This makes no sense to continuously try to end violence with violence. This only incorporates in others the idea that “killing already incarcerated criminals can somehow solve the problem of violence in American Life” (Bessler). Many may not realize this, but capital punishment has only a corrosive influence on any society. Although many people feel that the death penalty is the solution to punishing criminals, it is not moral. Thus, nobody should ever turn to the death penalty as an alternative to punish these infamous criminals.
Jury Nullification Paper The jury’s repudiation to sentence a person even through the presence of a resilient proof which supports guilt is called jury nullification. With regards to handling cases, the jury shouldn’t develop sympathy for it will result to jury nullification. During the trial, sentencing or verdict should always be based on the facts and shouldn’t even concern an individual’s race at all. At an instance wherein the jury couldn’t come up with a conviction due to the fact that race is involved, it is called as race-based nullification which is evidently not good for a murderer can be set free as this occurs. Thus, as this happens, it would be right for punishment as this is believed to wrong.
The new bill proposed by President Obama was shot down by Congress and not voted into effect. One persistent argument of those who advocate for the Second Amendment is that guns are inanimate objects and therefore cannot kill people by themselves. They believe that it takes a person behind the gun to pull the trigger, and therefore the real cause of these mass shootings are society and its lack of restraints on the “madmen” who live among us. There is a simple rebuttal to that banal argument. We have limited control on people’s medical diagnoses, lifestyles, or events that “trigger” said behaviors.
Weekly Position Paper #1 Equality in the Justice System Although many researchers have found biological reasoning toward many serial killings, it is no reason to justify serial killers’ acts and harm onto society. It is believed that many serial killers are perceived to have a mental disorder of some kind, causing them to enact in murders without feeling any guilt or concern over their actions. Jack Pemment’s “What Would We Find Wrong in the Brain of a Serial Killer?” depicts the mental disorders: Atisocial Personailty Disorder (APD), Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), Narcisstic Personality Disorder (NPD) and schizophrenia in the order from most recognized to least. All four have the common characteristic that serial killers are biologically affected mentally, which affects their lack of emotional reaction or empathy as far as their knowing of good from bad, right from wrong. Researchers and scientists have diagnosed four types of symptoms and their characteristics, but just because many serial
Following that Andrea Yates submitted a plea of guilty for reason of insanity. The criminal case a criminal defendant can claim insanity by simply saying that he or she should not be held criminally liable for the damages committed from his particular crime because he was insane at the time of occurrence. Acording to CBS News (2009) "Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist, testified for the defense that she did not know killing the children was wrong because she was trying to save them from hell.” Now because of the evidence used and the defense of insanity, the cases outcome did not meet very many people’s expectations, to include my own. Many felt that her being sentenced to a mental institute was an injustice at its finest. Acording to CBS News (2009) "No one should believe that she is getting off easy.
Fact NOT Opinion: Gun Control Doesn’t Work vs. Gun Control The 2nd Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Lorri Anderson, in her article “Fact NOT Opinion: Gun Control Doesn’t Work,” attempts to convey the idea that the government and media are to an extent, responsible for misleading the public of relevant statistical information pertaining to gun control in the USA. She implies that, “Everyone should have the right to bear arms,” and her ultimate purpose is to justify that, “It is not the guns that are bad; it is the individuals carrying them.” Therefore, CCW (Carrying Concealed Weapon) carriers should be permitted to carry arms anywhere and not just be limited to having them in their homes. Anderson uses statistics from the Department of Public Safety and recounts past shooting events across the country to support her point. Anderson adopts a patriotic tone in an effort to appeal to readers that may disagree with her argument.
In On Liberty, Mill theorizes the Principle of Liberty, in which he states that mankind has no right to prevent any other man from committing an action unless it is to prevent them from causing harm to others. Society cannot reject an individual’s conduct just because the majority of people find it offensive. However, this doesn’t mean that society can’t enforce certain constraints on people’s conduct through the law. This restriction of actions that impede upon the well being of others is necessary in order to protect an individual’s fundamental rights and basic moral liberties. With this being said, society only has the right to restrict behavior on the basis of justice, and not because society deems it to be immoral.
The speaker's assertion is about the censureship of artistic works or historical displays by the government.According to the speaker, govenrment should not censure artistic works.Although ,some people believe that arts should provide education and enlightenment to society,I agree with the speaker's contention as such behavior borders on thought control and impinges on freedom of speach. To support this viewpoint, a free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he or she want to receive or create. Art is about feelings, both bad and good ones, so art can not be censored, it will restrict the feelings of artists. Censorship in art never works. One way or another, in a society of instant communication like ours, people are always ready to see controversial and objectionable works.
Executing the innocent is a rare but acceptable risk of the death penalty. Supporters of this argument say that there is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since more safety was added to the DP in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Opponents say once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to reverse it. There is evidence too that mistakes have been made.
However, the principles are controversial and criticized by other jurists. On the other hand, in today’s world of increasing terrorism, due to national security and the evolution towards greater equality in the development of law, the Parliament may somehow contradict the orthodox theory by legislating and the courts may make decisions against the theory. By evaluating the doctrine of the rule of law and illustrating the challenges posed to the traditional theory, we will see how the theory is relevant today. The first principle of the rule of law is no one can be punished except for a distinct breach of law. It was designed to protect the individual from any secret or arbitrary laws because secret or arbitrary laws are incapable of justification.