He cites the law is black and white in this matter. He backs his theory by stating “Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death." N. C. S. A. (N. S.) § 12-A.” He seems to understand that the situation was one of dire circumstance, but deviation from the law would cause more harm than good. He takes his position as a legal superior very serious and understands that if he changes the ruling on the case that it would undermine all the hard work the lower courts put forth.
but it’s not the right thing to do; as an individual we have to give that person a second chance to redeem them self. Killing a person just like that for crime is a huge decision whether it’s a small crime or a big crime I still think you should have another chance
This inflexibility prevents the court from taking into account motive or circumstances, both of which can make a significant difference to the way in which society would view the individual offence. In R.v.Lichniak (2002) the defendants argued that the life sentence was disproportionate to the offence, in breach of article 3 of the European convention of the European Convention of Human Rights, an arbitrary, in breach of Article 5 of the convention. These arguments were rejected by the House of Lords. A further Criticism of Murder is that of the actual definition
(Popular Misconceptions About the Death Penalty, n.d.). One of the reasons that cause these mistakes is the poor representation in courts (Facts & Figures, n.d). Lot of people who are trialed for the capital punishment cannot pay for their own lawyers and governments have to appoint lawyers for them. In many instances, the appointed lawyers are underpaid and lack the necessary experience for the capital punishment cases. This results in poor representation of convicted people in courts and unfair verdicts.
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
A Defense of the Death Penalty Louis P. Pojman The death penalty serves as both a deterrent for would be murderers and a fitting punishment for those who intentionally and out of malice take the life of another human being. Retribution: It is sometimes argued that the death penalty serves as a form of revenge for the victims of heinous crimes. For those who argue from this stance, revenge is never the proper method for assigning punishment because it is done out of anger and with the intent of inflicting harm upon another human being. Vengeance itself is not the basis for designating the death penalty. Instead retribution is justification enough, although it may be accompanied by feelings of anger and hatred.
Given that these figures were obtained at a time of increased unpredictable global attacks on civilians by non-state actors, it is perhaps unsurprising that more people admit to harbouring prejudice against people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. However, as demonstrated by 2011 attacks in Norway by Anders Breivik whose motivation was to propagate an anti-Islam and anti-non-European manifesto, this type of thinking is dangerous and needs to be dealt with at the highest levels of the law and policy making. Indeed, the Constitutional tradition of the UK has been inadequate in responding to this crisis and it is imperative that more
The philosophy of retribution is that of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In other words, that to cause a crime violates the social contract and a criminal must pay his or her debt to society by being punished. This principle suggests that a crime against one individual is a crime against all citizens. According to Lawlink, retribution is the theory that the guilty should endure the punishment which they entirely deserve. Denunciation then again, involves the imposition of a sentence which is in fact severe with regards to make a statement, which the crime in question is not to be tolerated by the community (2003).
A society without laws would be a corrupt chaotic society that would put people in a state of crisis because people would be murdered for possessions they own, fundamental beliefs of how people preserve what’s right from wrong in a society would not be the same as a normal society, and a balance between individual rights and public order would not be a basis part of a society. In this society without a government people would not be prosperous and seek new ways to live as a group. The basis for money would not be the same as with a government and would result in different forms of exchange. Education would not be the same because that is part of a unifying government trying to educate its society, for which a society without laws and government would not unify in such a matter. Care for others such as medical treatment would not have the same basis as a normal society because of how people perceive the responsibility of others in a aspect of individual care.
They believe this was a right that they were given by our Four Fathers, which is clearly not true. Yes, they have the freedom of speech but when should the freedom be taken away? What about the rights of the innocent victims and their families? Hate crimes, because of their nature will always lead to violence and this is not a freedom that people should have. In my opinion, the penalties for hate crimes should continue to be more severe than that of a regular crime because so many innocent people are injured and even killed simply because they are different.