Ernest Van Den Haag Death Penalty Analysis
Capital Punishment: Just or Unjust?
Also known as the death penalty, capital punishment is the harshest sentence used by our government to punish criminals. As such, it is the most controversial punishment in force in the United States today. Ernest Van Den Haag examines the incidental issue of relative suffering in his writing, “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense.” Van Den Haag seems to argue that 1.) we commonly do not know how much the victim suffered, 2.) the victim did not deserve the suffering, and 3.) punishment is not strictly lex talionis based, meaning the goal of punishment isn’t to counterbalance victim suffering but rather to “vindicate the law and social order undermined by the crime” (Haag, 1986). In this essay I shall argue …show more content…
For example, a perpetrator who rapes and kills five individuals cannot be raped and killed five times as punishment. In this case, for punishment to fit the crime, the perpetrator would need to be sentenced to death five times. This means they would need to kill the perpetrator and revive them four times then leaving them to die the fifth time they are killed. Could you imagine the suffering not only the perpetrator but also the perpetrator’s family would have to endure by watching them kill and revive their family member multiple times? This in my opinion, is unethical and would never happen for various circumstances such as moral issues, costs, unjust actions, etc. Therefore, the concept of deterrence that punishment should fit the crime is clearly not served by imposing the death penalty to such types of individuals and society aims for justice are then dissatisfied. Society demands that punishment should fix the harm it has done. By sentencing a person to death no harm has been fixed. As long as capital punishment exists in our society it will continue to spark the injustice, which it has failed to curb. The death penalty is morally and socially unethical, should be construed as cruel and unusual punishment, has no proof of acting as deterrent, and risks the appalling and unacceptable injustice of executing innocent people. It does not matter who does the killing as long as a life is taken by another, it should always be considered
Also known as the death penalty, capital punishment is the harshest sentence used by our government to punish criminals. As such, it is the most controversial punishment in force in the United States today. Ernest Van Den Haag examines the incidental issue of relative suffering in his writing, “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense.” Van Den Haag seems to argue that 1.) we commonly do not know how much the victim suffered, 2.) the victim did not deserve the suffering, and 3.) punishment is not strictly lex talionis based, meaning the goal of punishment isn’t to counterbalance victim suffering but rather to “vindicate the law and social order undermined by the crime” (Haag, 1986). In this essay I shall argue …show more content…
For example, a perpetrator who rapes and kills five individuals cannot be raped and killed five times as punishment. In this case, for punishment to fit the crime, the perpetrator would need to be sentenced to death five times. This means they would need to kill the perpetrator and revive them four times then leaving them to die the fifth time they are killed. Could you imagine the suffering not only the perpetrator but also the perpetrator’s family would have to endure by watching them kill and revive their family member multiple times? This in my opinion, is unethical and would never happen for various circumstances such as moral issues, costs, unjust actions, etc. Therefore, the concept of deterrence that punishment should fit the crime is clearly not served by imposing the death penalty to such types of individuals and society aims for justice are then dissatisfied. Society demands that punishment should fix the harm it has done. By sentencing a person to death no harm has been fixed. As long as capital punishment exists in our society it will continue to spark the injustice, which it has failed to curb. The death penalty is morally and socially unethical, should be construed as cruel and unusual punishment, has no proof of acting as deterrent, and risks the appalling and unacceptable injustice of executing innocent people. It does not matter who does the killing as long as a life is taken by another, it should always be considered