The death penalty has raised different questions in society concerning its illegitimacy as a punishment for capital offenses. The major question, which remains underlying, is whether our established justice system is out of the desire to rehabilitate or it is out of the desire for retribution (Forst, 327). Examination of both sides of this argument, looking deep into the legality and ethics of this kind of punishment for capital offenses, more so in the United States, has failed to come up with a clear stand. From the arguments I will provide below, my stand for this kind of debate is that the death penalty is not a correct form of punishment for anyone in society.
The first question we need to answer before conducting a debate or rather an argument on this topic is what punishments are for in our societies. Given that we all take the lead from our parents, who also took the lead from their parents, it becomes one of our major sources of truth and ideas based on what punishments should stand for (Forst, 327). It is common in our families that whenever a child does something wrong, we always intervene by lecturing them and, at some point, even spanking them so that they will always remember in the future before they do the same thing again.
It is a common thing that whenever one breaks the law, for example, by breaking into someone’s property and stealing something, then he or she gets caught in the act, he will automatically go to prison. Prison is meant for lawbreakers and despite the kind of offense committed, lawbreakers are supposed to be prisoned. Prison deprives criminals of the right to freedom for a given period, and from this, they learn how being responsible is important. Bible is regarded as the reference point for all the laws set, and it is very clear in the bible that no one is entitled to take another’s life. I can therefore conclude that a capital offense cannot be justified by taking the offenders but rather giving him or them the corresponding punishment he deserves. God is the only one who can take life, and no human being is entitled to the same.
Abortion has been one of the emerging trends in our modern societies in the recent past. This has led to arguments from raging groups in society, with the church being on the look for this kind of activity. Marquis in his own belief tries to make it clear that abortion can be morally right or wrong depending on the surrounding circumstances leading to it happening. Marquis came up with his own decision after a critical analysis of different philosophical arguments put forward by pro-choicers and anti-abortionists. He looked into the symmetrical strengths and arguments from both sides of the argument. Abortion is considered a grave offense in many societies of the world, but in spite of this, it can be right depending on the factors leading to it.
Marquis says that from the camps, the anti-abortionist convincingly gives typical ideas on the fact that fetuses have no difference from adult human beings and taking out their life at that early stage is of no difference to taking the life of an adult human being. On the other side. The pro-choicers also give convincing arguments demonstrating that fetuses are nowhere near features possessed by the adults (Marquis 367). Marquis says that the arguments provided by pro-choices are too narrow to help one arrive at a favorable conclusion, whereas the anti-abortionists also provide a broad range of arguments.
Marquis, therefore, argues that both sides are, to some extent, correct or wrong. For instance, a situation where a woman having a fetus is in a critical medical condition, and the only option is to abort the child for her to survive lest they all die. In such a condition, it is undoubtedly that the best option is to give in to the idea of aborting the child (Marquis 367). Another instance is a woman who feels she is not prepared for a baby at the time she conceives; then decides to abort the baby. In that case, it is morally wrong and should not be encouraged at all. In conclusion, abortion is a two-way open-ended idea and should be primarily considered an option given the circumstances are worth it.
Forst, Brian. “Hugo Adam Bedau is Austin Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. He received his Ph. D. degree from Harvard University in 1961. He is the author of Justice and Equality (1971), The Case Against the Death Penalty (1973), The Courts, the Constitution, and Capital Punishment (1977), and Death is Different (1987); editor of The Death Penalty in America (1982); and author of.” The Socio-economics of Crime and Justice (2016): Pp 327.
Marquis, Don. “Why abortion is immoral.” Applied Ethics: A Multicultural Approach (2017): Pp 367.