Savannah Dees

Dr. Jensen

RHET 1312

Comp II Project 3: Argumentative Essay

The issue of capital punishment has been an issue in the United States for over 300 years.

Currently, it varies on a state to state basis; it is legal in 32 states while banned in 18. The death

penalty is carried out as a penalization for serious crimes to the maximum-most commonly, first-

degree murder. Most states have this law in place for adult offenders 18 and older, but a select few

execute those 16 and older, causing even more controversy. The procedure seems to be declining

in use as well as support specialists believe that it will be quite a while before banning will be

considered (Berman, M., & Barnes, R.). With controversial topics such as these come varying

opinions and perspectives. The two main examples I will use come from Igor Primoratz and

Stephen Nathanson.

In Justifying Lethal Punishment by Igor Primoratz, Primoratz argues for the use of capital

punishment for the crime of murder, “the criminal homicide perpetrated voluntarily and

intentionally or in wanton disregard of human life.” He follows the retributivist teachings that

human life is invaluable and all living beings possess equal moral worth. The only morally

justified retribution for taking a life away is the death penalty; any other means of punishment no

matter how severe would not be satisfactory. Primoratz breaks down and rebukes common

arguments against lethal punishment one by one. The first one is that this penalty violates the

fundamental right to life. Primoratz argues that this right is not absolute and uses the example of if
a confessed murderer would make this claim, we would not take it seriously. Yet, no one else

would possess the right to make the claim on his behalf; therefore, it is not valid. The second

argument against execution is a criminal law system, which includes this punishment is

contradictory because it justifies murder with additional murder. This raises the question of is

capital punishment murder or is it morally justified. Third, the claim is raised that lives are not

proportionate because they vary in age, health, physical and mental capability. Primoratz points

out that this simply means that they are different, but no less equally valuable. To go along with

the theory that lives are not equal would contradict the whole legal justice system. Finally, the

proportionality between the passing of a death sentence and its execution is questioned. Ultimately,

this does not make for an argument against the use of capital punishment, but rather the process in

which it is carried out. (Shafer-Landau, pgs. 370-379) Primoratz makes a very convincing

argument. He is thorough in not only giving the reasons behind his personal views but also in

addressing and rebutting each opposing argument as well. I believe that it is important for all

people to have a strong set of values and admire him for sticking his ground, even if our morals

may differ. Personally, I have even thoroughly considered this argument that corporal punishment

is justifiable until reading Primoratz’s theory. I acknowledge many of his points as valid and can

definitely see where many would agree. But overall, I have to agree with Nathanson.

In An Eye for an Eye, Nathanson argues that the death penalty should be abolished as an

affirmation of human rights. He says that we should respect human dignity and not deprive

humans of their lives. It is not up to us to determine human value. When people commit crimes,

they forfeit some of their rights but not all of them. This ties in to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness” as stated by the constitution. These rights are possessed naturally and should not be

taken away. Nathanson begins by outlining the Lex talionis theory of “an eye for an eye” and
going into detail on why the theory is invalid. When interpreted in the literal sense, this philosophy

suggests highly immoral acts, such as raping a rapist or torturing a torturer. It is impossible to

apply in many cases such as drunk drivers or embezzlers. He believes that the principle “an eye for

an eye” is a just disguise for expressing belief in the death penalty. The reply that we have to

reproduce the harm done to others does not present a valid solution in the cases in which little to

no harm was done. How would we reproduce harm to hijackers or spies? What about drug users or

prostitutes who might have not produced harm at all. Also, suffering/pain tolerance varies from

person to person. The proportional retributivist theory does not give any specific recommendations

regarding punishment; therefore, it does not specifically point to the death penalty as punishment

for murder. This theory would require the most severe punishment for murder, but is not clear on

what type of punishment. He writes that we need a further theory in order to get capital

punishment in the mix. (Shafer-Landau, 380-389)

I agree with Nathanson that capital punishment deprives human of their basic human rights-the

right to life should not be infringed upon. Another main point that causes my skepticism about the

death penalty is the issue of irreversible error. the punishment of innocent parties. As far as the

judicial system in America is concerned, it is often efficient in serving justice, yet there still remain

cases in which rulings are incorrect. One point that neither side brought up that I believe to be

important is the religious aspect of it all. I grew up with spiritual based and religious values, which

taught me to view the lives of God’s children in high regard. This goes hand and hand with

Nathanson’s affirmation of human rights. The Bible strictly states “Thou shalt not kill,” no matter

the circumstance. Ultimately, us humans aren’t up to decide the fate of others; it is God that has

the final say. Therefore, despite the punishment given to the criminal on Earth, it is likely for the

consequences to be much greater once they reach the gates. Overall, I believe that it depends on
the specific circumstance, but ultimately, no matter what is done with the sinner to “balance the

scale of justice,” they will have to face the big man upstairs to make the final call. “Returning

violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of

stars. -Martin Luther King, Jr.” (AZ Quotes)

Reflection: I began this paper with the body, which flowed pretty easily. It was especially easy to

write when addressing Primoratz and Nathanson’s arguments because I have become so familiar

with them through my Ethics and Society course this semester. This made the introduction more of

a challenge to write at the end. I was stuck on the intro for quite a while, then the inspiration to talk

about the topic overall struck. I liked being able to argue for my own specific opinion in this paper.

You did an excellent job with this essay. You go into arguments in detail, but I thought your
paragraph got a little long. Grade: 96.

References

Berman, M., & Barnes, R. (2014, May 01). Everything you need to know about executions in

the United States. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-

 nation/wp/2014/05/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-executions-in-the-united-

states/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0dc6d95ee6d6

Shafer-Landau, R. (2018). The Ethical life: Fundamental readings in ethics and moral

problems (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Top 25 Capital Punishment Quotes (of 135) | AZ Quotes

https://www.azquotes.com/quotes/topics/capital-punishment.html