The four main topics of the framework for ecological risk analysis describe would include problem formulation, the two parts of analysis the characterization of exposure, the characterization of effects and risk characterization (Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Pgs 402-428). Problem formulation is when the risk managers work together to decide on the purpose of the assessment. They will review the sources, the stressor, and the effects that it will have. This is the first step to evaluate the strengths and limitations of the information.
Prison time is an effective deterrent to a point, with some people more time is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, it would seem that justice would be better served if they too were killed as they had planned to kill another human being. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims and this should be altered.
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.
Mencken states that this is another point that is uncertain and can be argued. Those who are for capital punishment assume that the only reason capital punishment is wanted is to deter crime. This is in fact, not true. It is obviously one of the aims of punishment but not the only one. “They believe that we simply hang or electrocute A in order to alarm B so he will not kill C” (Mencken 145).
With reference to Singer’s statement that, “… prevent evil… without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance”, in as much as the act of helping a friend who is suffering in a critical condition is morally good, in contrast, it is morally wrong to rob people at gun point. It would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance for another. In other words, it is wrong to do a wrong action because of a right one. Singer also emphasizes the fact that you must be in the position to help. I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have.
Acts of armed robbery that end in violence or homicide tend to render the public outraged and give their voice a stronger demand for justice to be done. If we choose to take the stance that our criminal justice system is mean to only keep society safe and that justice is carried out then we need to recognize that the laws we have in place currently are set in place to do so. In theory we could see how enforcing a harsher sentence to those who choose to commit violent acts or armed robbery would work as a deterrent to prevent criminals from committing the act as often as they do
Understanding the moral concept of torture being wrong but in this case the use of torture used to terrorist attacks on innocent people. A fine line when discussing what is right and wrong however executed in the proper way should be accepted. When identifying torture by no means should it be physical pain that’s involved. Mental torture has been used and considered illegal to obtain information, but most of the time used without a second glance. If McCain even agrees with the simple fact how Al Qaeda expresses the word “sociopath” in relation to the meaning of terrorists acts, it applies to them (Page698).
The fact is that the government saying that people can choose to end their own lives actually does open up the door for other forms of euthanasia. The best way of preventing government from taking a stance on euthanasia is by making government the absolute defender of life. The government says that the premature taking of a life in any circumstances aside from rare exceptions like self-defense (where a life is being put against another life) is criminal. Whether it is the person ending their own life, getting a physician to do it for them, or ending someone else’s life, it is
In the reading, “Brock grants that voluntary euthanasia, whether active or passive, is the deliberate killing of an innocent person” (164). In a sense, he states this may not always be wrong and also explains that when actively killing someone who wants to die really is not different from just allowing a patient to die, on a moral basis. He argues, on the premises of permitting euthanasia, that the potential good consequences outweigh the potential bad
They feel that physician assisted suicide conflicts with the duty of the physician to preserve life. Those who believe that physician assisted suicide are ethically justifiable offer the following reasons for this. First, the respect for autonomy, meaning the decisions about time and circumstances death is very personal. A capable person should have a right to choose death. Second, it is justifiable because justice requires that we treat like cases alike.