crime of murder is placed at par with lesser crimes, which decreases how it is perceived. This is where dignity is lost, says Van Den Haag. Instead, dignity should be maintained by an individual by not taking a human life in the first place. Should a murder occur, society should maintain dignity by protecting the lives of innocents, vindicating the law, and imposing retribution on those who break the law by executing them. Van Den Haag indicates American law, common law, and religious doctrine backs this contention. In this argument, the role of the individual and the role of society are clearer as to maintaining dignity, and seems to return back to a no-exceptions based principle regarding certain crimes.In How to Argue About the Death Penalty, Hugo Bedau argues that all of the arguments so far examined still exhibit at least one fatal flaw - none of the goals or principles can point with certainty to a conclusive reason to favor either side of the dispute over capital punishment. Thus, no rational resolution is possible for the controversy. The facts as we know them do not overwhelmingly point to the futility of the death penalty, nor do they indicate that capital punishment is the only means to obtaining the goals of crime reduction, economy, rectifying harm and injustice caused by crime, or channeling public indignation at the offender. There remains little or no evidence that the death penalty is a better deterrent to murder than imprisonment. Capital punishment may still be administered in an arbitrary way.In making his case, Bedau points out what neither the Gregg decision nor Van Den Haag fully address - the risk that the death penalty will incorrectly execute an innocent person. Unlike its less severe counterparts, capital punishment is irrevocable and permanent, as pointed out in the Furman decision.Bedau correctly articulates what the Gregg decision, the Furman decision, and Van Den Haag exemplify - that while we c...
