Louis Pojman Death Penalty Analysis
Debating Capital Punishment
The Death Penalty. This name alone would scare anyone and it is undoubtable the worst penalty a person could receive. It has been used for centuries, but today many argue that this punishment is not moral, while there are others that argue that if you are cruel enough to take a life, you deserve to get your life taken away, a life for a life. Louis Pojman and Jeffrey Reiman have debated this issue very closely, coming up with two opposite opinions on capital punishment. I will argue that even though I can see why Pojman thinks the way he does, he just doesn’t have enough evidence to back up his thesis when comparing it to Reiman’s. I will suggest an adjusted version of Pojman’s argument on deterrence for capital punishment by looking …show more content…
The Death Penalty is a capital punishment that gives permission to take that special gift away. Is this morally right? Louis Pojman argues that the death penalty is needed in some situations. His main point is that the death penalty deters more criminal acts then getting sent away for life, “The death penalty reminds us that there are consequences to our actions, and that we are responsible for what we do, so that dire consequences for immoral actions are eminently appropriate. The death penalty is such a fitting respond to evil” (Pojman 2). By enforcing the death penalty, Pojman believes it scares people away from killing others. While there is no statistical evidence to back this up, he brings up The Best Bet Argument. The Best Bet Argument says, “Even though we don’t know whether the death penalty deters or prevents other murders, we should bet that it does” (Pojman 5). To offer support Pojman goes on to say even if capital punishment doesn’t work, it’s better to bet on it than against it because betting against it would most likely bring more
The Death Penalty. This name alone would scare anyone and it is undoubtable the worst penalty a person could receive. It has been used for centuries, but today many argue that this punishment is not moral, while there are others that argue that if you are cruel enough to take a life, you deserve to get your life taken away, a life for a life. Louis Pojman and Jeffrey Reiman have debated this issue very closely, coming up with two opposite opinions on capital punishment. I will argue that even though I can see why Pojman thinks the way he does, he just doesn’t have enough evidence to back up his thesis when comparing it to Reiman’s. I will suggest an adjusted version of Pojman’s argument on deterrence for capital punishment by looking …show more content…
The Death Penalty is a capital punishment that gives permission to take that special gift away. Is this morally right? Louis Pojman argues that the death penalty is needed in some situations. His main point is that the death penalty deters more criminal acts then getting sent away for life, “The death penalty reminds us that there are consequences to our actions, and that we are responsible for what we do, so that dire consequences for immoral actions are eminently appropriate. The death penalty is such a fitting respond to evil” (Pojman 2). By enforcing the death penalty, Pojman believes it scares people away from killing others. While there is no statistical evidence to back this up, he brings up The Best Bet Argument. The Best Bet Argument says, “Even though we don’t know whether the death penalty deters or prevents other murders, we should bet that it does” (Pojman 5). To offer support Pojman goes on to say even if capital punishment doesn’t work, it’s better to bet on it than against it because betting against it would most likely bring more