• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Capital Punishment - analyse the views of Ernest van den Haag and Hugo Adam Bedau,

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Marisol Torres Capital Punishment: Ernest van den Haag and Hugo Adam Bedau As a society we have an established set of rules and norms that are enforced by our justice system which we as a people have deemed as the highest power to determine when these rules and norms are broken and what appropriate punishment should be given. We live in a world filled with diversity. Not only diversity in cultures but diversity with people in terms of character and morals. Society is filled with both good upstanding people but also those people who find it less than necessary to follow any norms or rules society has created but instead find a life in crime. Crimes can range from something minimal such as theft to the most serious which is murder. This introduces us to capital punishment or more commonly termed, the death penalty. Though openly controversial, capital punishment has its share of opponents and supporters. Many philosophers have discussed issues in relation to violence, laws and punishment. Malcolm X is one such philosopher. His beliefs in violence in terms of self defense can relate to the issue of capital punishment. Malcolm X believed that one should defend themselves by all means necessary when it means self defense. He believed in non violence unless one?s life was at risk and needed defending. In such cases self defense should be practiced. ...read more.


Therefore Haag uses the lives of future innocent victims as the advantage of capital punishment whereas Bedau though agreeing with Haag about the possibility of executing innocent people, identifies the risks as ?social costs? (pg. 367). Bedau proceeds to discuss the economic costs that the death penalty incurs. Cost of housing the prisoner while on death row, cost of the capital trial and of the appeals. Bedau discusses the risk of executing innocent people just as Haag but Bedau finds different aspects of it to elaborate and approaches the matter in terms of costs to society. Haag makes two points in regards to deterrence for which Bedau has an argument he presents. According to Haag, capital punishment deters other criminals from committing murder and per the Ehrlich study 1 execution saves 7 or 8 innocent lives and not executing the murderer is a form of irresponsibility when the only reason is that there is no guarantee that their execution will lengthen or save future innocent victims who would be murdered had the murderer be spared. Bedau argues that capital punishment cannot deter murder but instead it can possibly only prevent it. Bedau draws a distinction between the death penalty as a crime preventive and death penalty as a crime deterrent. Haag does not make a distinction and instead only discusses the death penalty as a crime deterrent. It is only reasonable that the distinction be made. ...read more.


This approach will of course never happen so I will offer a different one. Considering that it is argued that capital punishment is unfairly applied and that an accused murderer?s innocence or guilt is determined based on how much funds they have to afford good counsel and appeals then as a way to eliminate this risk every single person who si accused of murder should have the best counsel available to them regardless of whether they can afford it or not. This will allow every single person to get a fair trial and the possibility of executing someone who is actually innocent will no longer exist. A person will no longer be executed with the possible doubt that they may be innocent but just could not afford to be defended fairly. If someone murderers another human being then they should be punished just as severely, but also until their guilt is proven they should be defended like anyone else, regardless of how much money they have. Innocence and guilt should never have a price tag. Capital punishment is our society?s way of keeping moral boundaries and norms in place. We as a people can have different opinions about the severity of the death penalty but that is all they are, opinions. Whether we agree with the death penalty or oppose it we must learn to recognize other points of views and educate ourselves. Murder is the most severe of crimes and the death penalty is the most severe of punishments. Therefore, each one of us has a choice to decide whether they go hand in hand. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. Utilitarianism is unjust

    He points out the fact that it would only be true if spending our lives in the machine would maximize our satisfaction, and continues with the belief that it would indeed do so. However, the problem with his argument is that living inside an experience machine would not necessarily produce the most satisfaction.

  2. Consider the arguments for and against paid organ donation.

    Since it has been established that only less affluent people are likely to sell their kidneys, other people would look down on those who sell their organs and more of a social divide between these two 'classes' would be created in Britain.

  1. Should capital punishment be reinstated?

    legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 12 years. In Britain in the 20th century, the average time was from 3 to 8 weeks and only one appeal was permitted. Does the death penalty deter?

  2. Arguing against the death penalty. Truly there is no purpose to the Death Penalty ...

    How can this be? All the teachings of Christ, save for those which have been horribly twisted by his followers, are opposed to any form of criminal justice. It seems that the modern Christian has begun to accept only those teachings which feel convenient.

  1. The only punishment that can achieve justice is retribution DISCUSS

    crimes than others, also, every crime has its own background and situation which may affect the justification of the punishment. Severity in punishment should be proportional to how morally wrong the crime was. To gain 'justice' via retribution, the punishments served must be fair.

  2. Capital Punishment

    the abolishment of Capital Punishment, the Pope was one of the main Christian figures that opposed Capital Punishment, and voted for the abolishment of Capital Punishment. Although there was one other main group which also were against Capital Punishment, they are the synod of the Church of England (Vatican Council)

  1. Assess whether an unequal distribution of property between individuals could be a feature of ...

    As for the capitalist free market aspect, wealth creation can be the only means by which the poorest in society can benefit; via the state taxing the rich and redistributing some of it to the poor. In this hypothetical situation we would have legal and foundational equality, as well as equality of opportunity.

  2. DNA and capital punishment

    obviously want to hear.The mentally challenged will likely give a false confession because they are either lead to believe that they did something wrong or they are trying to please the officers and tell them what they think the officers want to hear.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work