chaval
6th April 2006, 08:11
ahhh yes a peer review is what im searching for
so this is what i ahve so far, it doesnt have an intro, nor a conclusion nor even the other 3/4 of my body paragraphs but its rough and its what i got so far
PLEASE criticize my paper, tear it apart but PLEASe do not tear it apart by telling me why you think that capital punishment is right, tear apart WHAT I SAID, assume that my position is right and then find holes in my arguments and areas in which i might be contradicting myself i.e. play the role of the teacher
it would be really great if you guys could do this and then of course offer your opinion. like its great to know your opinions but i also need some feedback on waht i wrote (hence this posting)
oh the question was is capital punishment just? i argue: No (this is philosphy btw)
Justice requires of us to punish a criminal as much as necessary but no more. What is meant by necessary is the minimum amount of punishment needed to pay the due for the wrongdoing and to allow for rehabilitation. Any punishment that goes beyond the minimum is automatically in excess and does an injustice to the convicted person. This begs the question, what is the minimum amount of punishment? The answer becomes extremely subjective but we only need to know if capital punishment can ever take the form of the minimum amount of punishment. If so, it is permissible and just but if it exceeds any standard of minimum punishment, we can reject it entirely.
Punishment must “involve pain, harm, or some other consequence normally considered unpleasant” (p265ethics). In the case of criminals, a just society should be concerned with ‘unpleasantness’ rather than physical pain and harm. To punish criminals by causing direct physical harm to them degrades society to the level of their crime. It fosters the idea that a wrong can be corrected by an equal treatment to the wrongdoer; an idea that would allow severe and unnecessary maltreatment to criminals who can be punished and rehabilitated through other means. Though in our case capital punishment is painless, it is most certainly harmful. There could be nothing more harmful to the physical autonomy of a human being than directly removing their life and in turn their autonomy as an individual. Our just society must reject capital punishment as a just form of punishment.
Such harm could only be justified if they were required for the minimum amount of punishment for a just sentence but it is not. Incarceration is enough since it allows for rehabilitation, it protects society and allows society to “reestablish the lost order” (*). Capital punishment (and its harm) errs as a form of justice since it does not allow for rehabilitation and is too severe as a punishment. We know this because criminals are not treated on the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’. Society does not rape rapists nor does it steal from thieves. Such a form of justice would entail that six million dead Jews in the holocaust must be recompensated with the killing of six million Germans guilty of their deaths (assuming such a size of the guilty party existed). These forms of justice have been largely abandoned as barbaric and archaic since societies have shown us that it is not necessary to treat criminals based on this principle. Thus, it should not follow that society should kill murderers merely for their previous killing. Those guilty of murder deserve the same relative treatment as those who commit lesser crimes such as theft. If we hold this to be true then just as burning an arsonist exceeds the minimum amount of necessary punishment then killing a murderer also exceeds the minimum amount of punishment.
Let us suppose a scenario where we have the most dangerous kind of criminal, an incorrigible murderer. He cannot be made to suffer for the murders he has not committed though it is assumed he would commit them if he had the chance. A just punishment should not overextend itself into the realm of nonexistent deeds. However, it would highly imprudent of a society to release a criminal who intends to murder. He must therefore be permanently kept separate from society either by permanent incarceration or by death. If permanent incarceration poses a danger to fellow inmates or prison guards then capital punishment can be justified. However, it is not justified as a punishment for he cannot be punished for uncommitted crimes but it can be justified on the grounds of protection. If the murderer refuses to accept his punishment and continues to murder, it can only be just for his real future victims that his life be ended. This exception does not apply to criminals who could potentially murder again. Incarceration suffices to protect society from potential murderers. Capital punishment is only necessary for murderers who continue to repeat their crime.
Capital punishment does not allow for rehabilitation or reintegration. True justice should give murderers a chance to understand their wrongdoing and become a functioning member of society after the necessary time allotted for punishment. All other criminals are given this very chance and it is only just that it should be extended to murderers too. If a murderer has no intention of killing again, it is not fair that he should be excluded from the chance to be reintegrated into society merely because his punishment is death. This is especially true when most murders are commited by those who are mentally unfit (and need appropriate medical treatment) or those in a fit of passion. One should not have to pay with their life for a brief moment of blurred judgement, however severe the blurred judgement was. Murders commited by those seeking a death wish would not occur since their wishes would go unfulfilled in a long-term prison sentence. Finally, those who commit calculated murders should face longer prison sentences but not death. * this last paragraph is really poorly formulated, i would probably ignore it
thanks a lot for any help
cheers
so this is what i ahve so far, it doesnt have an intro, nor a conclusion nor even the other 3/4 of my body paragraphs but its rough and its what i got so far
PLEASE criticize my paper, tear it apart but PLEASe do not tear it apart by telling me why you think that capital punishment is right, tear apart WHAT I SAID, assume that my position is right and then find holes in my arguments and areas in which i might be contradicting myself i.e. play the role of the teacher
it would be really great if you guys could do this and then of course offer your opinion. like its great to know your opinions but i also need some feedback on waht i wrote (hence this posting)
oh the question was is capital punishment just? i argue: No (this is philosphy btw)
Justice requires of us to punish a criminal as much as necessary but no more. What is meant by necessary is the minimum amount of punishment needed to pay the due for the wrongdoing and to allow for rehabilitation. Any punishment that goes beyond the minimum is automatically in excess and does an injustice to the convicted person. This begs the question, what is the minimum amount of punishment? The answer becomes extremely subjective but we only need to know if capital punishment can ever take the form of the minimum amount of punishment. If so, it is permissible and just but if it exceeds any standard of minimum punishment, we can reject it entirely.
Punishment must “involve pain, harm, or some other consequence normally considered unpleasant” (p265ethics). In the case of criminals, a just society should be concerned with ‘unpleasantness’ rather than physical pain and harm. To punish criminals by causing direct physical harm to them degrades society to the level of their crime. It fosters the idea that a wrong can be corrected by an equal treatment to the wrongdoer; an idea that would allow severe and unnecessary maltreatment to criminals who can be punished and rehabilitated through other means. Though in our case capital punishment is painless, it is most certainly harmful. There could be nothing more harmful to the physical autonomy of a human being than directly removing their life and in turn their autonomy as an individual. Our just society must reject capital punishment as a just form of punishment.
Such harm could only be justified if they were required for the minimum amount of punishment for a just sentence but it is not. Incarceration is enough since it allows for rehabilitation, it protects society and allows society to “reestablish the lost order” (*). Capital punishment (and its harm) errs as a form of justice since it does not allow for rehabilitation and is too severe as a punishment. We know this because criminals are not treated on the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’. Society does not rape rapists nor does it steal from thieves. Such a form of justice would entail that six million dead Jews in the holocaust must be recompensated with the killing of six million Germans guilty of their deaths (assuming such a size of the guilty party existed). These forms of justice have been largely abandoned as barbaric and archaic since societies have shown us that it is not necessary to treat criminals based on this principle. Thus, it should not follow that society should kill murderers merely for their previous killing. Those guilty of murder deserve the same relative treatment as those who commit lesser crimes such as theft. If we hold this to be true then just as burning an arsonist exceeds the minimum amount of necessary punishment then killing a murderer also exceeds the minimum amount of punishment.
Let us suppose a scenario where we have the most dangerous kind of criminal, an incorrigible murderer. He cannot be made to suffer for the murders he has not committed though it is assumed he would commit them if he had the chance. A just punishment should not overextend itself into the realm of nonexistent deeds. However, it would highly imprudent of a society to release a criminal who intends to murder. He must therefore be permanently kept separate from society either by permanent incarceration or by death. If permanent incarceration poses a danger to fellow inmates or prison guards then capital punishment can be justified. However, it is not justified as a punishment for he cannot be punished for uncommitted crimes but it can be justified on the grounds of protection. If the murderer refuses to accept his punishment and continues to murder, it can only be just for his real future victims that his life be ended. This exception does not apply to criminals who could potentially murder again. Incarceration suffices to protect society from potential murderers. Capital punishment is only necessary for murderers who continue to repeat their crime.
Capital punishment does not allow for rehabilitation or reintegration. True justice should give murderers a chance to understand their wrongdoing and become a functioning member of society after the necessary time allotted for punishment. All other criminals are given this very chance and it is only just that it should be extended to murderers too. If a murderer has no intention of killing again, it is not fair that he should be excluded from the chance to be reintegrated into society merely because his punishment is death. This is especially true when most murders are commited by those who are mentally unfit (and need appropriate medical treatment) or those in a fit of passion. One should not have to pay with their life for a brief moment of blurred judgement, however severe the blurred judgement was. Murders commited by those seeking a death wish would not occur since their wishes would go unfulfilled in a long-term prison sentence. Finally, those who commit calculated murders should face longer prison sentences but not death. * this last paragraph is really poorly formulated, i would probably ignore it
thanks a lot for any help
cheers