An Eye for an Eye?: The Immorality of Punishing by Death

by Stephen Nathanson professor of philosophy,

Overview

The death penalty issue has become the epitome of the unresolvable issue, the question which people answer on the basis of gut reactions rather than logical arguments. In the second edition of An Eye for an Eye? Stephen Nathanson evaluates arguments for and against the death penalty, and ultimately defends an abolitionist position to the controversial practice, including arguments that show how and why the dealth penalty is inconsistent with respect for life and a commitment to justice. A timely new postscript and an updated bibliography accompany the volume.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780742599291
Publisher:	Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Publication date:	10/16/2001
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	224
File size:	612 KB

About the Author

Stephen Nathanson is professor of philosophy at Northeastern University and the author of Economic Justice and Should We Consent to Be Governed? In addition to his extensive writings on the death penalty, many of which have been anthologized, Nathanson has also written on patriotism and economic justice.

Table of Contents

	Foreword	vii
	Preface to the Second Edition	ix
	Preface	xi
	Acknowledgments	xv
1	Respect for Life	1
2	Killing to Protect Life: The Deterrence Argument	15
3	The Economic Argument for Executions	33
4	Should We Execute Those Who Deserve to Die?	42
5	The Problem of Unjust Deserts	59
6	Do Murderers Deserve to Die?	69
7	Deserving to Die	83
8	Is the Death Penalty Cruel and Unusual?	96
9	Vengeance and Vigilantism	108
10	What If the Death Penalty Did Save Lives?	119
11	The Death Penalty As A Symbolic Issue	131
	Epilogue	147
	Postscripts to the Second Edition	149
	Notes	187
	Selected Bibliography	197
	Index	203

Editorial Reviews

With the grounds for appeal running out for those on death row and the pace of executions quickening, Nathanson examines the philosophical and moral arguments for and against the death penalty and concludes that it is morally unacceptable. Much of this material has been covered before (cf. Hugo Bedau, Death Is Different , LJ 6/1/87), but an important feature of the present volume is its terse, logical development, which can be followed by readers who do not have backgrounds in law or philosophy. An excellent source for those against the death penalty and a major challenge to those who favor it. John Broderick, Stonehill Coll., North Easton, Mass.

Library Journal