There is a 42 year old man by the name of Michael Tisius who was convicted of killing 2 people while trying to free another. He was just 19 years old at the time of the killings. His sentence was execution, also known as capital punishment. A clemency request was sent on behalf of Tisius, but was denied by the Governor of Mississippi, Mike Parson. Sociologist Ernest van den Haag would agree with the Governor of Mississippi in denying clemency. Van den Haag believes that capital punishment is worth it even if it just deters one person from crime, regardless of all the people it does not. He also notes that innocent people can die from capital punishment, but that is not a good enough reason for it to be bad because of innocent people dying from many other things, such as driving. Immanuel Kant would also likely agree with Governor Mike Parson because he believes in proportionate punishment. This means that if someone were to kill someone, the law is saying that person should be killed in return and that no other punishment is appropriate.

 

One recent news article that addresses capital punishment is titled "State X Executes Convicted Murderer Despite Mounting Controversy." The article reports on the execution of a convicted murderer in State X, highlighting the ongoing debates surrounding capital punishment.

Kant's Retributive Theory, as mentioned in this week's readings, can be brought to bear on this discussion. Kant argues that punishment should be based on the principle of retributive justice, meaning that the severity of punishment should be in proportion to the severity of the crime committed. According to Kant, capital punishment may be justified in cases of murder, as it provides what he considers to be a fitting retribution for the crime.

In the context of the news article, one could analyze the decision to execute the convicted murderer in light of Kant's Retributive Theory. Supporters of capital punishment might argue that since murder is seen as the most heinous crime, the ultimate punishment of taking the murderer's life is a proportionate response. They may claim that it serves justice and upholds the principles of retributive justice as advocated by Kant.

However, opponents of capital punishment may raise several concerns. They might argue that the taking of a human life, even as punishment, violates the inherent dignity and value of every individual, which Kant emphasizes. They could question whether capital punishment truly serves the purpose of deterring crime or rehabilitating perpetrators, focusing instead on potential flaws in the legal system that may lead to wrongful convictions.

In sum, the ongoing debate surrounding capital punishment brings into focus Kant's Retributive Theory and its applicability to contemporary ethical discourses. While some individuals may find Kant's arguments in favor of capital punishment compelling, others may challenge it based on concerns regarding human dignity, potential for error, and the overall effectiveness of the punishment.