3/6 Blog Post

       This weeks readings focused on the long-debated issue of the death penalty with reference to two articles: "A Defense of the Death Penalty" and "Why We Should Put the Death Penalty to Death." Just from looking at the titles of these articles, one may reach the conclusion that the two are going to have different outlooks on the issue.
       Louis Pojman argued that both traditional defenses are sound and together they make a strong case for retaining the death penalty. In other words, he believes that there is a combined theory of punishment that includes both a backward-looking judgment that what happened in the past was unacceptable, and a forward-looking judgment that a punishment, in this case death, will deter any potential murderers. If one is to look at different situations from this standpoint, each one would come to the conclusion that if someone is to participate in a malicious act, then they deserve death. Pojman additionally made sure to address the difference between retribution and revenge. He held the belief that the morality behind punishment is not vengeance, but rather desert. He believed that vengeance refers to "inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done" (Pojman, 109). On the flip side, he claims that retribution is the theory that a criminal deserves punishment fitting to the gravity of his crime. Pojman ultimately argues that the death penalty is necessary in society, and while I do believe it is fitting in some cases, I believe in others that it is not. On the flip side of this, the question might be raised, if not the death penalty then what? From my perspective, it seems as though at this time there is not alternate option. One has to take into consideration the amount of space and funding available in prisons.
       Nathanson, the second author, had a very different approach to the death penalty. He had the belief that the "eye for an eye" principle and the argument of deterrence are inadequate when trying to defend the death penalty. I do not agree entirely with this statement. As previously stated, I feel as though there are some instances in which the death penalty is acceptable, therefore I think it should still be used. Off of this, I think it important to consider how often it should be used; it is sometimes used in instances in which it is not entirely necessary. Overall, the one idea I agree with from Nathanson is that we must be able to separate the guilty from the innocent, and that with the current U.S. justice system it is not always possible, let alone easy.
       In conclusion, I feel as though the death penalty should stick around, but before it is used other options should be considered. This method of practice is used all too often in today's society, occasionally when it is not needed. The crimes people commit should not simply be disregarded, rather they should be examined more closely. From this point forward, I feel as though it would be beneficial for other forms of punishment to be examined.