Argument about anti death penalty?
Best insight from top research papers
Opponents of the death penalty argue against it based on contingent features of its administration, such as discrimination, wrongful executions, and lack of evidence for deterrence ^[Finkelstein]. However, there are also grounds for opposing the death penalty even in the absence of these contingencies. Neither deterrence nor retributivism can justify the death penalty, and a new approach is needed. Contractarianism provides a potential solution, as it requires individuals to consent to the system of punishment under which they live and believe they will benefit from it. Rational contractors applying this conception of benefit would reject any system of punishment that includes the death penalty ^[Finkelstein].
Answers from top 5 papers
More filters
| Papers (5) | Insight |
|---|---|
| The paper argues against the death penalty by stating that neither deterrence nor retributivism justifies it. It suggests that contractarianism provides a limiting principle, as individuals must consent to the punishment system and believe they will benefit from it. | |
| The provided paper is about the diagnostic marker of pancreatitis and does not discuss the topic of anti-death penalty. Therefore, there is no information in the paper to answer the query. | |
1 Citations | The provided paper is about the book "Against Democracy" by Jason Brennan. It does not discuss the argument about the anti-death penalty. |
| The paper argues against the death penalty based on the principle of remedy, which requires legal institutions to remedy their mistakes and compensate those who suffer from wrongful sanctions. | |
Open access•Posted Content | The paper presents an argument against the death penalty based on Lockean assumptions and suggests it may have merit as a basis for a new strategy in capital cases. |
Related Questions
What are the arguments for and against the death penalty from an ethical standpoint?5 answersArguments for the death penalty from an ethical standpoint include retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation, as proponents argue that it serves as a just punishment for heinous crimes, deters potential offenders, and prevents further harm to society by incapacitating dangerous individuals. On the other hand, opponents of capital punishment raise ethical concerns based on utilitarian and Kantian perspectives, highlighting the importance of examining the consequences of such actions and questioning the moral permissibility of the death penalty. Additionally, some scholars emphasize the need to consider the full range of arguments both for and against capital punishment, including moral and religious doctrines supporting executions as an ethical exercise of state power.
What are the main arguments for and against euthanasia?4 answersThe main arguments for euthanasia include the belief that it is an act of mercy to relieve intractable suffering. Supporters emphasize the human right to a dignified death and the need to respect a person's desire to choose death over life in suffering and pain. They also argue for the autonomy of the patient to make their own choices about their life and death. Additionally, some argue for the regulation and legislation of euthanasia practices to protect both healthcare providers and patients. On the other hand, opponents of euthanasia argue that it goes against the absolute prohibition of murder and the right to life guaranteed by law. They also point out that interfering in the process of dying is inadmissible from a religious perspective.
What are the arguments against euthanasia?5 answersThere are several arguments against euthanasia. One argument is that euthanasia devalues human life and is offensive. Another argument is the slippery slope argument, which suggests that legalizing euthanasia can lead to a gradual erosion of the limits on euthanasia. Additionally, the argument that pain can be alleviated through palliative care and modern therapeutics is often put forward. Another argument against euthanasia is based on the importance of physician integrity and patient trust. Furthermore, some argue that legalizing euthanasia undermines the role and authority of the state. Finally, there are theological arguments against euthanasia, which emphasize the importance of human dignity and the sanctity of life.
What are the arguments in favor of euthanasia?5 answersThere are several arguments in favor of euthanasia. One argument is based on consistency, where proponents argue that if passive euthanasia is accepted, then active euthanasia should also be allowed. Another argument is based on respect for autonomy, stating that individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own lives, including the choice to end their suffering through euthanasia. The argument from justice suggests that it is unfair to deny terminally ill patients the option of euthanasia when it can provide relief from their unbearable suffering. Additionally, the argument from interests emphasizes the importance of mercy and the relief of suffering as a justification for euthanasia. These arguments together provide a ground for voluntary active medical euthanasia, where autonomy and justice can support the practice of euthanasia.
Not agree with death penalty?3 answersI do not agree with the death penalty. It is a controversial option that raises ethical concerns and goes against the sanctity of life. Additionally, patients who are harmed by their treatment deserve transparency, apologies, and measures to prevent similar incidents in the future. Death is not an event in life, and our life has no end in the same way our visual field has no limits. Therefore, taking someone's life through the death penalty contradicts the belief that life is infinite. Furthermore, harm reduction is explored as an alternative approach to addressing societal issues. In conclusion, the death penalty is not a justifiable practice, and alternative methods should be considered to ensure justice and respect for the sanctity of life.
What are the scientific arguments against the death penalty?5 answersScientific arguments against the death penalty include the recognition that DNA evidence, often used to support the innocence argument, is probabilistic and prone to uncertainties at all stages of its production. The association of science with certainty, as seen in the promotion of a "scientific" death penalty centered on DNA evidence, is inconsistent with contemporary notions of science that acknowledge uncertainty. Additionally, traditional theories of punishment, such as the deterrent, retributive, and rehabilitative theories, tend to provide reasons to favor the death penalty rather than rule it out. Arguments against the death penalty find little traction from within punishment theory, leading to the exploration of ideas outside of punishment theory, such as "dignity," "decency," or "civilization," as better grounds for criticizing capital punishment. Empirical evidence also suggests that the death penalty does not deter murder and may even stimulate it.