Analysis Of Nathanson's Argument Against Capital Punishment

In this paper, I will discuss Nathansons argument against capital punishment. I will discuss how Nathanson has responses to Haags arguments with two cases. I argue that Haag has good responses but I would agree with Nathanson to say that one must treat everyone the same depending on their crimes without treating each criminal differently even though they have committed the same crime but are not getting the same punishment. Haag’s primary objection in capital punishment was that it does not matter if the death penalty is administered arbitrarily because individual punishments depend on individual quilt alone, and whether punishments are distributed equally among the class of guilty persons does not matter. Haag says that the justice of a particular punishment is a non-comparative matter. In his argument he talks about 2 specific cases. He talks about the speeder example that if you were to be pulled over by a police officer, if he were to treat everyone equally he shouldn’t give you a ticket because the officer cannot say that he has never let people off with a warning. It’s saying how you must treat everyone …show more content…
When it comes to having justice being served equally amongst individuals, they must be all treated as a similar case and with same results instead of treating each person differently based on how they may argue their case. Nathanson believes that Haag’s argument on treating individuals differently is a discriminatory effect in the justice system. Nathanson believes it is arbitrary to decide whom specifically deserves the capital punishment and whom deserves a lesser of a sentence which then makes a distinction between who deserves what