The investigation will address the question from a positivist approach, analyzing various sources, including books, websites and documentaries. The two sources selected for evaluation, The Storm Of War by Andrew Roberts, and How Hitler could have won World War II: The Fatal Errors That Lead To Nazi defeat, by Alexander Bevin, will be evaluated for their origins, purposes, values and limitations. B: Summary of Evidence “The Stalingrad campaign in Russia in 1942 is one of the most poignant examples ever recorded of a ruler engineering his own destruction” (Bevin 145). The campaign started with Operation Blau. Blau was the next step in Operation Barbarossa, created to focus on the invasion of the Caucasus and Southern Russia in the summer and autumn months (Preston 132).
I feel some crimes that have taken place in this country could have been stopped or lessened to a degree with a concealed firearm. The government can not ensure the 100 percent safety and wellbeing of all its citizens. For example the school shootings and workplace instances etc that happened in this country. But if there were more responsible law abiding people that had a concealed weapon on them some of these tragedies could have been avoided or at least minimized the damage that those criminals caused saving the lives of others is always a good thing. Criminals are not known for following the rules so all law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves by any means needed.
Sparing the innocent victims who would be spared, ex hypothesi, by the nonexecution of murderers would be more important to me than the execution, however just, of murderers. But although there is a lively discussion of the subject, no serious evidence exists to support the hypothesis that executions produce a higher murder rate. Cf. Phillips, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: New Evidence on an Old Controversy, 86 AM. J. SOC.
An article published by the A-level law review, written by Ian Yule and entitled ‘Murder most foul?’ has two very important statements in the opening paragraph from people or groups who have first-hand knowledge of what is failing the British legal system when it comes to the decisions regarding cases of murder and voluntary manslaughter. Ken Macdonald QC, the director of public prosecutions, stated that ‘There should be degrees of homicide, not just murder and manslaughter but three or four degrees’. It is evident that our existing homicide laws are in urgent need of reform when even the Director of public prosecutions criticises them. The second is from the Law Commission itself in 2004 published a report relating to the partial defences for murder declaring ‘the present law of murder in England and Wales is a mess’ and also in the same report the Law Commission said that there was ‘a pressing need for a review of the whole law of murder rather than merely some partial defences’. The current law serves to confirm and underline how seriously flawed the present law on homicide is.
Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because of crimal justice. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because the person could run. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because now there are camera's that capture everything we do. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because it is stupid to kill someone just because they stole some property. Another opinion is because some people do not like to kill
Do Stricter Gun-Control Laws Help Prevent Gun-Related Injuries/Deaths? Gun control arguments are a hot topic in America and around the world; it is a topic not likely to go away anytime soon. Arguments for and against carry their own merit and can be lengthy and broad by nature, but our intent is to debate the effect of gun-control laws and the effect they have on gun-related injuries/deaths. The argument presented here will get to the crux of why laws should or should not be enacted to prevent social ills. Most agree that gun-related injury or death of innocent citizens should never be tolerated, but there are opinions on the course to take in an effort to discover a solution.
Critical Analysis on “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate.” Dan Gardner’s publish, “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate”, is strongly controversial in his position against increasing enforcement of drug laws, and boosting penalties for violators. He believes that you should actually limit enforcement and hardship of sentencing when it comes to drugs. Was his argument persuasive enough in the essay to actually influence his wishes into society? Personally, I don’t think so. Gardner’s ideas are too drastic and I believe he didn’t have enough support in his argument that his plans would actually decrease the murders in gang violence.
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
Waller (2006) suggests that it is highly unlikely that evil actions such as genocide are the inevitable product of personality or dispositional qualities. It is possible that a situational perspective can provide an explanation of the accumulation of factors- albeit preventable- that lead to such brutal acts. Zimbardo (1972) supports this idea of social influence: “Individual behaviour is largely under the control of social forces and environmental contingencies rather than personality traits, character, will power or other empirically unvalidated constructs” (Zimbardo, 1972, p. 6). The tendency to commit or allow genocide may result from the unification of role and person. This merger may become apparent where external behaviours and roles are internalised.
Abstract Capital Punishment is the killing of a person by judicial process for retribution and punishment. (www.dictionary.com) The death penalty controversy is an interwoven argument, no matter where in the world you are. The main reason for this is that it is a sensitive issue which is regularly debated in many occasions, based on personal and moral beliefs. Capital Punishment has been banned from most western civilised countries, except for the United States of America. Retribution is one of the main aims of punishment.