Pros And Cons Of Retributivism

The term proportional retributivism presents the idea that criminals are given punishments that are similar to what they have done. Despite that, the idea of retribution is a substitute for revenge and such a negative outlook shouldn’t be the rational response for a very critical situation. Deciding to kill someone who has killed someone of value to you only follows a continuous cycle of bitter frustration and violence which only negatively impacts all parties. Execution doesn’t lead to closure but the expression of the anger. The more a person expresses such negative emotions the more the desire of expressing such violence is reinforced. There is also no proof that execution generates less crime more effectively than a life time in prison.
There are states that have gotten rid of the death penalty and don’t demonstrate any significant change in the crimes that are committed.
According to Nathanson, instead of resorting to the death penalty, we should seek alternative and more productive forms of carrying out reasonable punishments. There is the view of implementing a system that would make a list of crimes and rank them based on how serious they are. In the beginning of the trivial offenses would be small violations that eventually lead to more serious offenses. The higher the punishment is on the scale the more severe the punishment. This serves justice in the sense that cruel and usual punishments are excluded and the death penalty is replaced with a long sentence in jail.
Whenever a criminal receives the death sentence we are demonstrating that their actions have made them into a worthless individual that no longer gives them any human value.
Despite the amount of hate a criminal may receive or what they have done, no one should be subjected to being treated as if their life has no value. Once a life has been taken away there is no way of bringing that life back. Every life is should be held with high regards and value instead of easily forfeited with or without reason. Within the Declaration of Independence it demonstrates a view of people possessing such inalienable rights in regards to how they live their life, having liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A person has certain unalienable rights that aren’t earned by any means but naturally owned and should have. When there are huge cases in which execution could have been occurred, but did not the government demonstrates a display of control over the situation in terms that the perpetrator could not. Murderers deserve the consideration of reflecting what it means to deserve something in life. They should learn from their actions and have time to reflect what they have done. Killing a murderer only gets rid of a life but doesn’t teach anyone anything. By keeping a criminal alive they are living long enough to see the results of their actions and how that guilt will haunt them to their grave. Without capital punishment they will otherwise serve a long sentence in jail reflecting what they have done. Time in jail deprives criminals of their freedom to do what they please with their
lives.
I think that Stephen Nathanson successfully argues that people shouldn’t quickly jump to the conclusion of execution in hopes that it will fix things. There is no undoing what tragedies a criminal has caused as they should live to see the consequences of their actions. The death penalty doesn’t serve anyone justice because it is taking away the life of another and serves as a means of revenge for some people rather than its purpose. Nathanson also sees the “eye for an eye” slogan when taken in its strictest terms doesn’t provide a good guidance for dealing with a criminal. I think that every circumstance is unique and that repeating an event as a form of punishment is just as inhumane as the action itself. For some people, it is a bigger consequence living with the guilt of what they have done than a quick escape with death. Execution reinforces the idea that violence is alright but fails to teach the perpetrator about their actions. In many locations that don’t have a death penalty there isn’t a change in the amount of people that commit crimes with those that do allow the death penalty.