Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Eye for an Eye

“Eye for an Eye”: a slogan

Nathanson on "Eye for an Eye"

There is simply no system for “Eye for an Eye”

“Eye for an Eye” is a metaphorical statement which offers disguise for retribution and lacks guidance

Proves no true retribution, the act of producing suffering requires some part barbaric treatment

"Eye for an eye" provides no retribution for the death penalty

Equality nor proportional retribution provide justification for the death penalty

Abolishing the death penalty would provide two important messages:

1. Respect for life by preserving the sanctity of life and dignity of human beings

2. Exercise restraint of violence, sanctioning violence only for self defense

In Conclusion...

Abolishing

the Death Penalty

Proportional Retributivism:

Proportional Retribution: punishment proportional to the crime; murderers do not get executed

“Severity of a punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the wrong,” Von Hirsch

This theory is not specific enough, as noted by von Hirsch

Proportionality is too flexible, it leaves too many punishments applicable for murder

Equality Retribution is immoral and impossible

Proportional Retribution is too flexible

Human life is sacred

“Treat humanity, in any case, as an end withal, never as a means to an end,” Kant

Death Penalty is not defensive violence

Respect for life is restraint from violence

“In defense of human well being, we may punish people for their crimes, but we ought not to deprive them of everything, which is what the death penalty does.”

Despite cruel and unusual punishment we continue to pass the death penalty

Personal Desert & Human Desert

Reinstate and reaffirm belief in human rights at the core of human dignity

Equal Punishment Principle: the problems

"Eye for an Eye" from a moral perspective

Equality Retribution states punishment should be equal to crime; fails because there is no way to systematically determine punishment

There is no general rule to this theory and provides no criterion for determining punishment

We could not design a system of punishment simply on the basis of “eye for an eye"

A person’s actions determine what a person deserves

We ought to treat people the way they treat others, or lex tailouis

An attractive view prompted by moral common sense, tradition and philosophical thought

Kant on Eye for an Eye

Kant states it is incredibly difficult to adopt a legal justice system

The Principle of Equality is an attempt to treat others the way you ought to be treated

Believe in the undeserved evil

Only the law of retribution, or jus talionis can attempt to provide the degree of punishment

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi