Question

THE ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT: A DEFENSE by Ernest van den Haag what are the key points in this article?

Answer 1

THE ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT: A DEFENSE by Ernest van den Haag what are the key points in this article?

Consideration of the justice, morality, or usefulness, of capital punishment is often conflated with objections to its alleged discriminatory or capricious distribution among the guilty. Wrongly so. In the event that death penalty is unethical in se, no circulation can't influence the nature of what is dispersed, be it disciplines or rewards. Prejudicial or eccentric appropriation in this manner couldn't legitimize nullification of capital punishment. Further, maldistribution inheres no more in the death penalty than in some other discipline.

Maldistribution between the liable and the guiltless is, by definition, uncalled for. However, the bad form does not lie in the idea of the discipline. Due to the absolution of capital punishment, the most unfortunate maldistribution happens when it is forced upon the blameless. In any case, the regular claims of segregation and fancy allude to maldistribution among the blameworthy and not to the discipline of the guiltless.

Maldistribution of any punishment among those who deserves it is irrelevant to its justice or morality. Even if poor or black convicts guilty of capital offenses suffer capital punishment, and other convicts equally guilty of the same crimes do not, a more equal distribution, however desirable, would merely be more equal. It would not be more just to the convicts under sentence of death.

Disciplines are forced on individual, not on racial or financial gatherings. Blame is close to home. The main applicable inquiry is: does the individual to be executed merit the discipline? Regardless of whether other people who merited a similar discipline, whatever their financial or racial gathering, have maintained a strategic distance from execution is insignificant. On the off chance that they have, the blame if the executed convicts would not be lessened, nor would their discipline be less merited. To put the issue distinctly, if capital punishment were forced on liable blacks, yet not on liable whites, or, in the event that it were forced by a lottery among the liable, this unreasonably oppressive or whimsical appropriation would neither make the punishment shameful, nor cause anybody to be unfairly rebuffed, in spite of the undue exemption presented on others.

Equality, in short, seems morally less important than justice. And justice is independent of distributional inequalities. The ideal of equal justice demands that justice be equally distributed, not that it be replace by equality. Justice requires that as many of the guilty as possible be punished, regardless of whether others have avoided punishment. To let these others escape the deserved punishment does not do justice to them, or to society. But it is not unjust to those who could not escape.

Please do rate and liked me............