Eye For An Eye?

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.

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 death penalty is inconsistent with respect for life and a commitment to justice. A timely new postscript and an updated bibliography accompany the volume.

Library Journal

With the grounds for appeal running out for those on death row and the pace of executions quickening, Nathanson examines the philosophical and moral arguments for and against the death penalty and concludes that it is morally unacceptable. Much of this material has been covered before (cf. Hugo Bedau, Death Is Different , LJ 6/1/87), but an important feature of the present volume is its terse, logical development, which can be followed by readers who do not have backgrounds in law or philosophy. An excellent source for those against the death penalty and a major challenge to those who favor it. John Broderick, Stonehill Coll., North Easton, Mass.

Stephen Nathanson is professor of philosophy at Northeastern University and the author of Economic Justice and Should We Consent to Be Governed? In addition to his extensive writings on the death penalty, many of which have been anthologized, Nathanson has also written on patriotism and economic justice.