A Social Perspective towards the Moral Judgment on Capital Punishment
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A.) Background of the Study
Justice is an affixed fraction of the society. For most of the social philosophers, justice is advocated as a part of the natural law. It involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice. With this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton 's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according to individuals or groups what do they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Thus, it is frequently associated with “fairness” and “equal treatment”. That is, the giving of what is due.1 As for John Rawls, he claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought”. Justice then aims to provide a harmonious society, in order to make peace and order to its people. However, with these concepts presented, the researcher’s attention is caught as questions from his point of views arise. Is justice always absolute in providing a harmonious society? Is justice always just? And, what is there in the society that could be prior than justice, in order to restore the faults?
In the contemporary world, various issues rose, from the shortest misdeeds to the gravest transgressions in the social order due to man’s limitations and imperfections. Diverse methods are introduce to preserve the peace and order that people deserves in the society that they individually live in. Laws are legalized and verdicts are commenced. With these, the principle of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is highlighted as it is put in the center of the edict. Moreover, it intends to emphasize justice, in order to secure the benevolence of man and the stillness of the society. A specific avenue that it established in order to attain the objective that they aim, is to penalize an individual who severely transgressed, by the highest sentence that can ever be done and
INTRODUCTION
A.) Background of the Study
Justice is an affixed fraction of the society. For most of the social philosophers, justice is advocated as a part of the natural law. It involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice. With this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton 's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according to individuals or groups what do they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Thus, it is frequently associated with “fairness” and “equal treatment”. That is, the giving of what is due.1 As for John Rawls, he claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought”. Justice then aims to provide a harmonious society, in order to make peace and order to its people. However, with these concepts presented, the researcher’s attention is caught as questions from his point of views arise. Is justice always absolute in providing a harmonious society? Is justice always just? And, what is there in the society that could be prior than justice, in order to restore the faults?
In the contemporary world, various issues rose, from the shortest misdeeds to the gravest transgressions in the social order due to man’s limitations and imperfections. Diverse methods are introduce to preserve the peace and order that people deserves in the society that they individually live in. Laws are legalized and verdicts are commenced. With these, the principle of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is highlighted as it is put in the center of the edict. Moreover, it intends to emphasize justice, in order to secure the benevolence of man and the stillness of the society. A specific avenue that it established in order to attain the objective that they aim, is to penalize an individual who severely transgressed, by the highest sentence that can ever be done and
Bibliography: Donaldson, Thomas. Issues in Moral Philosophy. USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1986 Ezosky, Gertrude Glenn, Paul J. Ethics: A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy. Philippines: B. Herder Book Co., 1968 Melton, J Black, Charles, Jr. Capital Punishment. New York: Norton, 1974. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Makati, Metro Manila: ECCCE and Word & Life Publications, 1994 Code of Canon Law, Canon 984 Gorgias, Plato. in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, ed. With an intro. E. Hamilton and H. Cairns., Princeton: Princeton Unversity Press, 1961. Hernandez, Regine. Principles of Psychology. Philippines, Quezon: UST Textbook Series, 1995 Jacqueline, Martin Marx, Karl. “Capitall Punishment”, in Marx and Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, ed. L. Feuer, Garden City: Anchor Books, 1959. Nathanson, Stephen. An Eye for an Eye? The Morality of Punishing by Death. Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, 1987. Pieper, Josef. The Four Cardinal Virtues. New York: Harcourt: Brace, 1965. Primoratz, Igor. Justifying Legal Punishment. Atlantic Highlands, N.J: Humanities Press, 1989 Readings on Catholics in Political Life Scharbert, Josef. “Blood”, Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, vol. 1, ed. J. Bauer. London: Sheed and Ward, 1970. Schöpf, Bernard. Das Tötungsrecht bei den frϋhchristlichen Schriftstellern. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1958. Stoutzenberger, Joseph. Morality, An Invitation to Christian Living. USA: Harcourt Religion Publisher, 2001. PERIODICALS AND DISSERTATIONS Arnold, Glenn, The International Perspective, October 31, 2004. Bohm, R. "Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States”. Anderson Publishing, 1999. Ecenbarger, W. "Perfecting Death: When the state kills it must do so humanely. Is that possible?”. The Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine, January 23, 1994 "Executions - Preparing Staff for the Hard Task Ahead," The Corrections Professional, Vol Georgia, Gregg V. 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the US Spreme Court in a 7-2 decision written by Justice Potter Stewart, JD. Hillman, H. "The Possible Pain Experienced During Executions by Different Methods". 22 Perception 745, 1992. James, Henslin’s Social Problems: A Down-to-Earth, 2008. Pojman, Louis P. Why the Death Penalty is Morally Permissible. Doctoral Dissertation, West Point Military Academy, 2004. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973) Vol. 74, No. 3 (Autumn, 1983), Northwestern University School of Law, 1983, p.1065. JSTOR 1143143 Van Den Haag, Ernest, PhD, New York Times article titled “For the Death Penalty”, October 17, 1983 Weisberg, J. "This is Your Death”. The New Republic, July 1, 1991. DICTIONARY Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the English Language, 2009 The Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 2009 INTERNET SOURCES http://www.wikipedia.com (Downloaded April 3, 2011 and June 2, 2011) http:// www.guardian.co.uk.htm (Downloaded February 3, 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice (Downloaded February 3, 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye (Downloaded February 3 http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org (Downloaded February 26, 2012) http://www.deathpenaltyinformationcenter.com (Downloaded January 15, 2012) http://www.english-test.net (December 23, 2011)