Haag responds by stating that the death penalty does deter crime and that it is really beneficial to a society. Â Â He believes that people will bring to an end from committing crimes if they know that it will devolve to their death. Â I reconstructed Van Den Haags wrinkle below:
1. A person will leave off from committing crimes that will fill to their death.
2. If we have the death penalty, then there are certain crimes that if committed, will lead to death.
3. If we have the death penalty, people will refrain from committing those crimes.
This argument is valid because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusions. Â However, the argument is non sound as premise one is not of necessity truenot everyone will refrain from committing crimes that will lead to their death. This is because some people may be un aware(p) that a crime has the potential to lead to death or they would kinda see someone else die than keep their own lives.
Â
First, when committing a crime, a criminal may not be aware that their actions could lead to the death of others and ultimately, their own death. Â For example, if someone robs a bank, their intent would be to get money and their intentions would not be to knock off someone. Â However, they could end up killing someone (without thinking it through) during the looting in order to get away. Â To illustrate, in the movie The townspeople the objective is to rob a bank but the criminals kill many innocent people while achieving this goal. Â Of course they did not plan to kill these innocent people, but it was necessary to staring(a) the robbery.
A person also may not refrain from committing crimes...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .
No comments:
Post a Comment