Week 7A: Punishment and the Death Penalty Describe the differences between the d

Week 7A: Punishment and the Death Penalty
Describe the differences between the deterrence argument and the retributive argument for punishment. Then use each of these arguments to give 1) a defense of, and 2) an argument for capital punishment. Finally, which side do you take in the debate about capital punishment and why?
example 1: When considering capital punishment, and the death penalty, two perspectives argue it is morally correct. The deterrence argument is centered around the idea that the death penalty serves as a warning and intimidation to deter people from committing heinous crimes when the punishment could be lethal. This argument aims to prevent future crime by instilling fear into potential offenders of the consequences of these actions. This argument for capital punishment relies on the idea that people will be less inclined to commit these crimes when the prospect of death weighs in front of them. An argument against the deterrence argument is that there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters people from committing these crimes any more than the possibility of life in prison without the possibility of parole. On the other hand, another perspective that argues that the death penalty is morally correct is the retributive argument for punishment. This argument centers around justice and balance in a society. The retributive argument argues that when someone commits a heinous crime, such as a first-degree murder, the perpetrator forfeits their right to life. Since they have taken a life, it is only fair they lose theirs as a consequence. The argument essentially suggests the justice system works as an eye for an eye. Though it is said that an eye for an eye makes the world blind, meaning this theory may perpetuate violence instead of human dignity. In my opinion, I believe that the death penalty is too faulty a system to take the lives of human beings. It is impossible to ensure that every single person who is executed through the death penalty is one hundred percent guilty and, in my opinion, one innocent life taken is one too many.
example 2: Deterrence argument: The deterrence theory of punishment is forward-looking and aims to prevent future crimes. It argues that punishment is justified because it discourages the offender and others from committing similar offenses. The idea is that the threat or reality of punishment, including severe penalties like the death penalty, creates fear of consequences, reducing criminal activity.
The retributive theory is backward-looking and focuses on justice and moral balance. It argues that punishment is deserved and morally required when someone commits a crime. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime, especially serious ones like murder. Retribution is about giving the offender their “just deserts,” meaning the punishment fits the moral weight of their wrongdoing.
Personally, I don’t not believe in capital punishment or “an eye for an eye” point of view. When dealing with human lives I don’t think it’s an appropriate approach. The act of executing a person does not contribute to deterring crime because it only facilitates further violence and further festering of crime.
example 34: I reiterate with an argument supporting the retributive idea for the death penalty. A murderer has taken away a life, and under such circumstances, one can only balance the books by application of capital punishment. This approach ensures that justice is served, and as well reiterates and reinforces the idea that human life is important in this society.
Retribution has something to do with the restoration of balance. It sends a very distinct message that heinous acts will not be tolerated and should be punished with the ultimate punishment. In this case, people will get to understand that moral order exists in society, and those who harm others will face severe consequences.
Besides, capital punishment gives the victim’s families closure. It is possible that the knowledge that such a criminal will be executed may heal the wound in their heart and assure them that their suffering has been recognized.
Second, through capital punishment, the community is protected. Once a dangerous criminal is executed, he can no longer commit more crimes.
Week 7B: Animal Ethics
In this discussion board, I would like you to pick one of the topics discussed regarding animal ethics, i.e. vegetarianism, speciesism, hunting, animal research, etc. and provide one argument for and one argument against based on the readings in the text. Finally, after providing those arguments, what is your view on the matter? What are your reasons for holding that view?
Non-Human Animals: Crash Course Philosophy #42 (youtube.com)