In the article titled “The Folly of Capital Punishment”, Jeffrey Reinam concludes that capital punishment is immoral to our society; and thus, should not be legalized. Reinam reasons the death penalty is unjust, inhuman, and goes against the progress of civilization. Reinam’s primary argument and rebuttal to Ernest Van Den Haags deterrence argument, is that the death penalty goes against the advancement of civilization. Reinam explains that throughout history we take steps to "lower tolerance for one's own pain and that suffered by others". Due to the states high visibility, size, and moral authority, it is capable to have an impact on citizens beyond the immediate act it authorizes.
In today’s society we can compare Brave New World’s drug soma, for love. We are all blindsided when we first fall madly in love, we can not get a real look at the world or ourselves because of what our heart is telling us we see or know. Soma is the same way to the people in the reservation; it makes them believe the people, like the director, who are in charge of the reservations. They get to where they do not ask questions for their selves and just believe everything they are taught and told. They are utterly confused by the actual world that they just become too lazy to really try to understand what is going on, just like we become too lazy in love to look past it and take in what we are actually doing.
Lithwick:Teens, Nude Photos and the Law In this article, published in Newsweek, the author explains the harsh possible outcomes from teenagers sending at the own free will nude photos of themselves to their mates or lovers. Something that the author defines as “sexting” epidemic and analyses how the law is treating offenders and victims. The author makes an obvious claim that the criminal-justice system is too harsh to solve any issues that deal with teens and technology because this issue is becoming more common and although he doesn’t examine different or alternative ways to solve the problem, personally I agree with him that the law should not interfere with such juvenile cases because being exposed to others instead of the person it was intended for is punishment enough. In the article, the author brings personal stories which highlight three
The people that Shelton killed are considered combatants because they support they governmental system and work with it. Based on Just War Theory, the proportionality of killing these people is that their deaths are outweighed by the justice that will bring to the judicial system. Shelton believes the system to be corrupt, focusing instead on conviction rates rather than making sure the right person is placed behind bars. By killing these people Shelton can put a new mindset into the “system” because those affected by the killings will want the right man punished rather since they now know how it feels to be wronged. All the killings made by Shelton were to people who were directly showed how flawed the system was.
The second juridical question, of rationality, describes, at the level of non-human forces being embodied or personified through human actors, the irrational and inexplicable violence of pathos. Gilligan’s interest is not so much in railing against the injustice of it all (pathos) or locating agents of violence in a teleology of punishment (morality play), but intervening in the tragic drama, where the connections between people are the precondition for the violence between them—but these connections also allow for an alternative ending to the story, in which connections allows for the aversion or tragedy and
In contrast to Scalia I think he has good points but he needs a better argument than the judical system has faults. Scalia is for the death penalty. She thinks about the victims in the crimes. She agrees that there is a lot of pian done to the victims however she is not considering all the pain the prisoners will go threw also. This “cocktail” is not just a shot and that’s it, she should know that already.
Carlisle article explained that the dark side envelops their personality by the fantasy they were living in subconsciously. Now that the dark side consumed them they start satisfying their urges in reality. His theory is effective because it relates to how the serial killer thinks while they are under their other persona. The psychological theory that Carlisle describes in his article does not contribute to the role of situations and socioeconomic factors in crime. Psychological theory doesn’t explain the social reasons why the serial killer becomes who he is, such as poverty and the people around him creating the behavior of killing tendencies.
Psychologists argue that there are no bad people, simply bad decisions made by good-natured people. But what about those who fall under abnormal psychology, who have differently wired brains that make them inclined to kill people for their own personal pleasure. Serial killers have become a big phenomena due to being popularized by media. So what makes a serial killer, and why are they so interesting? The most fascinating thing about serial killers themselves is that it is utterly impossible to completely understand them.
He explains that the death penalty is just an act of torture and is too horrible to be used by our civilized society, stating that it is “torture until death” (220). He goes on to argue that the death penalty is unjust in its practice because it is applied in arbitrary and also in discriminatory ways. Quoting, “Remain grants that the death penalty is a just punishment for some murderers, but he thinks that justice does not require the death penalty for murderers” (221). He goes on to say that life imprisonment can be an alternative decision that stratifies the requirements of the justice
The death penalty poses many important ethical questions in today’s society. I will be addressing the death penalty from two different perspectives, should it be banded in the United States like other countries or is the death penalty something that society should come to terms with. I will argue that while perspective one is strong in that it states those who commit murder need to die, but it fails to fully consider the innocent people that have already died because of law enforcement negligence, perspective two gives a better understanding of innocent people who are charged for committing a crime they did not commit. Therefore, I will suggest doing research on both sides of the story is the best way to approach this question. In the 1960’s