Deck 93: Hugo Adam Bedau: No, the Death Penalty Is Not Morally Permissible

Question 1

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-According to Bedau, the claim that the death penalty is a better deterrent than imprisonment for such crimes as murder is

A) supported by evidence.
B) easily proven.
C) meaningless.
D) not supported by evidence.

Answer 1

D

Question 2

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-According to Bedau, an important principle is that unless there is a good reason for choosing a more severe rather than a less severe punishment for a crime,

A) no penalty is justified.
B) the less severe penalty is no more justified than the more severe one.
C) the less severe penalty is to be preferred.
D) all penalties should be minimal.

Answer 2

C

Question 3

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-According to Bedau, a cost-benefit analysis of the death penalty must take into account

A) possible incitement to murder.
B) the risks of executing an innocent person.
C) the high costs of implementing the death penalty system.
D) All of the above

Answer 3

D

Question 4

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-According to Bedau, the principle that crimes should be punished is

A) in dispute between proponents and opponents of the death penalty.
B) not likely to be in dispute between proponents and opponents of the death penalty.
C) rejected by death penalty opponents.
D) rejected by the Supreme Court.

Question 5

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-Bedau believes that the death penalty is

A) applied consistently and promptly.
B) a good deterrent.
C) not applied consistently and promptly.
D) cost effective.

Question 6

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-Bedau believes that it is never rational to risk the death of another to prevent death or grave injury to oneself or to others.

Question 7

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-Kant defended the death penalty.

Question 8

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-Bedau says that the principle that the punishment of death best fits the crime of murder turns out to be extremely difficult to interpret and apply.

Question 9

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-Bedau thinks that the principle of "a life for a life" suffices to justify the execution of murderers.

Question 10

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-Bedau claims that the application of the death penalty is biased.

Question 11

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-Bedau points out that determining whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent is very difficult.

Question 12

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-According to Bedau, Kantian moralists would base their entire case for the morality of the death penalty on the way it is thought to provide just retribution.

Question 13

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-Bedau thinks the principle of "life for a life" can justify the execution of murderers.

Question 14

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-Bedau notes that not even the biblical world limited the death penalty to the punishment of murder.

Question 15

In this selection Bedau first draws an analogy between self-defense and the death penalty. Just as in defending ourselves we are to use no more force than is necessary to prevent harm, so in punishing criminals we are to use no more violence than is necessary to adequately punish the criminal. Bedau then argues that neither the deterrence nor the retributive argument for capital punishment is a good argument. He thinks that the literal application of the lex talionis is barbaric and that long-term imprisonment is adequate punishment.
-Bedau argues that there is reason to believe that the death penalty deters the most violent criminals.