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.
However as murder is the most serious crime many believe that it is correct that it follows a mandatory sentence as it gives the family and society a sense of justice is being done. In 2008 Maria Eagle the justice minister stated that ‘’ Murder is a unique crime of particular moral and social significance and the mandatory life sentence reflects society’s abhorrent of it.’’ Basically stating that the mandatory sentence helps reflect society’s disgust at what the defendant has
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. Reinam says, “Reduction in the horrible things we do to our fellows, when those things are not necessary to our protection, is an advance in civilization.” Punishments become milder as societies become more advanced. The refusal to execute teaches about the wrongfulness of murder.
The current law serves to confirm and underline how seriously flawed the present law on homicide is. The Law commission described the law homicide as ‘a rickety structure set upon shaky foundations.’ There have been some slight reforms by judges and Parliament. The most recent being the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which seeks to tackle the two longstanding problems of the homicide law which are the partial defences of loss of control (formerly provocation) and diminished responsibility which are frequently stretched and pushed to their absolute limits of reasoning in some cases as defences. The article ‘Murder most foul’ by Ian Yule, written for the A-Level law review magazine provides extensive details of some of the most common problems and criticisms that have been found with the law, as does the ‘Criminal Law’ by Elliot and Quinn. A common theme in both of these publications and
To kill or not to kill? That question is very blunt and to the point but when it refers to death penalty, then it is necessary. There is nothing to take lightly about this subject because this law holds a person’s life in the court’s hands. The editorial “Death Penalty Flawed, Ineffective and Biased” by Benjamin Todd Jealous and Del. Aisha N. Braveboy published in the Afro-American Red Star provides situations and laws concerning the death penalty.
Culpability and the Death Penalty The death penalty and the qualifications for its sentencing continues to be a controversial topic in America, especially when it pertains to mental health inmates. The punishment of death is formidable, in states where the death penalty is allowed, as a comprehendible circumstance to deter an individual from a deviant behavior. If the person is capable of understanding the magnitude of the crime they are committing, then they are capable of comprehending the circumstances and consequences associated with that crime. However, if a person is incapable of understanding that same crime, and its implication, this is where the question of if they are deemed competent comes into play. The issue at hand as
Death penalty is a divisible and controversial issue, which raises important questions expressed in philosophical, political and moral terms. Different opinions on death penalty regarding deterrence, innocence and arbitrariness have split those who are firmly opponents and the supporters of the abolition. Although the debate over the legitimacy of capital punishment is long-lasting rooted in the morality and philosophy discourses, opponents and supporters have recently been contributing to the debate with arguments even based on economic efficiency, arguing that death penalty system carries massive costs to a state while many states that still maintain a capital punishment system use it so rarely for it to be a cost effective way to deter violent
The question can be asked, is the sentencing so high because of how immoral it is or simply as punishment for taking someone’s life so your life should be punished for the duration of your existence. However, there are conflicting arguments, firstly being adultery. To commit adultery it is seen as immoral, however, adultery is not illegal. This is an example that there isn’t always a close relationship between law & morality. The second and maybe more complex issue is euthanasia.
" This is a dangerous aspect of the three strikes law, reducing the courts power to consider individual circumstances could lead to unnecessarily long prison sentences for some but on the other hand will ensure hardened criminals don’t get off easy. Overall Shicor concludes that the three strikes law results in inefficient and unpredictable outcomes but I believe those results have more to do with the current construction of our legal
There are also significant costs to society to cover the expenses associated with lifetime imprisonment. The death penalty benefits society because it instills fear into a person, thereby acting as a deterrent to crime. Laws are developed in the United States to deter people from committing crimes. Criminals know that if they decide to break the law, there will be consequences for their actions. Statistics reveal that states with the death penalty have fewer murders per capita.