Question 1

The Argument from Just Deserts relies on the claim that murderers deserve to die. What do you believe is the best available argument in support of that conclusion? Contrast the argument you suggest with the principle of lex talionis.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The Argument from Just Deserts relies on...

Question 2

Considering the arguments presented in this chapter, should we maintain the status quo with regard to the death penalty? Write an essay in which you make a policy recommendation based on elements from this chapter that you find most compelling.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Considering the arguments presented in this chapter,...

Question 3

What is van den Haag's position about statistical evidence for the deterrent effect of the death penalty?

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag is skeptical that statistics could provide evidence one way or the other about the deterrent effect of the death penalty. He argues that statistical studies cannot definitively prove or disprove the deterrent effect, because they cannot control for all confounding variables and the motivations behind criminal behavior.

Question 4

Van den Haag thinks the death penalty could only be justified on the grounds that it

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag believes that the death penalty is justifiable if it deters others and if it serves as a form of justice. Therefore, the correct choice is C, Either a or b.

Question 5

According to van den Haag, someone who wishes to show that the death penalty is not justified would have to show that it does not

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag argues that to challenge the justification of the death penalty, one must demonstrate that it fails to deter others from committing crimes or to enact justice, as these are the primary justifications often cited for its use.

Question 6

Under what circumstances does van den Haag think the death penalty leads to a net gain?

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag believes that the death penalty leads to a net gain only if it deters some future murderers. He argues that the value of innocent lives saved by deterrence outweighs the harm caused by executing a guilty murderer.

Question 7

Under what circumstances does van den Haag think the death penalty leads to a net loss?

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag thinks that the death penalty leads to a net loss when it is imposed with no deterrent effect, meaning that it does not prevent future murders.

Question 8

Van den Haag argues that the irrevocability of the death penalty supports a demand for

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag argues that the irrevocability of the death penalty requires some reason to expect more deterrence from it than from revocable practices, as the irreversible nature of the punishment demands a higher justification for its use.

Question 9

Van den Haag claims that in implementing the death penalty, we must risk something certain for something uncertain. What is the uncertain thing?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Van den Haag claims that in implementing...

Question 10

Van den Haag claims that in implementing the death penalty, we must risk something certain for something uncertain. What is the certain thing?

Accepted Answer

The certain thing we risk in implementing the death penalty is the life or death of the convicted murderer, as this is a known and immediate consequence of the decision to apply the death penalty.

Question 11

Which of the following does van den Haag suspect is true?

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag suspects that the deterrent effect of penalties increases with their severity. He argues that potential murderers weigh the potential benefits and costs of committing the crime and that the severity of the punishment is a significant factor in that calculation. Therefore, he believes that a more severe punishment, such as the death penalty, would have a stronger deterrent effect than a less severe punishment.

Question 12

Van den Haag claims that we are risking lives

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag argues that lives are at risk regardless of whether the death penalty is imposed or not, suggesting that the issue of risking lives is inevitable in the context of capital punishment.

Question 13

Van den Haag claims that "we have no right to risk additional future victims of murder for the sake of sparing convicted murderers; on the contrary, our moral obligation is to risk the possible ineffectiveness of execution." Write an essay that critically evaluates this claim.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Van den Haag claims that "we have...

Question 14

A crucial premise in van den Haag's argument is that the deterrent effect of penalties increases with their severity. Is this claim true? What is the best way to determine if this claim is true?

Accepted Answer

The answer of A crucial premise in van den Haag's...

Question 15

How does van den Haag respond to the claim that the death penalty is different from other penalties because it is irrevocable? How do you think the fact that the death penalty is irrevocable should affect the decision about whether it is ethically permissible?

Accepted Answer

The answer of How does van den Haag respond to...

Question 16

Which of the following does Reiman believe will deter people from murder?

Accepted Answer

Reiman argues that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent for murder, as its implementation is rare and inconsistent. Instead, he suggests that refusing to implement the death penalty would reduce the overall amount of violence in society by rejecting the idea that killing is an appropriate response to wrongdoing.

Question 17

Reiman believes that the death penalty could be justified if

Accepted Answer

Reiman argues that the death penalty could be justified if it were necessary to prevent even worse consequences, such as if the only way to stop a serial killer from continuing to harm others was to execute them. This is consistent with Reiman's overall position that the state should only use coercion (including punishment) when necessary to prevent harm to others.

Question 18

Reiman thinks that van den Haag's reliance on common sense in evaluating the deterrence impact of the death penalty

Accepted Answer

Reiman argues that relying on common sense in evaluating the deterrence impact of the death penalty is problematic because it can lead to subjective and biased judgments. Additionally, according to Reiman, the stakes in the debate over the death penalty are high, so it is important to rely on empirical evidence and rigorous analysis rather than relying on intuition or common sense. Therefore, none of the options listed are correct.

Question 19

Reiman argues that we cannot infer that the more feared penalty will deter more people than the less feared unless we know that the _______ feared penalty is _______ enough to deter everyone who can be deterred

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is C because the more feared penalty will only deter more people than the less feared penalty if the more feared penalty is not fearful enough to deter everyone who can be deterred.

Question 20

Which of the following is a reason why Reiman thinks it's unlikely that the death penalty will deter any potential murderers?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following is a reason...

Quiz 20: The Death Penalty