Comment & Debate
C.S. Lewis. “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”. 1970 – “In England we have lately had a controversy about capital punishment…I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory [over the Humanitarian Theory]…The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting https://issuecounsel.com/?post_type=argument&p=15363 between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust. I do not here contend that the question ‘Is it deserved?’ is the only one we can reasonably ask about a punishment. We may very properly ask whether it is likely to deter others and to reform the criminal. But neither of these two last questions is a question about justice. There is no sense in talking about a ‘just deterrent’ or a ‘just cure.’ We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case.’…the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. This means that you start being “kind” to people before you have considered their rights, and then force upon them supposed kindnesses which they in fact had a right to refuse, and finally kindnesses which no one but you will recognize as kindnesses and which the recipient will feel as abominable cruelties. You have overshot the mark. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful.”
Steve Farrell. “A Conservative Case for Capital Punishment”. NewsMax.com. 18 Mar. 2005 – “‘Since the dawn of creation the law of God to man has been ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.’ Today we refer to this biblical principle in public law as capital punishment.”
Potter Stewart, Majority opinion in 7-2 ruling that the death penalty is a constitutionally acceptable form of punishment for premeditated murder (July 2, 1976). – We are concerned here only with the imposition of capital punishment for the crime of murder, and when a life has been taken deliberately by the offender, we cannot say that the punishment is invariably disproportionate to the crime. It is an extreme sanction suitable to the most extreme of crimes.[1]
Louis P.Pojman. “Debating the Death Penalty”, Chapter 3: “Why the Death Penalty is Morally Permissible”. 2004 – …the crimial has committed a heinous act of violence with malice aforethought.I would argue that the electric chair, far from being unconscionable, is completely justified.
Saqib Ali – If Capital Punishment is state sponsored murder, then any lesser punishment is a state sponsored murder of Justice.[2]
“The Death Penalty – A Defense” – It bring forth the greatest possible justice for society and the victim of crimes. Punishment must be held in proportion to the crime for justice to be served. And justice – not humanity – must be the cornerstone by which ruthless violent criminals and murderers shall be judged.
…It recognizes man’s natural sense of justice. It has been put down in man that the the most heinous outrage must have the most severe punishment. Capital punishment satisfy that feeling more than any other punishment.
By: emmily