0
What are the arguments for the death penalty according to Pojman and Bright?
Dleece
Pojman believes in the application of death penalty to include not only first degree murder but also treason, including the treasonous behavior of business execs who violate public trust. Since the death penalty is justified in principle, we should seek to improve its application rather than abolish a just institution. Bright believes that if racial discrimination cannot be prevented, the death penalty should not be carried out.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Compare the argument Stephen B Bright who argues that the death penalty should be abolished with the opposing argument of Louis P Pojman.?
Stephen B. Bright argues that capital punishment is contrary to the best principles and positive image of the United States, that it is likely to result in executions of the wrongly convicted, and that it is administered in an arbitrary, unfair, and racist manner. Louis Pojman's case for capital punishment combines both the retributive and the deterrent arguments; and he insists that even if mistakes are made, we shouldn't give up capital punishment because of a few possible miscarriages of justice in which innocent people are executed.
When was Louis Pojman born?
Louis Pojman was born in 1935.
When did Louis Pojman die?
Louis Pojman died in 2005.
What is pojman best bet argument?
It is an argument in support of the death penalty sentence. The Best Bet Argument for the death penalty states that though we are not 100% sure that it (the death penalty) will deter or prevent future murders/crimes, we assume that as a fear for this maximum punishment, it will deter future crimes. Criminals will fear the idea of the death penalty and will therefore not commit murders.
What are rewarded and the vicious punished in proportion to therir relative deserts?
The virtuous... as quoted by Pojman (Philosophy)
What crime would you have to do to get death penalty?
Except for extreme cases such as treason, we no longer use capital punishment for crimes other than homicide. We used to execute people for rape, but this is no longer the case. If you want to find out more you can read up on the Capital Punishment Debate on Wikipedia. There are references to other really good articles that go into great detail, look for scholars such as Louis Pojman or Hugo Bedau.
What are the arguments against capital punishments?
Arguments Against Capital Punishment[Quote]There are a number of arguments. The most obvious of these is simply that sometimes the police and the courts can make a mistake. There have been cases when people sentenced to life imprisonment have later been proved innocent and released. Dead people can't be released.[Quote]True, but would you rather spend 70 years in prison and have your life ruind. or be put to death witch is quick and easy. you cant apologise to someone for wasting their whole life..
What is the importance of death penalty?
The death penalty is among the oldest criminal punishments. It served three purposes : to punish a crime, to prevent its repetition, and to discourage crimes. The modern death penalty is imposed for similar reasons. However, the irreversible taking of a life is today considered abhorrent in criminal justice systems, notwithstanding the equally cruel prospect of life imprisonment. The basic objection to current death penalty laws are their inconsistent application, either by crime or by ethnicity.
How much does it cost for a execution from Capitol punishment?
It is generally held by abolitionists that the cost of executing a prisoner is higher than life imprisonment. According to The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debatesby Michael L. Radelet and Marian J. Borg, study carried out by the Miami Herald, showed a cost of about $3.2 million for an execution, and $600,000 for life imprisonment and the figures account for all death penalty cases, not just those that actually end in an execution. However, some retentionists still argue that those imprisoned for life will appeal just as much and feel that the cost of life without parole (LWOP) is actually much higher than the study showed. For more information you can look up articles by the above authors or for a pro-death penalty opinion you can look up Earnest van den Haag or Louis P. Pojman. Also the wikipedia page Capital Punishment Debate has some good information where the authors cited reputable Capital Punishment Scholars.
Why do some people believe in the death penalty?
"Good, hard-working men with families come home from work everyday and turn on the news. And you know what they see? Rapists, child molesters, and murderers that are getting off on bail." -Murphy and Connor MacManus, The Boondock SaintsFor me, that sums up why we need the death penalty.(PS. it also clears out prisons.) -----Because the Bible says so:Crimes that deserved the death in the Old TestamentAccording to Numb 35:31 there are criminals which "deserves to die". In the Old Testament the following crimes deserved the death penalty:1. Murder (Gen 9:6, Ex 21:12, Numb 35:16-21).2. Abuse of father or mother (Ex 21:15).3. Speaking a curse over parents (Ex 21:17).4. Blasphemy against God (Lev 24:14-16,23).5. Breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:14, Numb 15:32-36).6. Practicing magic (Ex 22:18).7. Fortune telling and practicing sorcery (Lev 20:27).8. Religious people who mislead others to fall away (Deut 13:1-5, 18:20).9. Adultery and fornication (Lev 20:10-12, Deut 22:22).10. If a woman has intercourse before marriage (Deut 22:20-21).11. If two people have intercourse when one of them is engaged. (Deut 22:23-24).12. The daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (Lev 21:9).13. Rape of someone who is engaged (Deut 22:25).14. Having intercourse with animals (Ex 22:19).15. Worshipping idols (Ex 22:20, Lev 20:1-5, Deut 17:2-7).16. Incest (Lev 20:11-12, 14, 19-21).17. Homosexuality (Lev 20:13).18. Kidnapping (Ex 21:16).19. To bear false testimony at a trial (Deut 19:16, 19).20. Contempt of court (Deut 17:8-13).The manner of execution in the Old Testament could be stoning, burning, using a sword, spear or arrow (Lev 20:27, 21:9, Ex 19:13, 32:27, Numb 25:7-8).
What actors and actresses appeared in Whatever This Is. - 2013?
The cast of Whatever This Is. - 2013 includes: Cameron Addicott as Restaurant Attendee James Bailey Fletcher as Liam Mehai Bakaty as Barista Hunter Canning as Sam Pinar Comezoglu as Baby Shower Guest Frisco Cosme as Party Attendee Alan Cumming as Oliver Powers Bea de la Cruz as Cashier Katie DiCicco as Elena Priest Nick Gilronan Adam Goldman as Boyd Jennifer Griffee as Lynne Ross Hamman as Oscar Ashley Harlee as Baby Shower Guest Tommy Heleringer as Toby Felix Hiciano as Party Attendee Lucy Kaminsky as Tori Boo Killebrew as Alex James Lasky as Charmer Keith Mackler Maria Makenna as Blaire Dylan Marron as Ari Sharina Martin as Lola Robert McKeon as Ken Priest Robert McKeon as Party Attendee Mary Monigold Jhai Norris Roy Nowlin as Party Attendee Sheena Oglesby as Simone Blanc Emily Pojman as Baby Shower Guest Ruibo Qian as Shannon Haley Rawson as Chris Adrienne Rose White as Party Attendee Danielle Schwab as Baby Shower Guest Annakeara Stinson as Party Attendee Lusia Strus as Donna Karina Swenson as Drunk Girl Phillip Taratula as Jaseph Sarah Tickal as Waitress Michelle Vu as Baby Shower Guest Amanda Warman as Veterinarian Sasha Winters as Dana Jaquan Wright Royce Wynn as Party Attendee
Is it ever ethically acceptable to torture a person the war on terrorism?
Ethical Theories Applied to Torture There are many and varied ethical theories that could be applied to the question, 'can the use of torture ever be justified?' Theories that conclude that torture is never acceptable will be examined first. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) developed Kantian Theory. It is based on the belief that reason is the final authority for morality. A moral act is an act done for the right reasons (Lovell & Fisher, 2002, p314). Kantian Theory is closely related to the doctrines of all major religions, the Bible states 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. At the Centre of Kantian ethics is his categorical imperative, which is a set of universal rules that outline 'that only the good will, a will to act out of a sense of duty, has unqualified moral worth' (Pojman, 1998, p194). Using deontological theory whereby actions are intrinsically right or wrong, torture can be seen to be unacceptable, whatever the circumstances and consequences. Deontologists hold that one cannot undertake immoral acts like torture even if the outcome is morally preferable, such as the early ending of a war or the saving of lives. Edmund Burke, the late eighteenth century writer and politician, accused the British of suffering from what he termed 'geographical morality' (Lee & Smith, 2004, p16). 'Geographical morality' is when people are prepared to be shocked by and to condemn torture in other countries while condoning its practice by their own authorities. The British are not the only ones to be guilty of this, many countries, especially in the West can be accused of 'geographical morality'. However, there are many other theories that show that torture could be morally acceptable in some situations. John Stuart Mill (1808-73) put forward an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism can be summed up in the phrase, 'everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved' (Almond, 1988, p127). Using this theory, torture can be justified if it brings about a 'greater good for a greater number of people'. The ends justify the means. Using Utilitarianism Theory, if the torture of one person means that several people are located and rescued from a dire situation, then that torture is justifiable. Consequentialism offers the idea that torture is justifiable if the consequences of the torture are morally right. Consequentialism is an ethical view that establishes the rightness or wrongness of actions by the good or bad produced by its consequences. Interlaced with the question 'can torture ever be justified?' is the question 'can war ever be justified?' As torture is an agent of war, this seems appropriate. Just War Theory can be used to justify torture on the grounds that it is acceptable in response to certain situations. St Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) described 'jus ad bellum', the conditions that he believed has to be met for war to be justified. War has to be ordered by a legitimate authority, it must be waged for a just cause and the intention of those who wage war should be the triumph of good over evil (Almond, 1998, p197). Of course, the problem with utilizing this Just War theory is that fulfillment of the conditions is subjective. However, it is possible that torture could be morally justified using the Just War Theory if it was carried out by a legitimate government whose general aim is good and with the best of intentions. The concept of proportionality is found in Acquinas' consideration of the Just War Theory. He argued that warring activity should be proportionate to the aggression made and therefore not excessive to that aggression. This would imply that torture, an extremely aggressive warring activity, would be ethically acceptable in response to extremely aggressive actions. It can be argued that the intentions of a torturer make a difference to the moral value of the action of torture. In consequentialist theories of ethics, intention is important, as intention is what you hope to achieve by the action. For Kant, intention can make all the difference between morally correct behavior and morally incorrect behavior. Ideology can play a part in legitimizing the use of torture. Ideology is the body of ideas and beliefs of a group, possibly religious, or nation (Maran, 1989, p11). If the ideology of the tortured is believed to be morally wrong and the act of torture prevents the spread of this ideology then torture can be deemed to be justified. So, in conclusion, there are ethical theories that both state that torture can never be justified and those that state it can be, in different, varying circumstances. Case Study: Torture in the Algerian War (1954-1962)
