Analysis Of The Rescue Defense Of Capital Punishment
When debating the topic of the death penalty, also known as capital punishment, the argument can get heated quickly. There are two extreme sides. Those who support capital punishment say, “some crimes, especially murder, are so serious and so destructive to society that the perpetrators deserve the most severe punishment [death].” They also argue that the death penalty “is a deterrent to crime.” Those who are against believe, “taking a human life is never justified under any circumstance” ("Capital Punishment." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection). Some individuals might fall somewhere in between. They may have to look at things like how extreme and heinous the crime is in order to decide whether the criminal deserves the most severe of punishments.
…show more content…
The side that believes in the death penalty thinks that justice is being served. In one article, entitled “The Rescue Defense of Capital Punishment”, the author, Steve Aspenson, claims there are three “moral grounds for capital punishment.” The first is that “we have a general, prima facie duty to rescue victims from increasing harm” (Aspenson, Steve. "The Rescue Defense of Capital Punishment."). Prima facie duty means that the duty is not apparent, according to the footnotes in the article. Aspenson’s second point is, “murder victims are increasingly harmed by the continuing life of their murders.” Lastly, Aspenson says, “Therefore, we have a prima facie duty to rescue murder victims by promptly ending the lives of their murders” (Aspenson). By reading his three points, we can conclude that Aspenson falls under the category of supporters that believe justice is being …show more content…
A change in capital punishment and the way it is handled will not happen overnight. There are several components into finding a compromise between pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty supporters. One, who will make the decision of whether or not the criminal is guilty and if they deserve the death penalty or not. Two, what type of evidence is needed in order to make that decision. Three, what type of punishment will take the place of the death penalty. Four, who will participate in the injection of the drugs and what type of drugs will be administered in place of the old ones that used to be
The side that believes in the death penalty thinks that justice is being served. In one article, entitled “The Rescue Defense of Capital Punishment”, the author, Steve Aspenson, claims there are three “moral grounds for capital punishment.” The first is that “we have a general, prima facie duty to rescue victims from increasing harm” (Aspenson, Steve. "The Rescue Defense of Capital Punishment."). Prima facie duty means that the duty is not apparent, according to the footnotes in the article. Aspenson’s second point is, “murder victims are increasingly harmed by the continuing life of their murders.” Lastly, Aspenson says, “Therefore, we have a prima facie duty to rescue murder victims by promptly ending the lives of their murders” (Aspenson). By reading his three points, we can conclude that Aspenson falls under the category of supporters that believe justice is being …show more content…
A change in capital punishment and the way it is handled will not happen overnight. There are several components into finding a compromise between pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty supporters. One, who will make the decision of whether or not the criminal is guilty and if they deserve the death penalty or not. Two, what type of evidence is needed in order to make that decision. Three, what type of punishment will take the place of the death penalty. Four, who will participate in the injection of the drugs and what type of drugs will be administered in place of the old ones that used to be