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

by Stephen Nathanson

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.

222 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1987

Reviews

[Tanyx · Rating 4 out of 5]

While my stance didn't change that much in the long time it took to read this, I do have a better argument against the death penalty. And I did change in one major way- I no longer think the death penalty can be reformed. It can only be abolished.
While it's easy to say that the Ted Bundys of the world deserve to die, any criteria we use to determine someone a Bundy would have some level of arbitrariness to it. In practice, it's horrific: Black men are so much more likely to die than a white man of the same crime, and several even have evidence of innocence that the court refuses to take into consideration past a certain date. America needs to reform the entire justice system.