However, this fault does not necessarily mean she is actually criminally culpable of murder. In murder, once Actus Reus has been established Mens Rea must also be satisfied. Mens rea being ‘malice aforethought’ which can be established by “foresight of death or grievous bodily harm as virtually certain.” Therefore, to sentence Dot with murder it must be established that she foresaw either the death of the children or their grievous bodily harm as virtually certain. Considering she had no knowledge that the children had been poisoned and did not intend the events to happen, simply thinking they were suffering from a stomach ache; it is unlikely that the jury would find intent under the Woolin test. Nonetheless, if the jury did not find the necessary Mens Rea, she could instead be charged with the crime of manslaughter, which is committed when a defendant commits the Actus Reus of homicide but the killing is not sufficiently blameworthy to warrant liability for murder.
Many prosecutors use the threat of the death penalty as a way of getting a plea deal to get the offender off the streets. (Ewegen, 1994) Yet using the death penalty this way does not make it a deterrent against crime, it just keeps the judicial system from spending more money on trials. The death penalty has been abolished in many developed societies. The death penalty has no deterrent effect on capital crime. More over, the risk of executing an innocent person is unacceptable.
In this paper, I will discuss the effect that capital punishment has on deterring criminal activity. Capital punishment is the execution of criminals by the state, for committing crimes, regarded so terrible, that this type of punishment is the only acceptable punishment for the crime committers. For decades now, there has been an ongoing debate over the death penalty in America. The chief argument in favor of death sentences is the fact that it can be used as a deterrent. Deterrence is the idea that executing the murderers will decrease the rates of homicide by discouraging future murderers.
The "deterrent" theory is debatable. Serial killers, rapists, molesters etc. would rarely consider their potential demise via Capital Punishment prior to committing crimes. Criminals usually operate with the belief they will not be caught. 3.
Sometimes a punishment is related to your transgression, and other times it has nothing to do with it. None the less there is a common goal, and that is to deter you from breaking the rules. It really shouldn’t matter what the punishment is just as long as it brings about a desirable result. Certainly the same must be true for our criminal justice system; it’s not advantageous for us as a society for the system to be in place strictly to hold us accountable for our actions. Take the death penalty for example, it is the old eye for an eye concept, kill and be killed.
Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to take human life, and spreads social injustices by disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist). They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and less expensive punishment than death. .Pro Death-Penalty "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed
The death penalty is a great tool for the American justice system. Without it, criminals may have the opportunity to reoffend or commit other heinous crimes. The death penalty also saves the lives of what may be future victims by preventing these criminals from ever having the opportunity to commit another crime against innocent civilians. There are those who will argue that we are taking away their human rights to live. True, every human was born with human rights, but I believe if you take away someone else’s life, you give up your human rights.
If someone can’t prove guilt it does not necessarily mean a person didn’t commit a crime. I also feel this law should not be used today, because what if the person who is being accused is guilty? It is the courts job to determine a “guilty or not guilty” plea. Another reason I feel this law should not be used today is, putting a person to death for a crime such as this is unethical. Because of the fact there are more crimes that are worse than this, such as murder, and rape In which someone should be put to death, not just because a person can’t prove someone’s guilt.
Perhaps the most frequently raised argument against capital punishment is that of its cost. Other thoughts on the death penalty are to turn criminals away from committing violent acts. A just argument against the death penalty would be that sentencing an individual to death prevents future crimes by other individuals. However, criminals are not afraid of the death penalty. The chance of a criminal being sentenced to death is very slim.
It seems that only focusing on the final outcome may lead to morally wrong actions. Because of this, the intent of actions, regardless of how things may turn out, seems as if it should be a strong indicator of the morality of an action. A highly discussed topic in ethics is the debate between killing and letting die. Under almost all circumstances and moral theories, murder is considered wrong, while letting die necessarily isn’t. But why is this the case? If there is an action that can prevent a life from being saved but one chooses not to act on it, this seems like a type of murder.