1.     What is Van den Haag’s argument for the death
penalty?  Be sure to include the
specifics of his claims, including the specific problems that have to do with
the application of the death penalty. 
Also  Explain the pure retributivist argument for the death
penalty and contrast it with an approach based on deterrence.  Which do you find more convincing, and why?    The Supreme Court is currently in the process of
putting a hold on executions by lethal injection until it decides whether the
practice is cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the 8th Amendment.  If you were to offer counsel to the Supreme
Court, what would you argue, and why? 
(use this source for question – ON DETERRENCE AND THE DEATH PENALTY
ERNEST VAN DEN HAAG )
2. What are the
three theories of punishment that we discussed? 
In answering this question, explain :     What these theories are (that is, what they argue).  Please note whether these theories are
backward-looking or forward-looking (and why this matters).    What are the advantages and disadvantages of each
theory?  Which theory (if any) makes
sense to you if we want punishment to be effectie?  Please say why.    Why does the law draw a distinction between how we punish 
people for criminal actions and how we treat (military) prisoners of war?  Do you agree that there should be a
difference in how we treat these two categories of people?  Why or why not? 
(use this source for this question – https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/war/#2 ) 
3. What is the
(legal) difference between speech and action? 
Please give some examples of both. 
Also, please answer the following: Are there some
kinds of action that are also legally considered to be speech?  Is there some kind of speech that is also
legally considered to be action?  Please
give examples of both, and say whether you agree or disagree with these
classifications — and why.     Do you agree with
the Court’s decision in National
Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie?  (Please explain what the case addressed,
how the Supreme Court ruled, and why). Why or why not?   Should the right
to free speech be absolute?  Why or why
not?
( use peer-reviewed source for this question)