In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice. The next discussion involved civil disobedience and we found that we agreed that civil disobedience has been helpful historically to help change the laws and improve our society. However, the general consensus on civil disobedience was also that the acts of disobedience must be done in a peaceful manner for the acts to be effective. The final acts of crimes among professionals had another anonymous decision. Our team found that we did not agree with those professionals who chose to commit crimes.
I think the primary goal should be incapacitation. Basically, no one really end up in prison on a first offense, unless it's a particularly big one. Most prisoners have many less severe priors on their record. They've demonstrated the willingness to victimize innocent folks again and again. For that, they need to be removed from society for the society's good.
How would you feel if your loved one was executed and later on found innocent? If you capture and execute the wrong person, you cannot bring the victim back to life. While if you capture the wrong person and put them in prison, to later on find this person innocent you can set them free. As you can see Capital punishment is not an effective
The stricter our state is with its punishment, the more people will know not to commit murders. American citizens need to know that chastisements are proportionate and fair. For each killing that occurs, 8 possible victims are spared. We can't risk the chance that execution does not save the lives of potential victims. Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws.
It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial. In the future of plea bargaining, I would like to see those who do choose to go to trial to receive no biased or threats of harsh sentences placed upon them simply because they chose not to agree to a plea bargain and maintain their constitutional right to remain innocent until proven
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.
Do you believe that the judicial system should be based on holding people accountable for their choices (blame) or probability of future crimes committed? Explain your answer. I believe the judicial system should have this role. It is their job to serve justice and keep society safe. If someone has this problem, they should look for help before its too late.
Prison rehabilitates criminals and once freedom, money and life’s luxuries are taken away from white-collar criminals then they will learn that committing such crimes are not worth prison time. Alternative sentences should not be given because being isolated from the world will be more effective then giving them house arrest because they will not be in the luxury of their own
Maybe there is a better way to punish those accused of wrong doings. On the other hand, when he expresses the valuable use of terror pertaining to a country's most urgent needs, it makes more sense. I am a strong believer in doing things for the good of the majority. People who indulge in activities that only benefit themselves and possibly harm others should be dealt with. And with the context of his writings being much different than the lifestyle I am accustomed to, I begin to understand his principles.
Therefore, the United States interprets the same human right differently depending on a location. How is the way the justice system works fair to society? We must accept the way it is? Is our society supposed to accept that murderers and dangerous criminals have a right to live? When obviously they do not accept it by themselves?