1. You are going to discuss capital punishment in terms of a current event. Fin

1. You are going to discuss capital punishment in terms of a current event.
Find a current event that deals with capital punishment and discuss it here.
2. Case analysis.
If you have not done so, be sure to read the Case Analysis Structure Overview.
Explain the case at hand back in your own words.This should be no more than one paragraph. It’s just a quick summary so I know how you’re understanding the case.
Explain the theories of the two philosophers that are assigned in that particular week.This should be where you show that you understand the arguments of the philosophers that are covered in a particular topic. So if you’re writing on the Welfare Case Analysis, you’d explain the arguments of Walzer and Murray.
This should be completely neutral — just a succinct presentation of the arguments that isn’t influenced by or that mentions the case.
This should be at least two paragraphs, and probably more like four.
Present an argument applying the philosophers’s arguments to the case at hand.Here you should take the work you did in task two and apply that to the story. So if you were writing on Welfare, you might say that Walzer’s theory would give the aide to person X because of reason Y and then justify that. You’d then do the same with Murray.
This should be at least two paragraphs, and could easily be four.
Present an argument explaining why one philosopher has a better solution to the case at hand.Do to this you need to explain what you think a successful solution to the case would demonstrate and then show hoe one of the philosophers does this better than the other.
This should be two paragraphs.
Explain what you would do and why.This should be exactly one paragraph.
In this case analysis you have five tasks:
Explain your understanding of the case.
Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of the ACLU paper, Kant and Van den Haag’s arguments
Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an account of what each philosopher would argue should happen to Bob.
Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
In ONE paragraph, explain how you think we should treat Bob.
Case
Consider Bob. Bob was raised by wolves (literally – don’t ask me how). Although his IQ would probably be normal, there is no way to test it, since Bob doesn’t speak or read any human language. One day, Bob emerged from the wilderness and ended up Downtown — the snazzy part of the city. He was hungry (presumably) so he “found” some food in the normal wolf way: he stalked a mother walking her baby and, deciding it was easiest to prey on the weaker, killed and ate the baby. There’s no question that Bob is “guilty” of the crime. He did it and there were lots of witnesses. What punishment should Bob get?