Capital Punishment Debate
Introduction
Punishment for crimes varies depending on the type of offense as specified by laws of a given jurisdiction. Capital crimes are met with capital punishment which involves the execution of those affected through death. A debate has always existed on whether capital punishment is morally permissible. Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule in their article “Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs” present arguments on the debate. The presentation of arguments is based on personal opinions as well as researched literature. Capital punishment does not significantly serve to prevent similar crimes from happening, with the process prone to errors, lacks moral ethics and leads to unjustified killings. The article supports the claims that capital punishment is only based on assumptions rather than evidence. Ignorance on the ethical impacts of capital punishments and lack of differentiation between acts and omissions lead to unsolved puzzles revolving around institutions of justice.
Arguments
The debate on capital punishment is only based on the assumption that lives are saved as a result. Capital punishment involves serious ignorance of moral ethics which requires affirmative state actions. Capital punishment leaves out critical definitions on the difference between acts and omissions which may lead to exaggerations on the interpretation of the impact of the sentence. Each day brings about unsolved puzzles concerning the implementation of capital punishment. Therefore, capital punishment is not morally permissible in the society and states should consider reviewing laws to find an alternative type of punishment since the evidence given to support the need for capital punishment is triggered by pain and vengeance rather than sense.
Quality of Reasoning
The reasoning presented by the article is strong and supporting evidence is provided where questions could arise. The support for capital punishment, for example, is obtained from a questionable claim that capital punishment saves lives. The claim on saving lives is wisely brought into doubt by giving relevant evidence against the claim rather than defending the point that capital punishment does not protect lives. In reality, capital punishments are passed after very long delays, and the chances are that victims are reformed before sentences are given. Also, the fear for execution cannot be directly linked to a reduction in the crime rate since criminals appear to find reasons for their actions far much stronger than fear. A claim is raised for example that moral obligation and overall welfare are wrongly defined in the context of capital punishment. Condemning capital punishment as put by some scholars is also moral (Kohlberg & Elfenbein, 2011). In general, the article raises issues that make sense in criticizing the support of capital punishment without necessarily defending their position but leaving the evidence to do the defending.
Conclusion
The premises given in the study are supported by concrete evidence from additional research sources. A step by step criticism on the evidence provided to support capital punishment shows how well the authors are conversant with the topic. The evidence gathered leads to a confident conclusion that capital punishment is not morally permissible. Since the debate on capital punishment is based on mere assumptions on life-saving, crime number decrement and poor differentiation between acts and omissions, capital punishment is not permissible in the general society.