Exam 2 PHI 2630

i.) Give a clear, accurate statement of the Consequentialist Theory of Punishment. Your answer should also include two supplemental claims that accompany the Consequentialist Theory of Punishment. ii.) Give a clear, accurate explanation of Van Den Haag's consequentialist argument in favor of the death penalty. iii.) One objection to Van Den Haag appeals to facts about the distribution of the death penalty. Explain this objection and also include Van Den Haag's two responses. iv.) One objection to Van Den Haag appeals to facts about deterrence. Explain this objection and also include Van Den Haag's response. v.) One objection to Van Den Haag appeals to the suffering of people given the death penalty. Explain this objection and also include Van Den Haag's two responses.

i.) An action or practice is right if and only if the overall value of the consequences of the action would be as great as the overall value of the consequences of other actions. With that, punishment as a response to a crime is morally justified if and only if this practice will likely produce as much intrinsic value as any other response. Furthermore, a specific punishment for a certain crime is morally justified and only if it would likely produce as much intrinsic value as any other punishment. ii.) Van Den Haag argues in favor of the death penalty on consequentialist grounds by mainly appealing to the deterrent function of capital punishment. The death penalty is more feared than life imprisonment and a least deters some prospective murderers iii.) Some object the death penalty by saying that the death penalty is discriminatory, as the death penalty is sometimes applied to those who may not deserve it based on race, and vice versa. However, Van Den Haag argues that just because some criminals experience a maldistribution of justice does not mean that we should let every criminal avoid rightful punishments. His second response states that murderers of whites are more likely to be executed than murderers of blacks, and since most black murderers kill other blacks, black people are in theory less likely to be executed. iv.) In states that have the death penalty, murder rates have been steadily higher than those in states w/o the death penalty, meaning it does not deter murderers. However, it cannot be measured how many perspective murderers are deterred by the death penalty, but the finality of the death penalty makes some less likely to murder. v.) the imposition of the death penalty may encourage and endorse unlawful killings, and murderers who receive the death penalty suffer more than their victims. Van Den Haag responds by saying the death penalty doesn't legitimize killing anymore than imprisonment for kidnapping legitimizes kidnapping. He also argues the prospect that the murderer suffers more than their victim, which is arbitrary. Even if this was the case, the murderer deserves suffering, compared to the victim who did not.

i) Give a clear accurate statement of Reiman's reasons for thinking that the view that "a penalty that is feared more is a better deterrent" is mistaken. ii) Give a clear accurate statement of Reiman's reasons for thinking that the view that "the risk of death by execution deters" is mistaken. iii) Give a clear accurate statement of Reiman's reasons for thinking that refusal to execute has a civilizing effect and teaches the wrongfulness of murder. iv) Give a clear accurate statement of Reiman's reasons for thinking that Van Den Haag's argument proves too much.

i.) Reiman argues that just because a penalty is feared more it is not necessarily a better deterrent. if the probability of death or life imprisonment is equal, life imprisonment poses as much of a deterrent threat. ii.) Criminals already face the risk of death while committing the crime, whether by police or by their victim. Anyone not already deterred by the substantial risk of death due to committing a crime is unlikely to be deterred by the addition of the much more distant risk of death after apprehension, conviction and appeal. iii.) Refusing to execute accounts for the failure to show that the death penalty has an increased deterrent effect, as well as acknowledging there is a deterrent effect from not executing criminals. iv.) If deterrence is the goal of capital punishment, why don't we use torture and other horrific means to deter crime? because it leads to consequences that we ultimately don't want to dish out.

i.) Give a clear, accurate statement of the Retributive Theory of Punishment. ii.) GIve a clear, accurate statement of the two views presented in class on how a punishment might "fit" the crime. iii.) Give a clear, accurate explanation of Nathanson's two arguments against The Law of Retribution. iv.) Give a clear accurate explanation of Nathanson's discussion of the principle of proportionality. Your answer should include: A.) His view on how we determine whether a punishment is in proportion to a crime. B.) His view that the principle of proportionality doesn't require the death penalty

i.) Retributive Threoy of punishment states those who break the law deserve to be punished and that punishment should be according to the severity of the crime. ii.) The principle lex talionis describes an eye for an eye type of punishment, that the wrongdoer should be punished with the same action he/she committed. Another interpretation to explain how punishment should fit is the principle of proportionality, which says the severity of the punishment should be in proportion to the severity of the crime. iii.) Nathanson argues that the Law of Retribution fails to provide proper punishment and in some cases no punishment at all. If we were to follow the Law of Retribution strictly, it dictates that we should rape rapists, torture torturers, and burn people who commit arson. This is not the only issue as this law also fails to explain how we should punish those who commit offenses like a white collar and non-violent crimes. iv.) ALthough he concedes it is better than lex tallonis, Nathanson argues that the punishment will only be proportionate to crimes so long as the more serious crime was higher on the punishment scale. However, Nathanson argues that this does not justify the use of the death penalty. If murder is considered the most severe crime, that doesnt necessarily mean that the highest level of punishment be capital punishment. All that it requires is that the most severe crimes recieve the most severe punishment.

i) Give a clear accurate statement Hardin's Lifeboat Metaphor. Your answer should include: a) a clear accurate statement of the unlimited sharing option b) a clear accurate statement of the selective sharing option c) and a clear accurate statement of the no sharing option. ii.) Give a clear accurate explanation of the Tragedy of the Commons iii) Given a clear accurate explanation of the World Food Bank proposal iv.) Give a clear accurate explanation of the ratchet effect

i.) Rich nations are lifeboats full of rich people and poor nations are (much more crowded) lifeboats full of poor people. Hardin proposes a hypothetical where the lifeboat has 50 people on it but can hold 60. And there are 100 poor people in the sea. The rich have three options: one where we let all the poor people onto the boat (which would cause it to sink and kill everyone), one option where they let 10 people onto the boat to reach full capacity (but what 10 do you let on?), and the third option being letting nobody on the boat and letting them survive for themselves ii.) in a world where there is a commons for all people, it only takes one person to destroy the system by overloading, overcrowding, etc. Mutual ruin would ensue. iii.) Create a commons, an international food reserve depository. Nations contribute according to their abilities and draw from it according to their needs. Hardin argues that opening a world food bank would only perpetuate the problem, as countries would be put further in debt by other countries loaning them food. iv.) if every emergency was attempted to resolved by input from the world food bank, the next emergency would be larger, the food bank would have to intervene again, and it ratchets up worse and worse. Sharing would institute a ruinous system of the commons.

i) Give a clear, accurate explanation of Singer's drowning child thought experiment. ii) Give a clear accurate statement Singer's philosophical argument that has as its conclusion that if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong. iii) Give a clear accurate account of the "We're all entitled to our beliefs" objection to Singer and Singer's response. iv) Give a clear accurate account of the "We have a right to our hard-earned money" objection to Singer and Singer's response.

i.) You see a young child who seems likely to drown if you don't wade in and pull him out. If you pull him out, though, you will ruin your new shoes, dirty your suit, and be late for work. should you save the child or not? Common intuition says we should save the child. ii.) The drowning child experiment suggests that we ought to donate relatively small amounts of money to save those who are dying from starvation, easily treatable diseases, etc. If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. iii.) If someone lit a cat on fire for fun, most of us probably wouldn't think that this is permissible because the person is "entitled to their beliefs". If we reject moral relativism in some cases, we should reject it in all cases. iv.) Having the right to do something doesn't settle the question of what you should do.

i) Give a clear accurate explanation of John Rawls version of Social Contract Theory. Your answer should include: a) a clear accurate explanation of justice as fairness b) a clear accurate explanation of the original position c) a clear accurate explanation of the veil of ignorance d) a clear accurate explanation of the principle of equal liberty e) a clear accurate explanation of the difference principle ii) Give three examples of facts related to poverty which would appear to be unjust.

i.) a.) the principles of justice are those principles that free and rational persons would accept in an initial position of equality. b.) hypothetical scenario where everyone is deciding on guiding social principles with the intention of advancing their own interests. c.) individuals in the original position are ignorant of their place in society, their social status, how talented they are, and their conception of the good. d.)I have the right to as much liberty as is possible without compromising the liberty of others e.) Inequalities are to be arranged so they are to everyone's advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all. ii.) Nearly 50% of the world's population live on less than $2.50 a day. 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. More than 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water.

i) Give three examples of "serious errors" that are the result of incompetent defense lawyers. ii) Give an example of a "serious error" resulting from suppression of evidence by the prosecution. iii) Give a clear accurate statement of the stages of judicial review in death penalty cases. Your answer should also include: a) the overall error rate and the percentage of error b) the average length of time it takes to determine whether a case is error free c) the two main implications—discussed by James S. Liebman, Jeffrey Fagan, Valerie West, and Jonathan Lloyd— that all of this has.

i.) serious errors include incompetent defense lawyers (37% of cases), lawyers that do not provide the defendant with a decent case to defend themselves. Whether this is because they are inexperienced and unprepared, they show up intoxicated and sleep through the trial, or were represented by lawyers who would later be disbarred due to their conduct. ii.) Suppression of evidence by the prosecution (19% of cases) through pressuring witnesses, relying on fraudulent forensic experts, allowing witnesses they know or should know are not truthful to testify, and making misleading arguments that overstate the probative value of testimony is another serious error experienced in capital cases. iii.) Death penalty cases undergo a three-stage judicial review, starting with the direct appeal made to the state's highest court. If they go past that stage, the defendant can raise issues surrounding the conviction and sentence that are outside of the record in the state post-conviction. The defendant can raise issues such as ineffective assistance of counsel, juror misconduct, newly-discovered evidence. Finally, they use federal habeas corpus through the District Court, the US Court of Appeal, and then the US Supreme Court if they get that far. Between 1975 and 1995, 68% of death sentences were overturned at one of the three review stages previously stated. On average it takes 7 years to determine that a case was error free. The implications of the judicial review system and the rate of overturns harms public faith in the courts, as well as being a financial burden on the courts to go through the appeals process.