Final answer:
The argument about using voting to decide on capital punishment assumes that a democratic process is applicable to resolve such a policy issue. The Supreme Court has placed limits on capital punishment considering various factors like retribution and deterrence, and the judicial system continuously interprets the legalities of imposing such a penalty.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question posed about capital punishment reflects a moral and legal dilemma that has been debated for a long time. The argument that we ought to decide on capital punishment through a vote does not necessarily exhibit the fallacy of begging the question, which is assuming the truth of something controversial while trying to prove a conclusion. Instead, this argument suggests using a democratic process to resolve a contentious issue, which assumes that voting is an appropriate method to determine such policies.
It's worth noting that the Supreme Court has put restrictions on the death penalty, stating it may not be applied to certain individuals, such as those with cognitive disabilities or those who were under 18 at the time of the crime. The courts balance rights and the government's need to govern, with considerations of retribution and deterrence being factors when determining the appropriateness of capital punishment. Thus, the decision-making process is complex and multifaceted, involving moral judgment, legal interpretation, and sometimes, public opinion.