Gomez 1

Christian Gomez

Greg Spendlove

PHIL 1120-401

29 November 2017

An Eye for an Eye: The Death Penalty

The practice of the capital punishment has long been discussed, debated, and dissected

and it still oozes with controversy. In his essay An Eye for an Eye, author Stephen Nathanson

argues that the death penalty is unjust and calls for its abolition. Nathansons argument stems

from his belief that neither an equal punishment principle nor a proportionate punishment

principle can justify the use of the death penalty. In this paper, I will argue that Nathanson fails

because the equal punishment principle and the proportionate punishment principle can both be

used to justify capital punishment.

According to Kevin Murtagh, author of Punishment, he defines punishment as the

deliberate infliction of suffering on a supposed or actual defender for an offense such as a moral

or legal transgression (Murtagh). Going beyond the basics, the equal punishment principle

represents an eye for an eye mentality. Imagine a gunman who shoots a victim six times in the

chestshould the shooter also be shot in the chest six times? According to the equal punishment

principle, yes. What people deserve as recipients of rewards or punishments is determined by

what they do as agents (Nathanson 73). Nathanson further breaks down his argument against

the equal punishment principle by pointing out two main problems: First, appearances to the

contrary, it does not actually provide a measure of moral desert. Second, it does not provide an

adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment (p. 73). In other words,

Nathanson states that this concept advocates for punishments that arent morally acceptable. He
 Gomez 2

also believes that this principle raises the wrong answers to the question of what proper

punishment should be.

Nathanson states that the equal punishment principle doesnt provide a moral compass,

but I dont believe that is its main purpose. In truth, raw justice is the main purpose. The

backbone of this principle rests upon the eye for an eye standardwhat you do to others can

be done to yourself. Its true that it isnt crystal clear what punishments apply to which crimes,

however, this may make criminals think twice before harming someone if theyre subconsciously

aware that the same thing could happen to them if caught. While Nathanson questions the moral

grounds of this concept, it should be used and reserved for the very worst criminals. An

alternative to this would be to modify the equal punishment principle so that the punishment

doesnt necessarily have to be identical to the crime.

Unlike the equal punishment principle, proportional retributivism proposes that criminals

receive punishments proportional to crimethe worst crimes generate the worst punishments.

Although this system appears to be a better option than the equality punishment principle, a

proportional retributivist has difficulty in determining how much to punish someone. It tells us,

for example, that armed robbery should be punished more severely than embezzling and less

severely than murder, but it does not tell us how much to punish any of these (Nathanson 77).

Nathanson acknowledges that while the proportionality principle may be correct in theory, its

unable to determine specific punishments for specific crimes by itself.

In his publication Retributive Justice, Alec Walen states, the appeal of retributive

justice as a theory of punishment rests in part on direct intuitive support, in part on the claim that

it is better than alternative accounts of punishment, and in part on arguments tying it to deeper

moral principles. There are no barbaric crimes (Nathanson 76). There is much less ambiguity.
 Gomez 3

It is clear and does justice to our ordinary belief that certain punishments are unjust because

they are too severe or too lenient for the crime committed (Nathanson 76). The proportionality

principle is flexible, open, and offers options. This type of justice does not punish the innocent

only wrongdoers get the punishment they deservein a morally acceptable way.

Nathanson is adamant about the abolition of the death penalty and everything it

symbolizes. He is tired of seeing innocent people killed by this policy. Philosopher Jean Boldin

suggests sentencing should only be done by a competent judge and based on solid proof that

eliminates all possibility of error (Couzinet). Does the allowance of the death penalty promote a

lack of respect for human dignity? If we take the life of a criminal, we convey the idea that by

his deeds he has made himself worthless and totally without human value (Nathanson 138).

Below I have set up a modus ponens pattern to illustrate Nathansons view:

1) If the death penalty results in a lack of regard for human life, then it should be

abolished.

2) The death penalty results in a lack of regard for human life.

3) The death penalty should be abolished.

This argument is an accurate representation of a modus ponens format. (2) can be

questioned and thus, Nathansons argument is not a sound one.

In Richard C. Dieters Secondary Smoke Surrounds the Capital Punishment Debate, he

compares arguing the morality of the death penalty to attacking the morality of smoking twenty

years ago. Dieter believes that capital punishment is not only immoral, but it enhances racism, a

lack of respect for the law, and costs too much money. Dieter, like Nathanson, calls for the

abolition of the death penalty and believes the negative effects outweigh any possible benefits.
 Gomez 4

In my opinion, abolishing the death penalty would be a mistake. I understand why some

may want the death penalty eliminated. I dont think it should be used often, but only when

necessary, based on the crime committed. But the burning questions is, what constitutes

necessary? Murder. Acts of terror. Pedophilia. Certain things just arent tolerable in this world.

Nathanson talks about human dignity and valuesbut what about dignity and values when it

comes to a murderer? Sure, theyre still human, but does a cold-blooded killer still deserve to be

treated with dignity? Does a cold-blooded killer even have values? Some will argue those things

were lost when they decided to kill. They dont deserve the same values. David Simpson, who

wrote Albert Camus, references Camus, an old philosopher, and how he felt about the death

penalty. If there were to be a real equivalence, the death penalty would have to be pronounced

upon a criminal who had forewarned his victim of the very moment he would put him to a

horrible death, and who, from that time on, had kept him confined at his own discretion for a

period of months. It is not in private life that one meets such monsters (Simpson).

Nathanson's argument against the death penalty creates more apprehension in the way of

the death penaltys defenders than by actually telling us why its immoral to execute someone.

He failed to show how the system can be resolved. Cesare Beccaria, a philosopher from the

1700s, wrote a book called On Crimes and Punishments. In this work, he presents a critique of

the use of capital punishment and argues that long-term imprisonment is a better alternative than

capital punishment. He presented optionsNathanson didnt. Abolishing the death penalty is his

only solution, and my response to that is that its not a proper solution. With some crimes, the

death penalty is the only rational and moral response. Nathason is against the death penalty based

on his belief that punishment as a proportionate tool or deterrence used against people promotes
 Gomez 5

inhumanness. If someone commits an inhumane act (i.e. murder, rape, pedophilia), shouldnt

they be treated inhumanely?

Igor Primoratz, the author of A Life for a Life, states that the modern humanistic and

democratic tradition is based on the idea that all people are equal. All people arent equal. I

agree with Primoratz. A murderer is not equivalent to a good, productive, law-abiding citizen. A

rapist is not equivalent to someone who loves and treats women and human life with respect.

These people are not the same, and should not be treated the same. This isnt to say that they

dont deserve rightsbut they dont deserve the same rights we all have. I dont think thats

unreasonable to say.

In conclusion, I have argued that the death penalty is not immoral and should not be

abolished, and that the death penalty can be justified by the equal punishment principle and

proportional retributivism. I support the legal concept of capital punishment, as is defined by

law.
 Gomez 6

Scholarly Sources

Couzinet, Marie-Dominique, ed. Jean Bodin. Roma: Memini, 2001. Ret November 29, 2017.

URL = http://www.iep.utm.edu/bodin/#SH3a>

Dieter, Richard. Secondary Smoke Surrounds the Capital Punishment Debate, Criminal Justice

Ethics, 1994. Print

Murtagh, Kevin Punishment, date n/a. John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Ret November 29,

2017. URL = http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/#H5

Nathanson, Stephen. An Eye for an Eye?: The Morality of Punishing by Death. Totowa, N.J:
Rowman & Littlefield, 1987. Print.

Primoratz, Igor. Justifying legal punishment: A life for a life. Humanities Press, 1997. Print

Simpson, David, Albert Camus, date n/a. DePaul University, Ret November 29, 2017. URL =
http://www.iep.utm.edu/camus/#SSH5cviii>

Unknown author, Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments. date n/a, Ret. November 29,
2017. URL = http://www.iep.utm.edu/beccaria/#H3>

Walen, Alec, "Retributive Justice", Winter 2016 Edition. June 18, 2014. Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
Ret November 29, 2017. URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/justice-
retributive/>