The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used. Accept. To disagree. Testimony in opposition to the death penalty: arbitrary. Testimony in Capital punishment for murder, treason, arson, and rape was widely used in ancient Greece under the laws of Draco, fl. For example, in an article in the Stanford Law Review, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that “classic moral objections to capital punishment even apply. The main conclusion is that current studies continue to have a significant impact on framing the debate and creating potential for the future. ”, meaning 69 and the Constitution of the Netherlands states that “capital punishment may not be imposed”. Art. 114. From the perspective that concerns this article, that is, from the perspective of moral philosophy, one of the key questions that triggers this significant divergence in contemporary constitutional law is whether there exists or not good rights. The second question is moral. Even if the death penalty were more of a deterrent than life imprisonment, that does not necessarily mean it would be justified. After all, imagine if we. Others argue that the state is not permitted to kill a murderer with capital punishment because it would be mere homicide and by doing so the state would lower the moral standard of the murderer. According to Van den Haag, the difference between crime and punishment is not physical but legal. Unlawful crime and capital punishment - the legally authorized killing of an offender by a state agent for the commission of a crime - are especially in need of moral justification. Indeed, execution is a particularly severe punishment. Enforcement differs from monetary and custodial sanctions in one obvious way: execution. Springer Science Business Media. Summary In debates over the death penalty, proponents on both sides have argued a. an impressive number of arguments to defend their positions. A large number of.