Sarah Roberts-Cady (2010) in her article “Against Retributive Justification of the Death Penalty,” argues that retributive justice does not justify capital punishment. The retributive theories give partial answers to issues of the death penalty and, therefore, cannot morally legitimize it. She argues that punishment that is equal to the crime committed is difficult to achieve. The reward for wrongdoing may never be near the level of the crime if one does not want to break the principles of morality. She claims that it is not fair for one to claim that sentencing a murderer to death by a lethal injection since the experience may not be equivalent to that of the offended. Similarly, the appeal to the currency of freedom do not apply to some crimes such as rape. Restricting the criminal’s freedom with the aim of rewarding the offended does not match in any way the offence. The degree of seriousness of the crime is subjective just as personal judgments is in support of what crimes warrant a capital punishment. In a nutshell, Roberts-Cady opines that it is not possible to justify the death penalty by appealing to theories of retributive justice.
I agree with the author that death penalty is not justifiable from retributive perspectives. There is no moral or even legal way to recreate punishments that match the crimes either directly or indirectly. For example, if an offender tortured a citizen to death, even when sentenced to death by hanging, or lethal injection, the pain may not match. The arguments can help in the debate on capital punishment.
I realized that judges might face difficulties in the process of delivering justices for both defendant and the offended. The punishments may never seem fair from moral standards and human rights arguments.
Work cited
Roberts-Cady Sarah. Against Retributive Justifications of the Death Penalty. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 41 No. 2, Summer 2010, 185–193.
Just War Theory
Mosely (n.d) in the “Just War Theory” describes the perspectives that justify war. The theory explains ethical justifications and limitations to war. It applies when warring sides share values and, therefore, may enter into explicit or implicit agreements on what to, and not do during the war. The concept has a long history that has evolved to conventional agreements such as the Geneva and The Hague Conventions. However, even with these international regulations, it is quite difficult to uphold them during the war since its nature hinders morality. Soldiers have been getting training in just war theories and could bear the responsibility of breaking them. If the goal of war is to win, consequentialist would argue that either side can employ all means including bombing innocent civilians. However, from Kantian ethics, each warring side ought to respect the fundamental rights of the other side. Three approaches emerge in the just war theory. The Jus Ad Bellum Convention postulates war should have a just cause. On the other hand, the Jus In Bello seeks to determine how much force is necessary during the war. Just post Bellum are the conditions of cessations of war so that the innocent people do not suffer undue consequences. Nevertheless, there is seldom any theory that is absolute in determining morality in war.
I have learned that it is justifiable to attack civilians in some instances especially if they engage in guerrilla techniques or participate in the war indirectly such as feeding the enemy. However, that is debatable from other perspectives such as the readiness to die.
Works cited
Mosely Alexander. Just War Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N..d. Web. July 16, 2015. Available at <http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/>
