Paper help
ikerramos04
HugoAdamBedauontheDeathPenaltybyChristianLopez.pptxHow to Argue About the Death Penalty By Hugo Adam Bedau
By Christian Lopez
The Author – Hugo Adam Bedau
Born Sep 23, 1926 – Died Aug 13 2012
American Political Philosopher especially noted for his work on the death penalty
Earned a PhD from Harvard University
Professor of Philosophy in Tufts University, previously he taught at Dartmouth College, Princeton University, and Reed College.
Testified against the death penalty before the U.S. Congress and many state legislatures
The Questions of Fact
Is the Death Penalty a better deterrent to crime (especially murder) than the alternative of imprisonment?
Is the Death Penalty administered in a discriminatory way– in particular, are black or other nonwhite offenders (or offenders whose victims are white) more likely to be tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed than whites (or than offenders whose victims are nonwhite)
Risk of Innocent people could actually be executed and risk that a person convicted of a felony but not executed will commit another capital felony?
The Answers to the Questions
(1) Little to no evidence that the death penalty is a better deterrent to murder than is imprisonment.
(2) Evidence that the death penalty is whether intentionally or not administered in a way that is arbitrary and racially discriminatory
(3) Risk is impossible to calculate but the risk is a nonzero chance as provided evidence of the record of innocents convicted, sentenced, and executed.
(4) Data shows some murderer will continue to murder
Due Process and Policy Changes
Furman v. Georgia. The Court argued in Furman that capital trials and death sentencing were in practice unfair (Violation of the 8th amendment and 14th amendment)
Laws/Policies have changed after 1972 due to the general acceptance of a fair trial (due process of law) and The Court decision
Dispute
Identifying the relevant goals, acknowledging the force of the relevant principles, and agreeing on the relevant general facts, will still not suffice to resolve the dispute
Disagreement on the relative importance of achieving a given goal or disagreement over the relative weight of a given principle likely shows up in disagreements about the justification of the death penalty itself.
Social Goals
G1: Punishment ought to contribute to the reduction of crime
G2: Punishments ought to be economical
Endorsement of these two goals tend to encourage support for the death penalty.
Disputable Social Goal
G3: Punishment ought to rectify the harm and injustice cause by crime
G4: Punishments ought to serve as a recognized channel for the release of public indignation and anger at the offender over crime
G5: Punishment ought to make convicted offenders into better persons rather then leave them as they are or make them worse
G4 and G5 are incompatible with each other
Seven Principles
No one’s life may be deliberately and intentionally taken by another unless in self defense (or other circumstances)
The more severe a penalty is, the more important it is that it be imposed only on those who truly deserved it
The more severe a penalty is, the weightier the justification required to warrant its imposition on anyone
Whatever the criminal offense, the accused or convicted offender does not forfeit his rights and dignity as a person
There is an upper limit to the severity—cruelty, destructiveness, finality– of permissible punishments, regardless of offense
Fairness requires that punishments should be graded in their severity according to the gravity of the offence.
If human lives are to be risked, the risk should fall more heavily on the wrong-doers (the guilty) than on the others (the innocent)
First to Fifth Principles
The First justifies the use of lethal force in self-defense and other circumstances
The second and third emphasize the importance of due process and equal protection
The fourth draws attention to the nature and value of persons, even those convicted of terrible crimes
The fifth reminds us that even if crimes have no upper limits, punishments under civilized society may not imitate crimes in that regard.
The Sixth and Seventh and Author’s final thoughts
The sixth entails if murder is the gravest crime, then it must receive the severest punishment. Does not require use of death penalty.
The seventh according to Hugo has been used wrongly by defenders of the death penalty. When used in a objectionable manner it is become a disguised version of the first policy goal (reduce crime). Second, the argument fosters the illusion we can measure risk when we can not.
The author states that the death penalty is a false and misleading picture of man and society. He also says that we are fooling ourselves to believe a system of ideal retributive justice designed for a such a persons is an appropriate model for the penal system in our society
