Retributivism is an unbiased and impartial response to a perpetrator that has wronged another. Revenge usually inflicts harm greater in severity than the initial crime whereas retribution exacts proportional punishment. Objection 2: Even if the murderer deserves to die the state does not have special authority to take the life of another human being. “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Duet. 32:35 & Romans
Diana Penuela Professor Leano English 1A 10 March , 2011 Capital Punishment Currently in California the death penalty is allowed. Capital punishment lowers the value of human life and it is based on a need of revenge. It also sends the wrong message to our kids and society by asserting that violence is the only way out. Teaching that killing is wrong by killing creates a culture of violence because it is only based on getting back at the prisoner by using violence. Capital punishment does not deter crime; instead it increases the murder rate and there is a chance of error.
Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws. If the laws are not strict enough, as the Death Penalty is, it is too enticing for our criminals. Therefore making it easier for criminals to kill. Harsh, severe laws provide an important measure of society's values and morals. How can the government be "soft on crime"" How can they let others kill innocent people?
A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members. It would mean that the family members of the victim could then end all sadness of the crime committed and try to forget about it as best they can and know that justice has been served to the defendant. If it wasn’t for the various types of punishment there wouldn’t be a way to deter people from committing crime. The death penalty creates another form of crime deterrent. Prison time is an effective deterrent to a point, with some people more time is needed.
They lied about getting a warrant and in turn let a killer walk away from the situation with no punishment. Like I said previously if they would have used the ethics of virtue system they would have went about things in an honest manner and even though it might not have saved the life of Detective Griffiths it would have put his killer in jail. Ethics training for our officers is very important to maintain order (Papenfuhs,2011). However, when really spending some time and thinking about this situation I wish our legal system could in some way take into account the pressure we put on cops and when we know for an absolute fact a serious crime as been committed that the criminal could still be punished regardless of the mistakes of cops. I don’t think the people should be able to get off that easy simply because of a legal mishap and in fact disgusts me that his has happens numerous times every year.
There is a moral difference between Shelton’s killing of his attackers and that of his other victims. Darby and Ames caused personal harm to Shelton and thus gave him the moral right to try and prevent any other future pain that could be caused by these men, but the other victims were combatants in the war that Shelton waged against the “system”. When looking at Darby and Ames, Shelton takes a more utilitarian approach when dealing with their killings. The government “system” is supposed to punish those who are wrong. But in the trial of Darby and Ames, only Ames was punished severely while Darby was allowed to go free.
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
The Dalai Lama talks about “Compassion”. The way to understand compassion in this situation does not mean forgiveness or to forget what the murderer did and let him free. Here, compassion means to put aside the feelings we have for the one related to us and become impartial to listen to the reasons the murderer has to have killed this person. This impartiality would help us not to follow what The Torah suggests. The Torah suggests the death of a murderer.
Shalom wonders what this is saying about our current system that is in force (10). The author reveals that murderers that are unable to pay for their defense are more likely to be sentenced to death then those who are capable of getting a lawyer. Former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall says that “the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged members of society” (11). Shalom concludes that the United States is not the only country that is continuing to practice capital punishment. The other countries are considered to be far from world leaders in human rights.
This act of murder has been popular along the years but must be stopped now. According to me, execution of a person is just like legal murder and devalues the respect we place on human life. Along with respect, capital punishment also takes away human rights of the convicted. Capital punishment violates articles 2, 3 and 5 of the