the life of an innocent far outweighs any benefit gained from executing a murderer. In response to the above statement, I must agree that innocent life must be preserved. That in fact is the strongest case for the death penalty, in that it is the consequence of taking such a life. What I pose here is that the wrongful conviction argument is not in fact an argument against capital punishment. Indeed the same case can be made against a wrongful conviction with any type of sentencing. Therefore the argument is one against procedure of the sentencing and not against the death penalty itself. The opposed would certainly make an argument of the special circumstances surrounding the death penalty, mainly the finality of it being reason enough to do away with capital punishment. However, they are still not making a valid argument against the death penalty itself. Instead they highlight a need to reform an imperfect method used in conviction, not the actual punishment. The solution to this dilemma is to use the death penalty only for those cases that are with no doubt of guilt. Again an argument can be made that a just trial is already set up to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is after all its purpose, intent, and duty. But at times it can fail.

Farnsworth 5 While I cannot layout the details for what would be required for 100% certainty in a trial, I can say that if it were achieved, and it certainly can be in at least some cases, then the death penalty can and should be used in those cases. I have shown that the abolishment arguments do not work. They are either unsound or are simply attacking procedure rather than the death penalty itself. To not allow for capital punishment is to not allow for justice. It must be retained if we are to show true respect to the lives of victims and to preserve the standard at which we regard human life.

Farnsworth 6 Works Cited Dieter, Richard. Secondary Smoke Surrounds the Capital Punishment Debate. Criminal Justice Ethics. Vol 13, No. 2. (1994), p. 2, 82-84. Nathanson, Stephen. An Eye for an Eye?. An Eye for an Eye: The Immorality of Punishment By Death, 2nd ed. New York. Rowman and Littlefield, (2001), p, 72-77, 138-140, 145. Primoratz, Igor. A Life for a Life. Justifying Legal Punishment . Atlantic Highlands, NJ. Humanities Press, (1989), p.158-159, 161-166. .