Self-Quiz 4.16: Stephen Nathanson, An Eye for an Eye?

The principle of lex talionis would require us to

execute an innocent person if it would prevent a riot.

torture suspects to gain information.

rape rapists.

All of the above

If Nathanson's proportional retributivism is true, then

murder must be punished more harshly than assault.

drug laws are unjustified.

the only just punishment for murder is the death penalty.

All of the above

According to Nathanson, when someone commits murder, he

gives up all of his rights.

gives up some, but not all, of his rights.

does not thereby give up any rights.

deserves to die.

According to Nathanson, the proportionality principle fail to support the death penalty because

murder is not the worse crime.

the principle is silent about what the most severe punishment should be.

the death penalty is inhumane.

All of the above

According to Nathanson, why is the principle of lex talionis initially attractive?

It's consistent with our intuition that what a person deserves depends on what he does.

It doesn't appear to depend on any particular legal or political institution.

It seems to provide a clear measure for the appropriateness of punishment.

All of the above

Which maxim best summarizes the principle of lex talionis?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

Live and let live.

The ends justify the means.

Which of the following is inconsistent with Nathanson's proportional retributivism?

Punishing an innocent person to prevent a riot

Executing a murderer

Abolishing the death penalty

None of the above

Nathanson claims that abolishing the death penalty would

be inconsistent with proportional retributivism.

be inconsistent with lex talionis.

remove a key deterrent to crime.

symbolize an unfortunate tender-heartedness.

Quiz Content