Arguments Against Capital Punishment
Arguments Against Capital Punishment
The very first argument which is made against the death penalty revolves around the risk of executing innocent people. In the case of making a mistake in ruling, there needs to be an awareness that this is not rectifiable. It’s an argument based on authority, leaning on the legal system’s fallibility (ICDP, 2021). The assumption here is that judicial systems are prone to error, and the finality of execution leaves no room for correction. Counterexamples include cases where wrongfully convicted individuals were exonerated, often after lengthy periods, underscoring the potential for irreversible errors.
A second argument focuses on the suffering of the criminal’s family, highlighting the emotional trauma they endure. This is an argument by analogy, comparing the grief of the victim’s family with that of the criminal’s family. It assumes that the impact of the death penalty extends beyond the individual to their loved ones, challenging the notion of justice that exclusively focuses on the perpetrator and victim. A counterexample is the concept of collective responsibility in criminal justice, where the family’s suffering is seen as an unfortunate but necessary part of upholding law and order.
Concerns about the just administration of capital punishment form another critical argument. This argument, based on examples, points to disparities in how the death penalty is applied, often influenced by racial and economic biases. It assumes systemic flaws within the judicial system, where factors unrelated to the crime itself can influence sentencing (ICDP, 2021). An alternative view is that reforms and oversight could address these biases, ensuring a more equitable application of capital punishment.
The argument that criminals are capable of experiencing pain and fear emphasizes the humane aspect. This is an argument based on authority, underscoring the ethical responsibilities of a society towards all its members, including criminals. It assumes that all individuals, regardless of their actions, have inherent rights that should be respected. Counterarguments typically focus on the crimes’ severity, arguing that certain acts forfeit these rights.
The inhumane nature of execution methods is another point of contention. This argument challenges the claim of ‘humane’ execution methods, citing the physical and mental suffering involved. It’s an example-based argument highlighting specific methods and their effects (ICDP, 2021). The assumption here is that no method of execution can be genuinely humane, countering claims of ‘painless’ or ‘dignified’ methods.
Lastly, the argument about the brutalizing effect on society suggests that public executions desensitize people to violence. This is an argument by analogy, likening public interest in executions to a form of morbid curiosity, similar to the public’s fascination with accidents. It assumes that such spectacles can coarsen societal attitudes towards violence. However, proponents of the death penalty might argue that the educational and deterrent value of public executions outweighs these concerns.
Comparison Between The Two Essays
Despite their opposing stances, both essays on capital punishment exhibit similarities in their argumentative approaches and fallacies. Each essay uses argument by example extensively, drawing on specific instances or statistics to bolster their claims. For instance, the pro-capital punishment essay cites cost figures and execution rates to support its economic argument. In contrast, the anti-capital punishment essay references cases of wrongful convictions to highlight the risk of executing innocent people.
Additionally, both essays occasionally lean towards emotional appeals; the pro side evokes a sense of retribution and safety, whereas the anti side emphasizes the humane treatment of individuals and the impact on families. This emotional appeal can sometimes lead to slippery slope fallacies, where one event is presumed to lead to another without sufficient evidence. Both essays also make assumptions about the nature and purpose of justice, though these assumptions diverge significantly based on their perspectives.
Contrast Between the Two Essays
The primary difference between the two essays lies in the types of fallacies and argumentative foundations they rely on. The pro-capital punishment essay often employs utilitarian arguments, focusing on broader societal benefits like deterrence and cost savings, and sometimes falls into false dichotomy fallacies, presenting capital punishment as the only viable option for severe crimes. In contrast, the anti-capital punishment essay is more inclined towards deontological ethics, emphasizing moral principles