3/6/17
In the reading for this week we are focusing on the topic of the death penalty. We are using two readings, Nathanson is against the death penalty and Pojman who is in support of it. They both produce very compelling arguments and back up there cases very well. Pojman starts his claim by stating exactly what he believes, which is that "Intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being is so evil that the perpetrator forfeits his own right to life." (Pojman 108) Pojman argues for the death penalty to stay because there is no rights given to someone who is no longer acting as a civil human being. He uses the arguments of capital punishment is not the same thing as revenge. Revenge is done to get back at someone capital punishment is an impersonal response to a crime committed. He also points out other misconceptions such as that capital punishment discriminates against minorities and the poor. However he shows that this is not true. Pojman's concludes that there will always be things that we can do better or differently, but as of right now capital punishment is justified in principle. As we all know there is always two sides of a story. Nathanson argues for the removal of the death penalty. One point he makes is stated, "for the actual death penalty to be consistent with the value of justice, it would have to be true that people who are punished by death deserve the punishment.” (Nathanson 130) he continues on to talking out how it would be impossible to determine who the worst of the worst killers are and there is no fair way to determine that. Nathanson claims that race, socioeconomic status, and quality of legal representation play too big of a role in deciding who lives and who dies. We originally declared them with one charge and now are determining whether they live or die based on irrelevant factors. Overall he found that it fails in theory, and is very inconsistent. I believe that Pojman made a clearer case with his article. He had more points to support his case where Nathanson was playing defense most of his article. However, both made good arguments and can have valid points no matter what side you stand on.
I agree that Pojman made a clearer case than Nathanson. However, we may disagree on the definition of “clear.” I believe that Nathanson’s argument was better organized because it very clearly separated the theoretical death penalty from it’s actual practice. However, Pojman’s argument was the clearest because he gave relevant analogies for his arguments to give the reader a deep understanding of his standpoint. His lightning analogy was very simple yet effective. It is true. If people saw the immediate repercussions for committing an act, they would be more likely to avoid committing a similar act. Nathanson’s argument was not as strong as Pojman’s because he doesn’t directly state that the death penalty is wrong. Rather, he points out the flaws in the legal system. Just as you have pointed out, both authors make good claims, and their reasoning is valid, but one author makes a slightly stronger claim than the other. To make Nathanson’s argument stronger, he should have expanded upon the moral and human aspect of killing individuals, whether or not they are innocent. I know opinions differ, but it seems that Nathanson could have an easy time arguing that one bad act does not make someone a bad person and worthy of irreversible punishment. If given the chance, anyone has the opportunity to turn their life around.
ReplyDelete