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.
One of the functions of the criminal justice system is to administer a fair and just punishment for the crime committed by the suspect .Most Americans seem to agree with or oppose capital punishment on a case by case basis. Some Americans believe the death penalty brings justice, when someone is murdered. Capital punishment is a controversial issue in the society. Pros--Some people favor the death penalty because it is believed to deter crime. Criminals might think twice before they commit a crime if they knew they were going to get the death penalty.
Introduction The purpose of this paper is to explain the current law governing murder and manslaughter. In addition, this paper will analyze the effectiveness of the defence of provocation and determine whether a law reform on this special defence is necessary in order to reflect the social changes over the centuries. Murder and Manslaughter The general principal in criminal law is that a person will not be held liable unless both actus reus and mens rea can be established. Both offences of murder and manslaughter require the same actus reus, which is an unlawful killing of a person in being in the Queen’s peace. Since murder is a consequence crime, the prosecutors must also show that the act of the accused is a substantial operative cause of the death.
22-5). The only reason it is implemented is to give others some kind or justification. It is morally not justified to kill someone by killing (Manning & Rhoden-Trader, 2000, pp. 22-5). The death penalty at times has executed the innocent while also allowing those who have committed horrendous crimes to go free.
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. Also I believe this law is saying if another person cannot prove guilt and the person is indeed guilty, the innocent person is the one who pays the consequences.
Criminals who did genuine crimes should bite the dust and not stay in prison. A few individuals say that slaughtering in any structure is totally off-base. A few individuals concur that murdering isn't right; nonetheless, if one individual kills another, capital punishment is the thing that they merit. To give a criminal the death penalty would console the individuals near the victim it would not happen once more. Likewise it gives them the inclination that the death has been vindicated.
Do you think Menninger would condone/approve of capital punishment as a policy to punish murders? Explain why or why not. Karl Menninger’s theory of punishment is a forward looking theory that claims punishment should be used in order to reform the criminal and to make society better. In Menninger’s view, the society should take some responsible for the crime because to some extent, it is the way that the society reacts on violence, and the way it punishes criminals brings out more violence and destruction. According to Karl, people who commit crimes are helplessness and hopelessness.
They had the ability to, “make the price of maintaining control too high for their opponents”, by not seeking civil disobedience in order to allow the world to see the racism, but instead choosing to not seek to control another, but to control themselves and their own actions (Prejean, 623-627). On the other hand, those in favor of the death penalty, feel that most people who are accused of killing someone, should be executed, instead of prolonging the pain of the family members of the person they killed, or causing the tax payers to fund their numerous appeals. To name two, Alex Kozinski and Sean Gallagher, writers of “For an Honest Death Penalty”, who believe that “wrongfully convicted capital defendants are rare”(Gallagher and Kozinski, 630). They
The mistake of killing someone who is innocent can not be undone and yet the death penalty still goes on. The death penalty does not only harm incent people but also people who are not involved in the crime or the death penalty. The death penalty costs a fortune and where do they get that money if you guessed taxes that is right. They take the money that is meant for people with out money who need Medicare and the food stamps and waste it on people who do not deserve it. Thus, the criminal justice of New York State bar association— which includes prosecutors, judges, and defense attorney—opposed re-institution of the death penalty because of “the enormous cost associated with
By comparing an act to the categorical imperatives you can determine if the act is morally right. The three categorical imperatives in short are: Can the act be universalised, treat people as an end in them-selves not as a means to an end, and could the act be made a law. For example killing someone in cold blood is wrong because: if it was universalised everyone would be dead; if the act of killing someone was made law there would be widespread chaos. This can also be illustrated on a smaller level such as lying. The categorical imperatives fit in with Kant’s theory as it sets a sort of benchmark to base your actions upon.