It was a very unfortunate accident where everything that could go wrong went wrong and it ended up with a dead officer and a criminal that got to walk away with no punishment at all. However, in order to have a solution to this situation the police officers should have in my option the ethics of virtue. Ethics of virtue really focuses on character and doing the right thing. In saying that, if the police officers would have had ethics of virtue and been honest they would have gotten a legitimate warrant and even though it might not of saved the detectives life it would have put the drug dealer and killer in jail for a really long time and off the streets of
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.
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.
According to him, 99% would rather be imprisoned for life than sentenced to the death penalty. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, as cited in Haags argument says, "Some men, probably, abstain from murder because they fear that if they committed murder they would be hanged. Hundreds of thousands abstain from it because they regard it with horror. One great reason why they regard it with horror is that murderers are hanged”. In the article titled “The Folly of Capital Punishment”, Jeffrey Reinam concludes that capital punishment is immoral to our society; and thus, should not be legalized.
Many believe that a government without limits will turn into a government that acts in ways that will disregard the rights of all in all circumstances (Zalman, M. (2008). Those who support the crime control model, however, indicate that these protections hinder law enforcement investigation and allow defendants more privacy than victims are allowed “Crime control emphasizes an efficient criminal process through early determination of guilt by law enforcement agents” and the Fourth Amendment prevents this (Cornell,
How is Deterrence Related to Humiliation? Abstract Deterrence is a method punishment where the public general ‘deter’ or discourage the criminal offenders from committing crimes. In today society theirs two types of deterrence that exists, general and specific. The specific deterrence argues that by punishing an individual for the unacceptable crime they committed will stop them from repeating this crime all over again, and maybe this will be seen as a lesson for the offender future. General deterrence is a punishment which aims to the whole society from committing similar crimes.
Which is very true people are going to try to do whatever they want without getting caught. So by them making their bad choices by giving a person death for a consequence solves nothing. What also said was ‘because homicidal maniacs kill people by mistake, then it’s supposed to be okay for the state to emulate them” (Smith). In my next article, Capital Punishment Should Be Abolished, facts were pointed out strongly why it should not be approved. Three factors pointed out were “unrelated to the crime itself, greatly influence who gets executed and who does not: poverty, race and geography” (Roleff).
I feel it adversely is shown and sought out to enhance the value of human life by demonstrating the old saying “an eye for an eye.” If government were to lower the penalty of murder it would portray that the victims’ loss of life was less significant than that of the murderer. Some opponents feel that a life sentence in prison is a far worse punishment than death. If this is true, then why do so many convicted prisoners put on death row try to appeal and get a lesser sentence? These prisoners who committed the same act outside prison walls are now facing death with no alternative, as their victim had, and aren’t ready to answer to the consequences. In the case of Stephanie Benton, I saw this with my own eyes.
Acts of armed robbery that end in violence or homicide tend to render the public outraged and give their voice a stronger demand for justice to be done. If we choose to take the stance that our criminal justice system is mean to only keep society safe and that justice is carried out then we need to recognize that the laws we have in place currently are set in place to do so. In theory we could see how enforcing a harsher sentence to those who choose to commit violent acts or armed robbery would work as a deterrent to prevent criminals from committing the act as often as they do
Incarceration further reassures society and the victims that a criminal will receive a fair punishment. Moreover, incapacitation or incarceration protects society from career criminals, and criminals who pose a serious threat to members of the community, but the fact of the matter is by doubling the prison term for armed robbery is not going to correct or solve the underlying issues that force one to commit the act of robbery and in return, the prison systems will continue to