Was Capital Punishment an Irrational Act? What is Kant’s reasoning? How does he distinguish between “intelligible” and “sensible” standpoints? What is Socrates’ reasoning for opposing the death penalty? Let’s explore some of the questions surrounding these two philosophers’ opinions on the death penalty. After all, the purpose of punishment is to keep society in check and protect individual rights.
Who is the father of capital punishment?
Anthony Amsterdam was a Stanford law professor who led a group of lawyers to convince the Supreme Court in 1972 that capital punishment was too harsh. This new law had several test cases working their way through the court system. Amsterdam’s team decided to divide up the states and tried to persuade the court that the new laws were not consistent with the Constitution. The team eventually failed. However, the court did uphold at least one of the states’ new laws.
The identity of the killing state is shaped by the tribalism of the family, which has contemporary roots in the political history of the 1970s. In the 1970s, conservative political sub-movements gained ground, with Evangelical Christian leaders mobilizing their flocks to oppose the cultural changes. These conservative movements embraced the idea of a middle-class heteronormative nuclear family and extolled “family values”. These beliefs acted as a powerful interpretative framework for harsh punishment.
What does Kant think the purpose of punishment is?
What does Immanuel Kant say about the death penalty? This philosopher argued that capital punishment should only be administered when a person commits a crime that is so serious that life is unworthy of it. He also argued that capital punishment should be rare because it is so disproportionate, and therefore, in most cases, a murderer should receive life imprisonment instead of death.
The purpose of capital punishment is to satisfy the legal justice of murderers. While not everyone is equal in moral worth, it is still a mistake to give different punishments to criminals who have no honor or dignity. As a result, the last murderer in prison should receive death. Otherwise, he would not be considered a criminal and would not receive his just deserts.
For the sake of clarity, Kant defines crime. He also presents a theory that punishment is justified by the criminal’s good for society. This theory, however, rejects the utilitarian argument for the punishment, since the criminal may be innocent. Moreover, a utilitarian justification of capital punishment would justify the execution of an innocent person, even though that person might be guilty.
What did Socrates believe capital punishment?
When asked about the death penalty, Socrates’ reply is not exactly surprising. He cites the undemocratic Spartan and Crete regimes as an example of good government. Later, in his Republic, he further reinforced these ideas, advocating a rule by elite, enlightened “Philosopher-Kings”.
The charges against Socrates were based on impiety. He had been accused of impiety, but the other defendants had agreed to pay him 3,000 drachmas for his services. This was an enormous sum of money at the time, and the accusers were unable to convince Socrates of his innocence. The accused had been impious toward the pantheon of Athens, and his trial was a public demonstration of their lack of respect for the gods.
Socrates’ view on capital punishment is complex. While there are some historical precedents for capital punishment, they often involve the execution of a convicted criminal. The Mosaic Code cites numerous crimes punishable by death. In 621 B.C.E., the code of Athens outlines several crimes punishable by death, including the trial and death of Socrates. The Twelve Tables of Roman law include several crimes punishable by death, including insulting songs and disturbing the nocturnal peace in urban areas.
Why does Socrates oppose the death penalty?
Socrates’s opposition to the death penalty is not surprising; he opposes it to protect his soul. He compares himself to the Olympic heroes, and claims that killing someone would be an act of wrong. This idea is problematic in the eyes of the philosopher, as it would mean that he is no longer a wise man. Therefore, he refuses to accept the death penalty and instead proposes a minute-long penalty.
In the trial, Socrates is found guilty. Although he expects to lose more by a margin, he is still convinced that his innocence will prevent him from dying. Meletus suggests a death penalty, and Socrates asks, “What should I receive in return?” Socrates believes that he is unjustly punished, because he dissuaded his fellow citizens from personal ambitions. As a result, he was successful in dissuading them to pursue mental perfection.
After the trial, Socrates was accused of impiety and corruption. His accusers had promised to pay him 3,000 drachmas, and the jury would have been satisfied. Socrates’ defense was to ask for free meals in the Prytaneum (the city’s public dining hall). But Socrates knew that a death sentence would infuriate the jury and result in his death. In fact, I. F. Stone notes that death sentences for crimes like this were sure to be rejected.
What does Plato say about capital punishment?
Among other things, Plato’s views on capital punishment are controversial. He holds that the death penalty should be reserved for the most serious of crimes. He also believes that there is a difference between justice and revenge. Revenge involves intentionally harming another person in an effort to gain emotional satisfaction. Plato argues that revenge combined with anger causes exaggerated suffering. If you administer capital punishment, it’s important to consider the consequences of your actions.
Although Plato did not advocate capital punishment, he was opposed to retributive punishment, such as the death penalty. He felt that suffering is more excruciating than death. Inflicting pain on someone is no better than inflicting suffering. Plato argued that punishment is only cruel and unnecessary if it is necessary to punish the offender. He also thought that inflicting pain on a person would only make them worse.
While many believe that Plato’s arguments for capital punishment are based on a lack of evidence, it is important to consider the philosopher’s perspective on the topic. Plato believes that there is no justice in capital punishment. He argues that there is no way to prove that death is the best way to punish a criminal. If this were true, then capital punishment would be an unjust and barbaric way to punish someone.
What did Socrates say about the death penalty?
What Did Socrates Say About the Death Penalty? In the “Apology,” Socrates explains his case and the death penalty in a famous dialogue. The dialogue is a perfect example of rhetoric; it contains stories, arguments, analogies, questions, and answers. Socrates defends himself, asserting his right to speak and write, and analyzing the context of the time.
But the argument is flawed. The death penalty is morally wrong. It makes no sense to execute people without a fee, and it makes no sense to euthanize a criminal without a fair trial. And in the process, Socrates’ arguments are weak, arrogant, and provocative. Moreover, he caused public commotion twice when he told the story of the Oracle. It’s not an intelligent defensive strategy!
The death penalty has a terrible effect on human nature. As a punishment, it is most effective when it is carried out in a single event. A life sentence, in contrast, is an ongoing punishment. Its intensity is sufficient to deter even the most determined spirit. Furthermore, capital punishment requires one crime for every example to the society. The latter is more likely, but it is still a very grave crime.
What does Plato say about the death penalty?
Plato discusses capital punishment in various contexts, including murder, wounding a family member with intent to kill, stealing from public and temple property, and engaging in private war. He also considers the difference between a single severe event and a series of smaller impressions. While the former has a strong impact on the mind, punishment by death is final, so the duration of the punishment should be deemed significant.
A common philosophic defense of capital punishment focuses on the general justification of punishment. The purpose of punishment is to punish criminals who harm society. The retributivist view holds that the death penalty does not satisfy revenge desires, but serves general moral principles. For this reason, punishment is justified only when it is necessary to prevent another crime, such as murder. The utilitarian position also considers the nature of justice.
There are many problems with the death penalty. One of them is that it has become a standard punishment for most grave crimes. Yet there is a difference between the retributive and punitive aspects of punishment. As a matter of fact, these two aspects of the death penalty are mutually reinforcing each other. A better preventive measure will reduce the number of victims of nuclear plants and tsunamis.
Does Plato support capital punishment?
Does Plato support capital punishment? The answer to this question depends on who you ask. Plato’s utilitarian approach to punishment is explicit, though not always in practice. He first allows capital punishment for aggravated murder when “the effect is the destruction of numbers.” Later, he calls for its abolition. But what is Plato’s exact view of capital punishment? Let’s examine a few of the key issues.
Capital punishment has been used in ancient Greece and Rome. Draco was hanged in the 7th century B.C.E., but it was forbidden to Roman citizens during the republic. Although most major religions sanction capital punishment, Plato himself opposed it. But followers of Judaism claim that a passage in Genesis 9:6 justifies capital punishment. In fact, Plato argued that the death penalty was not extreme.
The retributivist approach to capital punishment raises philosophic issues. For one, it focuses on the forfeiture of rights. But it raises unanswered questions, such as whether a person’s rights can ever be restored. For a capital punishment to be effective, it must also be justified by the disproportionate consequences that result from its use. The moral import of these conditions must be considered in any assessment of the death penalty.
About The Author
Zeph Grant is a music fanatic. He loves all types of genres and can often be found discussing the latest album releases with friends. Zeph is also a hardcore content creator, always working on new projects in his spare time. He's an amateur food nerd, and loves knowing all sorts of random facts about food. When it comes to coffee, he's something of an expert - he knows all the best places to get a good cup of joe in town.