Kill the Death Penalty:
Kramer Presents accessible critiques of the standard arguments advanced for the death penalty, making valuable introductory reading for students studying the topic Develops a novel justification for capital punishment that will become an essential reference point for future arguments over the practice Anchors the morality of capital punishment in a philosophical theory of evil and its consequences that will be of relevance and interest to normative ethicists working beyond criminal law theory The Ethics of Capital Punishment A Philosophical Investigation of Evil and its Consequences Matthew H.
Kramer Description Debate has long been waged over the morality of capital punishment, with standard arguments in its favor, grounded in the values of retribution or deterrence, being marshalled against familiar arguments against the practice.
In The Ethics of Capital Punishment, Matthew Kramer takes a fresh look at the philosophical arguments on which the system of state execution should stand or fall, and develops a novel, controversial argument in its justification.
The book pursues both a project of critical debunking of the familiar rationales for capital punishment and a project of partial vindication. The critical part presents an accessible and engaging critique of major arguments that have been offered - from the deterrence of future wrongdoing to the justice of retributory killing - arguing that they all fail to justify current practices of state execution.
These chapters, suitable for use in teaching courses on the death penalty, offer a valuable restatement of the current debates over the morality capital punishment.
The book then presents an original justification for the death penalty, one that is free-standing rather than an aspect or offshoot of a general theory of punishment. Its purgative rationale, which has not heretofore been propounded in any contemporary philosophical and practical debates over the death penalty, derives from a philosophical reconception of the nature of evil and the nature of defilement.
As the book contributes to philosophical discussions of those phenomena, it also contributes importantly to general normative ethics with sustained reflections on the differences between consequentialist approaches to punishment and deontological approaches.
Above all, the volume contributes to the philosophy of criminal law with a fresh rationale for the use of the death penalty and with probing assessments of all the major theories of punishment that have been broached by jurists and philosophers for centuries.
Although the book is a work of philosophy, it is readily accessible to readers who have not studied philosophy. It will stir both philosophers and anyone engaged with the death penalty to reconsider whether the institution of capital punishment can be an appropriate response to extreme evil.By contrast, Rusty Hubbarth, vice president of the pro-death penalty Texas group Justice for All, sees the consequences of abolition as all bad.
His prediction: “More murders.”. An Economic Analysis of the Death Penalty Martin Kasten This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economics Departments at Illinois Wesleyan University and Illinois State University.
It has been accepted for inclusion in University Avenue Undergraduate Journal of . Decreased crime rates, changes in sentencing guidelines, diminishing support, and demographics (the young and people of color are much less likely to support the death penalty) are all leading toward less capital punishment and its ultimate abolition.
If you accidentally hit someone with your car and kill them at night, what are the legal consequences? How does the penalty differ if the court proves you intended to hit them? Update Cancel.
ad by Honey. When someone causes the death of another person through negligent or reckless driving, however. Bentonville, AR - What would executions look like if they returned to Arkansas?
And will bringing back the death penalty have the effects we think it will? In response to Laura Crawford (Monitor letters, July 13) and every one else who is against the death penalty: saying that it is not a deterrent is in fact one of the reasons it should remain.