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.
Crime maybe controlled by fear of punishment 4. Punishment that is severe, certain, and swift will stop crime They believed in fast punishment instead of long trials. One of the major parts of criminal punishment reform was for fair and equal treatment of accused offenders. Judges could punish criminals however they wanted to no matter how severe the crime. Mr. Beccaria and other members of the Classical School fought for punishment to be set by legislative instead of judges having all of the authority for punishment.
Based on the Best Bet theory we can assume that the risk of losing one’s own life and any potential to ever see freedom again is just as good of a punishment as any other. If not using capital punishment reduces how many are deterred and does not reduce the number of innocent lives taken we too are responsible for the loss of those lives. We are responsible not only for our own direct actions but also for our inaction and the consequences of it. Objections to the death Penalty: Objection 1: “Capital punishment is a morally unacceptable thirst for revenge.” Revenge is a personal response, done out of anger and hatred, which inflicts harm to the perpetrator. Retributivism is an unbiased and impartial response to a perpetrator that has wronged another.
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.
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
The general ideal of the deterrence method suggest that one punishment is enough to deter other people if the situation is take care of quickly enough. General deterrence basically believes if young people see that society both intends to punish criminal acts, they will be deterred from committing a crime by the factors and awareness. The more severe and swift the punishment is, then the greater of the deterrent effect. An example could be having more police officers on the streets, thus convincing potential delinquents that they will be caught. Specific deterrence method focuses on the fact that if an individual is punished strongly for one crime, then they will not commit this crime again out of fear of punishment.
He concludes by saying anesthesia needs to be abolished, and in order to kill a person we, as a people will find a constitutional way to kill them. The article that Blecker wrote supports his view of executing the death penalty more often and without hesitation. In the beginning, there is an ethical appeal since he is professional in this field, his degree and status is shared to help support his argument to the audience. The audience understands that the author knows what he is talking about and all his arguments have a valid point. He starts by ridiculing his opponents on the death penalty by stating, “Let the
Punishment Philosophy Paper Bridgett Tolley CJS/220 February 19, 2012 Ronald Ramsey “As soon as men know that they can kill without fear of punishment or blame, they kill; or at least they encourage killers with approving smiles.” - Simone Weil In the United States’ criminal justice system, the application of justice occurs within its courts. Society cannot maintain order without some form of punishment for those who break common laws. When one person encroaches on another the criminal justice system works to achieve justice for the victimized individual. Not attempting to punish the transgressor is considered, on some level, the equivalent of punishing the victim. Some dispute, however, remains concerning whether legal punishment, regardless of the type, is also a form of injustice.
Both sides have been pretty stubborn in their views, the reason why we haven’t reached a decision as a whole. The supporters generally state the pros fairly similarly. They usually include the fact that public executions of criminals would serve as a viable crime deterrent. The logic behind this seems solid, as it would definitely keep those who maybe have a crime in mind or the potential for one from doing so, and thinking twice. Of course it wouldn’t completely stop the crimes, they will always happen.