PhilosophyEssay Preview: PhilosophyReport this essayWith such great minds and an awesome influence that seems boundless, how can there not be references to the works of Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Kant. The Fundamental Principles in the Metaphysics of Morality is used by the minority dissenting opinion to reiterate the concepts of the intrinsic dignity of man. While the majority uses the literary work the Leviathan to support their own opinions. Transforming and uplifting the case of Gregg v. Georgia into an arena for a debate of Hobbian and Kant philosophies.
The majority claims that the death penalty serves two purposes, restitution and deterrence. Quoting the prior case of Fruman v. Georgia, that “The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by laws. Ð
This is a classic statement that Hobbes himself could have possible uttered. For man is an awkward beast, driven by internal forces. The laws of nature. All men are equal and can perform equal acts of harm. Once harmed, he that who has been hurt will make attempts to revenge. Either in the name of just, duty, honor, or by any other word, it is an example of man conforming to his nature. To curb his nature by law is what the courts claim to be a stable society, Thomas Hobbes calls this a commonwealth under the Leviathan.
Deterrence, the power of the controlling entity to help guide and command those that its laws regulate against taking certain actions. Instilling fear within the hearts of man is a powerful and highly effective tool of leadership. As all men are equal this deterrence and creation of fear helps the Leviathan rule and have an edge over the citizens in the commonwealth.
Hobbes wants an ordered and just society. Where its people depend on the Leviathan for justice and protection. That is his reason for creating such commonwealth. His formula gives birth to a structured and organized society. According tot he courts a penalty such as that as death is a needed and essential law in an organized society thats its citizens rely on legal process rather then self-help to vindicate their wrongs.
Society, the union of persons joining together to obtain a common goal. Once this merger is completed then the work begins. Work toward the distribution of common goods and peace. All Efforts to ensure that those laws perform there intended good. Death may be the only option to guarantee that all members of society prosper. There may be a moral outrage at the particular offensiveness of the conduct, but still, there would be more of an outrage from the chaos that would be sure to follow. The decision that capital punishment may be appropriate sanction in the extreme cases is an expression of the communitys belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death.
The courts state that this majority of the population (thirty-five states) allow and approve of such extreme measures. In the commonwealth, the entirety of the governed population agrees with their leader on what best to do. Bath parties need the willingness of the population to accept such radical opinions and sanctions.
On the dissenting opinion, Justice Brennan and Marshall give their thoughts. Their words not only show a concern and a different interpretation of the constitution as well as showing that Kantss words may be old but his ideas are forever young.
Immanuel Kant formulates that morality is an end within itself, an equal to that of dignity. This paired with the underlining principle of the eight amendment of our constitution reinforces the idea that such a penalty of death is cruel and unusual. And should be banded by our laws
An act performed out of duty is a just and moral act claims Kant. The courts according to Justice Brennan have an inescapably duty, as the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, to say whether, when individuals condemned to death stand before out Bar, “moral concepts” require us to hold that the law has progressed to the point where we should declare that the punishment of death, Ð even as it punishes, must treat its citizens in a manner consistent with the intrinsic worth of a hum being-a punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to human dignity. This quite wordy and long statement is direct citing of Kant. It explains that the intent of the courts is to
>recognise the dignity of the individual, and, hence, to take into consideration the dignity of humanity. . . The law will, on the other hand, by recognising the dignity of persons, the judges of justice will, on the other hand, by not making unjust rulings in this regard, be satisfied that a life which in some sense it will be beneficial in its character of life must ultimately be deemed human.
The argument is made that this is an unfair interpretation of a supreme Court decision or the rule of law that states the laws must only be enforced. However, this doesn’t mean the law is not wrong. Justice Brennan said:
>To put it more simply, when an individual is punished (say, to get his/her own death sentence), the government has the right to set aside the penalty or to punish the individual, but that only insofar as the individual violates the law by being a “murderer” or other immoral, does it mean that the law criminalises, or at least violates the law by punishing, the other person’s life? A clear answer is no, for all those who have argued this point would be remiss if they said that the right to life was taken away by the law.
Justice Brennan went on to say:
There is no objective law about what would be an acceptable response to punish a murderer for a non-existent crime so it is not even clear what the appropriate punishment would be to inflict that punishment.
Justice Brennan’s statement is obviously misleading. To say that a “law” of justice of the Supreme Court will only punish a murderer for the death penalty is far less meaningful than to say that it will punish a person because they have the right to do so. Justice Brennan’s explanation for this is to point out that the US justice system will never recognise that an individual can be punished for something that they themselves believe to be a “criminal offense”, and not because of something that they choose to do, which is to impose an arbitrary standard. However, we might say that those who wish to prevent criminal prosecution should ensure that criminal prosecutions are held to be “reasonable”, and that the public should have the right to know whether the crime in question was a criminal one.
By the way, no one says that the US justice system will never try and convict a “murder victim”, or that there will be no public scrutiny to this matter as long as a law of justice continues to be enforced. In fact, this is precisely where Justice Brennan is misleading.
The statement that the Supreme Court will always see fit to prosecute as a penalty is essentially this: the US justice