Analyzing of Article “Death, Reason, and Judgment: the American Experience”, by Ronald J. Allen
In the article “Death, Reason, and Judgment: The American Experience”, which was posted on the ‘Filosofia Politica’ website (1), Ronald J. Allen (2) argues in a high academic level on the meaning and nature of errors in the imposition of capital punishment. Ronald J. Allen is the John Henry Wigmore Professor of Law at Northwestern University in Chicago. This paper will analyse and discuss the theories of the article and address two issues raised by Allen: the utilitarian and normative components of capital punishment, and the costs of errors of capital punishment.
Allen debates firstly on the utilitarian arguments and thus possible benefits of the death penalty. Accordingly to Allen capital punishment is a deterrent and an understandable reaction of those who have been affected by the homicides. However, the significance of deterrence is unclear. Studies result only minimum support for deterrence as a consequence of executions, or what Allen in other words is trying to say: death penalty is to discourage or, scare if you will, the people from committing a murder (the death penalty in the U.S. today in practise, only applies for murder) (2), and does not have any effect. “Capital punishment remains a freakishly rare punishment” says Allen. This is a reaction to the following, if capital punishment has indeed barely sufficient deterrence or caution effects like what was just argued, it can just as well be an argument for its increased use instead of its decreased use. People do not feel alarmed enough for the consequences to prevent them from committing a murder. Clearly, it is difficult to understand the arguments from deterrence and finding a way to interpreted them sufficiently. nother utilitarian consideration that Allen makes is “the significance of capital punishment for the sense of justice of the secondary victims of homicides”. With this consideration Allen is referring to the family and friends of the deceased. As an example, an important aspect of
Allen debates firstly on the utilitarian arguments and thus possible benefits of the death penalty. Accordingly to Allen capital punishment is a deterrent and an understandable reaction of those who have been affected by the homicides. However, the significance of deterrence is unclear. Studies result only minimum support for deterrence as a consequence of executions, or what Allen in other words is trying to say: death penalty is to discourage or, scare if you will, the people from committing a murder (the death penalty in the U.S. today in practise, only applies for murder) (2), and does not have any effect. “Capital punishment remains a freakishly rare punishment” says Allen. This is a reaction to the following, if capital punishment has indeed barely sufficient deterrence or caution effects like what was just argued, it can just as well be an argument for its increased use instead of its decreased use. People do not feel alarmed enough for the consequences to prevent them from committing a murder. Clearly, it is difficult to understand the arguments from deterrence and finding a way to interpreted them sufficiently. nother utilitarian consideration that Allen makes is “the significance of capital punishment for the sense of justice of the secondary victims of homicides”. With this consideration Allen is referring to the family and friends of the deceased. As an example, an important aspect of