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.
Prison time is an effective deterrent to a point, with some people more time is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, it would seem that justice would be better served if they too were killed as they had planned to kill another human being. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims and this should be altered.
This argument can be compared to if a police officer shoots an innocent man, the country should purge police officers of their weapons. When reviewing at the examples, one argument cannot be made without including the other. For the good of the country, some sacrifices must undeniably be made. The Death Penalty system needs to be revised to produce positive results and deliver justice promptly. The death penalty must remain a valid source of punishment because with the court system we have today, most sentenced for murder do not receive a life sentence and are released back into the public after a couple years.
Louis feels that the death penalty should stay because we value human life as highly as we do and that is why it should be available for those who commit capital crimes. “We should seek to improve its application rather than abolish a just institution. We ought not throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater,” Louis states (Waller
The only justification for causing death is to prevent the deaths of others. Thus, individuals have the right to use deadly force to save their own lives from criminal aggressors, and countries have the right to wage war to prevent their own destruction. Likewise, a community can and should use capital punishment to protect the lives of its members. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote: “The slaying of an evildoer is lawful inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community.” When judiciously applied as a punishment for the willful killing of innocents, the death penalty serves to deter those who would murder and to protect society from those who have murdered. By reserving the ultimate penalty of death for those who wantonly kill, we are clearly proclaiming our special reverence for life.
This has been developed in a variety of ways, in part of efforts to abolish parole, to adopt certain kinds of determinate sentencing guidelines and to put into practice other sentencing reforms. "www.thefreelibrary.com" (2011). I believe truth in sentencing is a deterrence of recidivism when using good time and work time credits. I believe every person deserves the opportunity to pay off their debt to society and prove that they will not be a repeat offender. Once a criminal has been convicted and has been sentenced to do their time, this is where they are able to show society and the criminal justice system that they have learned their lesson from their mistake.
Michael Rea March 22, 2011 Koch vs. Bruck "Is capital punishment an adequate and necessary form of payback for the crime of murder? And will it prevent the occurrence of future murders? These are the vital issues argued by Edward I. Koch in his article, "The Death Penalty is Justice," and David Bruck's "No Death Penalty." In my opinion, Koch is able to ideally show the need for capital punishment, while Bruck is ineffective at justifying his stance that the death penalty is an unsuitable punishment for the crime of murder." In "Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life", readers view the opinions toward the death penalty in today's world.
Institutionalizing the notion of revenge and to have it be a goal that society pursues through the criminal justice system offends the ideals of many. This ethical dilemma is most apparent in the death penalty debate. Arguably, there is no real reason for inflicting the death penalty other than society's need for retribution, as incarcerating that same individual for a life sentence without the possibility of parole will effectively incapacitate them and protect society from his criminal behavior. But the desire for retaliation dates back to ancient times, where the Hammurabi Code essentially necessitated "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," which is reflected by the punitive goals of our modern criminal justice system. The ethical debate between those who view retribution as a natural goal of justice and those who feel that state-sanctioned revenge has no place in modern society will continue, particularly as it relates to the death penalty
In “With death penalty, let punishment truly fit the crime,” published on CNN’s website on August 22nd, 2013, Robert Blecker, a professor at New York Law School, argues that the death penalty is suitable to anyone depending on the crime they commit. He mentions in his argument that the majority of people usually like to give the same degree of punishment to a person equal to the crime they committed. He is not fond with this sort of outcome as Blecker states the alternative of the death penalty, “An unpleasant life in prison, a quick but painful death cannot erase the harm. But it can help restore a moral balance”(Blecker 1). He describes lethal injections as too “hospitalized” and would oppose the thought of it.
Society argues that criminals should be punished with lengthy jail terms for the security of society. However, the outcome of this objective would allow the offender to return back into society so that he/she can become a productive citizen. Moreover, offenders are given the opportunity to gain rehabilitation and education while they are incarcerated. This result brings up another question. Is the justice