From an ethical perspective, many of the arguments for and against the death penalty are missing a consideration of key issues. Criminologists consider that the major reasons for criminal penalties are rehabilitation reforming the prisoner to be a better citizenincapacitation preventing the prisoner from committing other crimesdeterrence discouraging the prisoner and others from further crime and retribution society punishing the prisoner as vengeance for a criminal act.
Provocative questions and profound reflections were offered by attendees and speakers alike throughout the day. At a time of heightened controversy surrounding the death penalty, most discourse relies upon the political, philosophical, and legal dimensions of the practice, and its racial and social implications.
Religious voices, however, provide unique standpoints and important reflective dimensions that illuminate these political and other accounts of capital punishment.
This conference brought together scholars of various faiths and religious backgrounds from the fields of politics, religion, and law to take up a broad range of views on the death penalty. Special attention was given to the following guiding questions: What resources does religion-including religious beliefs, traditions, and institutions-provide in shaping current views about the death penalty?
In what ways do faith traditions and theological ideas shape how justice is conceived of and meted out? How do positions both for and against the death penalty draw upon various theological understandings of justice? Are these political and religious accounts of justice ultimately reconcilable?
What role ought religious beliefs play in a pluralistic democratic society that often presumes strict boundaries between matters of private faith and political life? How might citizens, jurors, neighbors and people of faith draw upon religious ideas in carrying out their civic responsibilities?
Religion, Justice and the Death Penalty. And a question that always occurs is: How does the death penalty square with our understandings of justice and which understandings of justice might those be? To help us sort out this and related matters we have three distinguished scholars. Budziszewski, a political theory colleague, who comments frequently on questions of justice, natural law and political life.
He will speak to the following: Justice is giving to each what is due to him, praise to the doers of good, harm to the doers of wrong, and so fundamental is the duty of public authority to requite good and evil that natural law philosophers have always made it the paramount function of the state.
The New Testament declares that the role is delegated to magistrates by God himself. So weighty is this duty of justice that it raises the question of whether mercy is permissible at all. By definition, mercy is punishing the criminal less than he deserves.
And it seems no more clear at first why not going far enough is better than going too far. We say that both cowardice and rashness miss the mark of courage though in opposite directions.
We say that both stinginess and prodigality miss the mark of the virtue of generosity. Making matters yet more difficult, the argument to abolish capital punishment is an argument to categorically extend mercy or clemency to all those who deserve death for their crimes, because to abolish capital punishment is to give all of them less than they deserve.
Now, the question of mercy arises only on the assumption that there is some crime, which does, in fact, deserve death. Suffice it to say that at least death deserves death. Nothing less is proportionate. That fact does not make the gravity of what he has done less serious; it makes it more.
He is not like the animals who cannot bear praise or blame. If simple murder warrants death, how much more does multiple and compounded murder warrant it, the murder of many people in series, the murder of many people at once, the compounding of murder with torture?
Some criminals seem to deserve death more than once.The death penalty is the only acceptable punishment for taking a human life unlawfully and is the only moral action. The laws of western countries are based ultimately on ancient Jewish law which is the basis of all western morality and in which the death penalty was practised.
The second question is moral. Even if the death penalty deterred crime more successfully than life imprisonment, that doesn’t necessarily mean it would be justified.
Aug 29, · I’m concerned that framing the issues in the death penalty discussion in terms of human dignity and in building the discussion on this alternative moral anthropology, that we’re going to enable, maybe even encourage sloppy, squishy, maybe even dangerous thinking about the purposes and justifications of punishment.
Jun 22, · A breakdown of the arguments given in favour of abolishing (or against reintroducing) the death penalty. In moral matters, what is right for one nationality ought to be right for people of other nationalities.
To do otherwise is self-serving, nationalistic, and a form of racial/cultural/ethnic discrimination. Fourth, they should make representations against the death penalty with equal vigour to .
The death penalty remains as one of the controversial issues not only in the United States but in the whole world as well. The death penalty has articulated itself as a debate characterized by rhetoric of pro death penalty ideals and con death penalty assertions.