Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims and this should be altered. It’s time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather that the accused. We need justice for current and past victims, longer sentences and the death penalty is the way to achieve this. Death sentence provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. Nothing is to stop people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment to kill in prison; to escape and kill or to kill when their life sentence (minimum of 15 years) has been
Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, in his essay, “Bring Back Flogging,” (Feb 20, 1997) argues that flogging should be brought back to replace the conventional method of the imprisonment of non-violent offenders since it is cheaper. Jacoby supports his argument by describing how prisoners only treat prison like a graduate school of criminal studies and they become even more ruthless, at the same time he also mentioned that flogging will be a better choice money wise. His purpose is to persuade the readers that flogging is a better capital punishment compared to imprisoning convicts. David Cole establishes an ironic and knowledgeable tone with his audience of people in superior position and the civilians. Even though I think flogging is humiliating and painful, it is clearly a much easier and cheaper way of locking up a criminal rather than putting them in prison, and that we should consider bringing it back for non-violent crimes.
Discuss the extent to which recent reforms to murder in the Coroners and Justice act 2009 are a change for the better but have not necessarily satisfied those who campaigned for change. The defence of Loss of self-control (LSC) came into force in October 2010 under the Coroners and Justice act (2009), this replaced the old defence of provocation, which was confusing and out of date, under s.56 of the above statute, the new defence is narrower than the old defence of provocation which was seen as too lenient on those who kill out of anger. for example in the case of Doughty (1986) where the old defence allowed D a defence for anger when a 17 day old baby was crying, this case clearly shows that the old law contrasted parliaments intentions and in so doing created injustice. However LSC may be proved to be more available to those who kill out of fear of violence whereas provocation was more severe on those. For LSC one requirement under s.54 (1)(a) is that the killing by D must result from D’s loss of self-control, Any loss of control need not be sudden as defined in the case of Duffy and included in s.54(2), but it must be temporary (but not long term or permanent or it would amount to insanity) whereas it was quite the opposite for provocation this principle is demonstrated in Ibrams and Gregory (1981) where the D’s were convicted of murder as there was a five day gap before the murder meaning there was no sudden LSC, however the new defence is not available either as there was premeditation in this case.
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.
Yet Charles Black, by providing the inevitability of "caprice" (inequality), undermines his own constitutional argument, because it seems unlikely that the Constitution's fifth and fourteenth amendments were meant to authorize the death penalty only under unattainable conditions. See C. BLACK, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: THE INEVITABILITY OF CAPRICE AND MISTAKE (1974). n9 See BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, BULLETIN NO. NCJ-98,399, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 1984, at 9 (1985); Johnson, The Executioner's Bias, NAT'L REV., NOV. 15, 1985, at 44. n10 It barely need be said that any discrimination against (for example, black murderers of whites) must also be discrimination for (for example, black murderers of blacks). n11 Bedau & Radelet, Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases (1st draft, Oct. 1985) (on file at Harvard Law School Library).
The eighth amendment to the United States Constitution located in the Bill of Rights specifies the prohibition of excessive bail as well as cruel and unusual punishment. However, what punishments are considered to be “cruel and unusual”? Courts have ruled that the means of penalty that are vicious, disgraceful, or shocking to the social morality may fall under this clause. So why is it that the death penalty continues to be utilized in several different states throughout the US? Does death not descent under the category of “cruel and unusual”?
Thus a game of “Tag” has begun. (This is modeling which started with the event of my dog’s bark causing the African American child, who was uncertain of how to make friends to bark, triggering a chain of barking amongst the children. The event between the Hispanic and African American boys lead to other children mimicking their fun leading to a wide spread game of
“Should the United States continue to use capital punishment?” I believe that the United States should continue to use capital punishment. Although the administering of current procedures may be severely flawed, I still think it is the best deterrent available for serious and heinous crimes against society. The purpose of the assigned article, as well as the NPR interview, was to inform the reader and listener as to the current problems inherent in today’s execution procedures. None of problems expressed are those which couldn’t be addressed by the individual states as well as the prison system as a whole. The basic theme for both articles appears to be the lack of humane procedures and trained medical personnel on hand for the execution.
In the 1976 case, Gregg v. Georgia, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, as applied under the new statutes. You need to look at the constitutional rights during the sentencing as well as the impacts on sentencing guidelines and the constitutionality of the death penalty. On the constitutionality on the sentencing guidelines they can be used to determine the appropriate sentence for an offender. “With the goals of the offender’s sentencing to hopefully lead to rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation, or deterrence.” (Worrall, 2007) The death penalty is the most serious punishment that can be imposed. The death penalty is a very sensitive subject and with it comes different pros and cons.
The number of hangings fell from an average of fifteen a year in the first half of the fifties to about four a year. However some odd decisions were still made on executions, such as Hendryk Niemasz who was executed even though he appeared to have killed someone while sleepwalking. The Homicide Act was effectively unworkable because it allowed some murder to be categorized as more serious than others. For example murders with a shotgun lead to the death penalty, while brutal strangulation following a sexual assault led to imprisonment. The liberal climate would not allow this disparity as it would have been viewed as unfair and would have been one of the factors in considering the abolition of the death penalty.