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.
Is Torture Morally Justifiable? Torture has always been debated regarding its ethical and moral justification. The largest and still on going debate is whether or not torture is effective enough to disregard international and domestic laws such as the Geneva Conventions. In the past, and especially during wartime, atrocities have been committed in ill regard to these laws. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are prime examples of how the use of torture can become unlawful if not properly controlled.
10. Promotes killing as an OK solution to a difficult problem. 11. Death sentences are handed down arbitrarily, not in a fair manner. The American Civil Liberties Union holds that the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantee of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws.
Offenders who are convicted of sex crimes are often considered some of the most dangerous to society, thus deemed in need of constant monitoring and surveillance when in the community. When dealing with issues regarding invasion of privacy, such as surveillance of sex offenders, it is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of implementing such a tactic. Although surveillance may not be beneficial in all scenarios, in relation to sex offenders, it is in the best interest of society to perform such a method. The term “sex offender” may generally be categorized in a variation of ways among society. For scholars Simon Cole and Jonathon Simon, the term “sex
Crime is defined as “an act prohibited and punished by law” (Collins, 2006) but there has been much debate about what ‘crime’ is. Harm, social agreement and official societal response are the three key elements of determining crime. A relationship exists between the three key concepts that would determine whether or not an act is a crime. If an action caused harm then society would be outraged and would create a law to punish those responsible and prohibit further acts occurring. From this emerged the consensus position on crime which states that crimes are acts that produce intense moral outrage amongst society (Muncie & McLaughlin, 2003).
Hate crimes penalties are greater than other crimes because of two main reasons first is that they are target to communities and second the individual who commit hate crime need to have greater culpability then those who commit a regular crime, based on those two reasons legislating a hate crime on character the liberal society might lose of its features. In this paper I will engage and explain Hurd’s view with taking in consideration three different points of view. The first one is the increased penalties for hate crimes are in fact justifiable, the second one is hate crimes
First of all, if the crime is as terrible as murder, and it was fully intentional, the privilege should be fully stripped. Some of the criminals in prison lost their right to vote because the crimes they committed were mainly unlawful instead of unjust. Lastly, there could be a series of tests to be given to the prisoners to determine if they are in the right state of mind to vote. When a person commits a crime, the crime will be either as small as fleeing police by motor vehicle, to as big as committing a murder. This is a strong difference in the types of crimes being committed.
Different states have different rules on when the capital punishment penalty applies and when it does not. Normally, I do not agree with applying such extreme punishment unless it can be proved without any doubt that this person who is accused is guilty. It should also be one of the heinous acts of being a serial killer or a child killer. It’s better when a true confession, with evidence to back up the confession, has been obtained. There is nothing worse than to have a doubt that the person already executed could be an innocent person.
I have concluded that substance abuse is a huge contributor to crimes being committed. The lack or decrease in moral intuition and character can cause a person to make bad decisions. This would cause people not to understand the benefits of to abiding to common social values. A person demographics can also play a role in determining whether or not an individual will turn to a life of crime. Government officials, politicians, and courts employees have concluded that individuals commit crimes for private alternatives and they should be punished and held responsible for their actions and conduct.
Why are prisons bursting at the seams? According to Joe Romaine of the International Business Times, it is because of America’s “insane drug laws,” which are doing more harm than good (Romaine). Many people may argue that drug offenders are getting what’s coming to them— they broke the law, and therefore it is part of their consequence to suffer through the overcrowded “cruel and unusual” incarceration. Individuals who argue this point are mistaken because although criminals should indeed receive punishment for their actions, there comes a time when a line of propriety is crossed. The ‘war on drugs’ has become a harsh and unnecessary measure that frankly costs American taxpayers far too much money.