Res Publica 20 (2):129-143 (2014)

Authors
Matt Stichter
Washington State University
Abstract
In death penalty debates, advocates on both sides have advanced a staggering number of arguments to defend their positions. Many of those arguments fail to support retaining or abolishing the death penalty, and often this is due to advocates pursuing a line of reasoning where the conclusion, even if correctly established, will not ultimately prove decisive. Many of these issues are also interconnected and shouldn’t be treated separately. The goal of this paper is to provide some clarity about which specific issues really determine whether the institution of capital punishment is morally permissible. The issues can be broadly grouped into three categories: substantive; procedural (comparative); and procedural (noncomparative). Substantive debates regard the inherent moral status of the death penalty, while procedural debates regard how the death penalty is applied in practice, with two types of injustice that can result. Substantive issues have the potential to be the most decisive, for if the death penalty is inherently immoral there’s no need to even raise procedural questions. However, it appears difficult for either side to make a clearly compelling argument on substantive grounds. In regards to the procedural arguments, the concerns of noncomparative justice lead to stronger arguments than the comparative concerns, for the irrevocable nature of the death penalty can play a role in the former but not the later. Overall, abolitionists have a clear advantage in this debate, as they only have to make their case on one of these fronts, while supporters must defend themselves on all three fronts.
Keywords Capital punishment  Death penalty  Justice  Law  Political philosophy  Retributivism
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11158-014-9242-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Race, Capital Punishment, and the Cost of Murder.M. Cholbi - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 127 (2):255-282.
Does It Matter If the Death Penalty is Arbitrarily Administered?Stephen Nathanson - 1985 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 (2):149-164.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment.Patrick Lenta & Douglas Farland - 2008 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):273-290.
The Morality of the Death Penalty.Qiu Xinglong - 2005 - Contemporary Chinese Thought 36 (3):9-25.
Kant and Capital Punishment Today.Nelson T. Potter - 2002 - Journal of Value Inquiry 36 (2-3):267-282.
Aggravated Murder and Capital Punishment.Tom Sorell - 1993 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 10 (2):201-213.
Derrida: Opposing Death Penalties.Marguerite La Caze - 2009 - Derrida Today 2 (2):186-199.
Against Retributive Justifications of the Death Penalty.Sarah Roberts-Cady - 2010 - Journal of Social Philosophy 41 (2):185-193.
The Irrevocability of Capital Punishment.Benjamin S. Yost - 2011 - Journal of Social Philosophy 42 (3):321-340.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-03-06

Total views
2,005 ( #1,688 of 2,439,130 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
173 ( #3,247 of 2,439,130 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes