Ethics by Nahashon Kimaru: Everything You Need to Know

Question 1 

According to Nahashon, the two messages that would be sent by abolishing death penalty will include the expression of respect for dignity for all the human beings which is inclusive of those who are guilty of murder. Secondly, abolishing death penalty would symbolize reinforcement on the conviction that a violence that is considered defensive is justifiable. In his reply to the objection that murderers forfeit their right to be respected as human beings, Nahashon argues that is murder is considered the most serious crime. The murderer should therefore be punished severely such that the punishment is rated the highest on the scale. Nahashon is right on his argument because a death penalty to a murderer denies the criminal the right to life. If that is the case, therefore ‘an eye for an eye’ should be applied in any crime, which has deemed impossible. For example how do you punish theft for theft? I agree to the opinion that a severe punishment should be imposed for the crime of murder and death penalty should be abolished. 

Question 2 

Deterrence is not a decisive factor in the debate about morality of death penalty according to Van Den Haag, because deterrence will only instill fear, but it will not prevent the cases of murder, therefore it is not a decisive factor. Actually the criminal law is supposed to protect people’s lives against potential murderers as opposed to those who have already committed murder; this is Vans argument. I do not agree with this argument, because the main purpose of justice is to protect the rights of human life. Therefore when it instills fear to those who are about to commit a murder crime, it will not be carrying out its mandate to punish those who have actually committed murder. 

Question 3 

According to Nahashon, “an eye for an eye” is an attractive view because it negates that every action should be paid back with the same action. In support of this view, a theft case should be punished with theft and therefore murder should be punished with murder. This is a powerful view because it gives guidelines on how to determine the best punishment for any crime, and Kant further explains ‘that what a person deserves is related to what he does’. According to Nahashon, there are two main problems from this view; first it does not provide a measure of moral desert and secondly it does not give appropriate criteria for measuring the appropriate level of punishment. Using such a view, problems will not be solved, but it will support more barbaric treatment to those who have committed crimes and this would promote more problems.