Running head: BELIEVING GAME IN CRITICAL THINKING 1

Believing Game in Critical Thinking

Major Luckett

Strayer University

Professor Givens

February 11, 2020

BELIEVING GAME IN CRITICAL THINKING 2

Believing Game in Critical Thinking

Introduction

Critical thinking is an integral process used in ascertaining the truth, where there are

conflicting assertions about a topic under consideration. It involves seeing and evaluating ideas

from the perspectives of other parties in a debate. This flexibility allows an individual to

understand the point of view of the opposing side, which could help to broaden one’s

understanding of the complexity of truth. Furthermore, critical thinking gives rise to the

believing game that entails doubting through analytical reasoning. The believing game involves a

disciplined approach that facilitates individuals to engage all ideas encountered by trying to fit

into other perspectives. Typically, individuals cannot appreciate the arguments presented by

others unless they are willing and ready to assume their current position. Besides, people rarely

acknowledge ideas they consider alien, wired, or poorly formulated and cannot easily appreciate

their merit. Therefore, this paper aims at evaluating the premises opposing my position on capital

punishment, as indicated on the Procon.org website.

My Position on the Capital Punishment Topic

The suitability of capital punishment in the United States continues to stir a debate

concerning its morality. It is one of the few western societies that practice the act, which has seen

more than 1,514 people executed since 1970. According to the propositions presented in the

Procon.org websites, three reasons emerge in support of capital punishment in America. Firstly,

it argues that it is an effective strategy to deter crimes in society because of fear of execution.

Secondly, the website indicates that it is an appropriate remedy based on the concept of “an eye

for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth”. That is, individuals convicted of murder deserve to die

because they took away the life of the victim. Lastly, the site indicates that capital punishment is
BELIEVING GAME IN CRITICAL THINKING 3

the only reward that brings justice and closure to the family of the murdered victim (Hood &

Hoyle, 2015). However, I oppose those premises because the death punishment does not deter

crime and it extends the sorrow and agony to the loved ones of the victim.

Premises to Support My Position

The death punishment does not deter involvement in capital offences. The American

Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) observed that most murderers kill under extreme emotional

passion, drunk or under the influence of other drugs, and are emotionally disturbed. For those

reasons, these individuals cannot possibly contemplate the consequences of committing the

crime. This source was selected because it involves a criminologist who engages with numerous

people accused of murder to understand their motives and intentions. Individuals planning to kill

do not expect to be caught and do not fathom about its consequences in the first place.

Then, the “eye for an eye” or “foot for foot” argument denotes redistributive justice

against the principles of the modern criminal system and ethics. Jesuit priest Raymond Schroth

compares redistribution justice to revenge that only continues the cycle of violence in society.

Besides, it is an infringement of human rights because no one has power over other people’s

lives. Therefore, redistribution aims at promoting vengeance and not deter crime.

Finally, the death penalty does not afford the family of the victim closure as expected.

The trial period exposes the loved ones of the victim to a cycle of traumatic revelations likely to

inflict emotional disturbances. Besides, former US Supreme Court justice William Brenman

observed that the penalty does not serve any bigger penal purpose than a less severe punishment

because two wrongs cannot make a right. Therefore, executing the criminal does not lead to any

meaningful closure to the loss suffered by the families.

Believing the Premise Opposing My Position

BELIEVING GAME IN CRITICAL THINKING 4

The first opposing premise argues that capital punishment serves to deter crime. An

article by Michael Summers in the Wall Street Journal found that an increase in the number of

executions led to an increase in the number of murders. However, the return of the death penalty

led to a 20% drop in crime in the 1980s (National Research Council, Nagin & Pepper2012). The

source used data extracted from FBI sources to examine the relationship between executions and

murders. Besides, numerous other studies confirm that the death penalty deters crimes. This

proposition demonstrates that capital punishment has been successfully used to reduce crime.

Then, the second reason suggests that capital punishment is an effective method to seek

redistributive justice. In an article, Professor Louise Pojman of West Point Military Academy

argues that the concept of rebutivism implies that a convict warrants a punishment that is

equivalent to the weight of their crimes. Therefore, it is fair for murderers to be executed because

it resonates with the gravity of their action.

Finally, the third believing premise indicates that capital punishment serves justice and

closure to the relatives of the murdered victim. The Sacramento County DA (2016) contributes

in an article on the topic arguing that the death penalty brings justice to the survivors and also

helps in healing their wound permanently. The knowledge that the victim is alive may haunt the

remaining members of the family because they fear that the convicted criminal may escape

(Berns, 2009). Therefore, it helps in promoting psychological wellbeing of the survivors and

permanent healing; hence, brings closure to the victims’ family.

Biases

The first bias emanates from the assumption that an increase in executions led to a

reduction in the number of murder cases. These projections did not consider other factors such as

interventions by the criminal justice system and public education on the reduction or deterrence
BELIEVING GAME IN CRITICAL THINKING 5

of capital offence. Besides, the other bias emerges in arguing for the support of redistributive

justice because the death penalty also affects the family members of the murdered, which could

prompt them to revenge on the same.

Effects of Enculturation

My Christian root influenced my position in this debate because killing others is

considered a sin, no matter the circumstances. In the Bible, God prohibits murder through the

Ten Commandments presented to Moses. Besides, all people will be judged for all their deeds in

the final Day of Judgment. Moreover, I believe that humans have no mandate in other people’s

lives. Therefore, no one should be killed because they will receive the wrath of God.

Change of Thinking

I have a strong identification with the Christian faith, and the believing game did not

change my perspective on capital punishment. However, the premise that executions help to

deter crime makes sense because research indicates that the number of murder cases reduced as

execution increased. Moreover, the redistribute proposition does not lead to justice because

nothing can back the lives of the murdered victims. It only serves to please the heart of the

victims’ family and hurt the family members of the executed person. Therefore, the believing

game helped me to understand the deterrence capacity of capital punishment

BELIEVING GAME IN CRITICAL THINKING 6

Conclusion

The believing game enhances critical thinking by allowing a person to think from the

perspectives of those opposing one’s idea. In this case, some opposing premises are based on

authoritative data and research. However, my Christian affiliation and personal perceptions about

capital punishment did not lead to a change in my position on the death penalty punishment.
BELIEVING GAME IN CRITICAL THINKING 7

Reference

Berns, N. (2009). Contesting the victim card: Closure discourse and emotion in death penalty

rhetoric. The Sociological Quarterly, 50(3), 383-406.

Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. OUP Oxford.

National Research Council, Nagin, D. S., & Pepper, J. V. (2012). Deterrence and the death

penalty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

“Should the death penalty be allowed?” (2020). Retrieved 6 February 2020, from

https://deathpenalty.procon.org/