Homework Writing Help on A philosophical Analysis

A philosophical analysis

Chapters 33 and 34 in ‘An Introductory Anthology’ by Steven M. Cahn

Is there a relevant justification for death penalties among wrongdoers? Steven Cahn attempts to answer this question using claims that other philosophers hold in chapter 33 of the book. Burton, a philosophy Professor at Pace University holds that capital punishment best fits in some extreme crimes but only when responding to them having made an observational proceeding that is fair and legal (Cahn 344). I find this argument not plausible because death penalties violate the right to life of victims. Every nation provides every citizen the right of living and thus killing people due to wrongs they commit is a violation of the right. The argument of Burton is also not plausible because taking away the life of an individual is a form of an ultra vires action. It is because no human being has the control of another people’s lives, as their Creator, who has the sole authority to end it, gives life to them. Steven identifies some of the crimes, which have attracted death penalties such as murder, robbery, theft, kidnapping, espionage, and treason. However, he states that there have been agreements that the crimes should be punished through lesser penalties. There should be an ethical consideration of lesser penalties being charged against the crimes, an argument I agree with from chapter 33 because the aim of punishing crimes by the law should not only aim at punishing the wrongdoer but also to change their behavior.

Punishing them through death penalties denies them a chance for self-realization, which could change their behavior. According to Steven, only serious crimes should attract death penalties. I find his view insensible, as there are different views concerning the extent to which a crime is regarded as extreme. However, a common definition, such as repeated serious crimes could be used instead as the basis of charging death penalties against wrong doers. In chapter 34, Steven Cahn uses Hugo Adam’s argument to explain to the readers, the arguments that those who support capital punishment maintain. Adam bases the arguments of the supporters on the benefits that are realized after those who commit serious crimes are murdered (Cahn 346). I find the foundation of the supportive arguments inconvictive because it is not possible to eradicate all criminals associated with serious crimes. As long as people are born each day, murders, kidnappers, and other serious crimes gangs will continue to exist. In addition, with the high population in many countries, crimes will always be on the rise.  Adam outlines counterarguments, which he beliefs are successful in outdoing the supportive arguments. For instance, death penalties could be a source of long-lasting imprints of emotional disturbances among friends and relatives of a criminal who is charged with death penalty. I find the counter arguments true and real because members of a family who lose a relative through death penalty have long –lasting memories of pain, which could mould them as deviants in the society, in an attempt to revenge. It is right to ignore that some of the criminal could be under some influential forces.

Last Dance

Cindy Liggett, called Sharon Stone in the film waits her death penalty for committing a brutal murder when she was a teenager. Rick Hayes, a lawyer attempts to save her life because he understands that at the time of the crime, Sharon was under the influence of cocaine. He argues that though she was found guilty, she is no longer the same person she was when she committed the crime. I find Rick’s argument sensible and right because he identifies the two distinct dimensions of Sharon’s personality. He acknowledges that Sharon was under the influence of cocaine when she committed the crime and that she no longer takes drugs. His argument is convictive because the drug influenced her action to commit the brutal murder. With the changed behavior and personality, it would be right to save her life. The law therefore should not only punish wrongdoers but also to correct them. The film connects with chapters 33 and 34 of Steven’s book. From the film, Rick is against the death penalty, which Sharon awaits thus illustrating the counterarguments of death penalty explained in chapter 34. In addition, the violation of the right to life to individuals explained in chapter 33 is well seen in the film when Sharon, who is currently an upright person, faces the charges.

The Unreliability Principle in Death Sentencing’ article by Scott E. Sundby retrieved from the William & Mary Bill of Rights Magazine

The article examines the level of unreliability of death penalties as a form of punishment to wrongdoers. The articles defines the article as “if too great a risk exists that constitutionally protected mitigation cannot be properly comprehended and accounted for by the sentencer, the unreliability that is created means that the death penalty cannot be constitutionally applied.” Some defendants could be exempted from these penalties if juries are not reliable to effectively assess factors to mitigate their acts. For instance, the principle ought to be extended for those under mental illnesses influence. I find the principle reliable and appropriate because it makes a consideration of the state in which the defendant could be in, during the time of committing the crime. Not all criminals involved in crimes are sober, which makes them more prone to acts of destruction, such as committing murder and robbery, an argument that I agree with in chapter 34, because of their mental status. The government therefore, as a custodian of the jurisdiction to determine the fate of criminal, should consider the forces crimes committed by criminals. Those that commit the crimes while sober should be subjected to extensive punishment while those influenced by other forces should be handled differently.

Works cited

Cahn, Steven M. Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Scott E. Sundby. “The Unreliability Principle in Death Sentencing,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Magazine, April 2, 2015.