NCJ Number
175606
Date Published
1998
Length
185 pages
Annotation
Two social and political philosophers take opposing positions on the death penalty; one justifies the practice of execution by appealing to the principle of retribution, while the other opposes the death penalty due to the lack of conclusive evidence capital punishment is an effective deterrent.
Abstract
The first essay, in favor of the death penalty, contends that individuals deserve to be rewarded and punished according to the virtue or the viciousness of their actions. The author asserts that the death penalty deters some potential murderers and that society risks the lives of innocent people who might otherwise live because of a refusal to execute those deserving that punishment. The second essay, in opposition to the death penalty, argues that society is not obligated to execute murderers, even though the death penalty may be a just punishment. The author indicates conclusive evidence is lacking that executing murderers is an effective deterrent. Therefore, he concludes that it is good in principle to avoid the death penalty and bad in practice to impose it because society can be better advanced by demonstrating an intolerance for cruelty. Footnotes