Equality retributivism and proportional retributivism can not morrally support the death penalty acc

Now saying that you may notice that I said person twice the death penalty kills human life. Taking a human life is wrong, but let us look at some other reasons why the death penalty is immoral. In this analysis for the sake of argument only first degree murder which is eligible for the death penalty will be discussed.

Equality retributivism and proportional retributivism can not morrally support the death penalty acc

The final publication is available at Springer via http: Jimmy Chia-Shin Hsu Introduction One of the most powerful contemporary conceptions of retributivism takes the communicative aspect of punishment seriously. In summary, communicative retributivism shares with other conceptions of retributivism the idea that criminal punishment is justified as a deserved response to the wrongdoer for past wrongdoings.

Moreover, it is communicative, because the retributive response is taken not as something imposed on the offender, but rather as a message of censure to be addressed to the offender. A question then arises: If punishment functions mainly as a communicative act, why is the verbal denunciation expressed through the trial verdict not sufficient for the communicative purpose?

Why is the hard treatment that punishment involves needed? For some, hard treatment is solely a prudential supplement that helps to deter further crimes. For the purpose of this article, I deal only with the latter approach.

Given that this approach takes punishment as communicative of censure, it follows that internal to the act of censure is an aim that the intended receiver gets the message, which hopefully leads to repentance, reform 2 and reconciliation.

The emphasis given to moral reform does not make communicative retributivism a consequentialist theory. Even if the offender rejects the 1 See von Hirsch What would a communicative retributivist say about capital punishment?

Most contemporary communicative retributivists are abolitionists, including most notably Antony Duff and Dan Markel. Even though repentance, reform and reconciliation are not strictly speaking the telos, the ends to which communicative retribution is used as means, communication to the offender nevertheless points to the hope of repentance and reform that helps to make sense of the communication.

Execution eliminates the hope of further reform. While I find myself in substantial agreement with the central tenets of communicative retributivism, I think there may be a place for capital punishment within the theoretical vision of communicative retributivism.

I will argue that capital punishment, when reserved for radically evil offenders for the most heinous crimes, is justifiable within a communicative retributivist theory.

Capital punishment has fallen below the horizon of communicative retributivists, mainly because of their failure to develop a crucial dimension of penal communication.

Duff regards punishment as a two-way communication: Censure should be deemed a counter-message commensurate to that sent initially by the offender through his criminal offense.

The severity of hard treatment should depend upon what message is sent by the offense to the political community in the first place. Capital punishment should be imposed only for murder.

Retributive Theory of Punishment: A Critical Analysis - Academike

But not all murderers are equally culpable, and hence do not equally warrant capital punishment as a counter-message. Some are motivated by hateful impulses; some are nurtured by 3 See Duffpp. The censure should be commensurate to the offensive message.

To be commensurate to the most extravagantly evil offense, which communicates the message of flat denigration of the worth and meaning of life, as in the case of murders for sadistic pleasure, capital punishment is plausibly regarded as the counter-message.

Next, I contend that capital punishment does not violate human dignity insofar as it is applied only to radically evil murderers. The idea that punishment should communicate moral values to the offender as a moral agent is premised on the idea of human dignity.

Arguing in the vein of communicative retributivism, 5 Dan Markel forcefully argues that capital punishment is in flat contradiction with human dignity."Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty" I. Reiman's Main Aim To show that even "though the death penalty is a just punishment for murder, abolition of the death penalty is part of the civilizing mission of modern states" ().

Despite this, retributivism does give rise to a distinctive mode of justifying particular institutions within the criminal law such as the death penalty.

The retributivist will urge, for example, that the debate about whether the death penalty deters crime is simply irrelevant to the .

Equality retributivism and proportional retributivism can not morrally support the death penalty acc

Nathanson thinks that Equality Retributivism can be used to justify the use of the death False Nathanson thinks that Proportional Retributivism, by itself, can justify the use of the death penalty. Another view to consider when talking about the death penalty is the Proportional Retributivism; proportional retribution requires the punishment to fit the crime in a proportional respect, so that serious crimes receive harsh punishments.4/4(1).

9. How does "proportional retributivism" modify the requirements of lex talionis? Reiman says that from the fact that something is justly deserved it does not follow that it should be done. What argumentation does he offer in support of this claim? Is the argumentation that he offers sound? retributivism is that it does not require barbaric punishments to be implemented.

A second positive is that it does not state that murderers are to be executed as the only means to punishment, but perhaps just serve a very long prison sentence.

Nathanson concludes that neither one of the retributivist views would directly support the death penalty.

The Death Penalty: One Size Doesn’t Fit All | Morals, shmorals Who needs them?