“Want to torture? Get a warrant” I agree with Alan Dershowitz’s proposal for a judge to give a torture warrant in a situation where certain information is crucial. Following a utilitarian perspective, our actions should be for the greater good and to increase utility and minimise pain. I realise that in torturing someone you would be causing pain for that person, however if this elicited information that would save many lives then this action would be justified. This is because if the information was not obtained then many people would have died, and this would cause great suffering for the family and friends of the deceased.
A patient’s autonomy should be respected, that is, if a person wishes for active euthanasia, and if his wish for the same is reasonable enough, given that his suffering to come would be unbearable, then this wish of his should be respected and not deemed as illegal. However, one of the main arguments for euthanasia is relief of suffering. Great advances have been made in palliative care, and many argue that this obviates the end for euthanasia. Patients who are severely ill or disabled are vulnerable and may feel the pressure to ask for euthanasia, this is because even if no-one is pressuring them to opt for euthanasia, they may want to die to spare their families
With it being a legal option, the principle has then been established and that the “real argument should be over what constitutes a legitimate exception.” According to Krauthammer, the dialogue politicians should be having is how to define and codify torture practices. He proposes that ‘special interrogators’ be created, outside of the military and the CIA. These specialists would need authorization from the highest-level politicians to enforce any form of torture. Krauthammer’s opinion of legitimacy for physical torture involves only two situations. One is the ’ticking time bomb’ scenario.
It is a humane and judicious way to allow a person relief from suffering that modern medicine has prolonged. There should be evaluation by a psychiatrist and all options of treatment should be explored. If the prognosis is still certain death or an egregious decline in quality of life, then physician assisted suicide should be an option for those who are capable of choosing it. With appropriate safeguards defined and a process to closely monitor extreme cases of suffering, this procedure should be on the table. If it isn’t, we are condemning people to a long and painful end without dignity or humanity and we are forcing their loved ones to stand by and watch, powerless to help them.
This person is going to need to actually go beyond to be a good researcher in criminal justice. How will knowing these terms be an asset to you when evaluating and analyzing research studies or
“The Case for Torture”, by Michael Levin and “Torture’s Terrible Toll”, by John McCain are two pieces of writing that argue the pros and cons of using torture as a means to receive information from terrorists. Although the use of torture to secure information is viewed differently by each author, the moral and human rights of every individual is agreed upon by both Levin and McCain. While Levin views torture as necessary in extreme life threatening circumstances, McCain views it as unconstitutional and believes that it is inhumane and goes against individual human rights. In the world today, where terrorist threats seem to be a normal occurrence, there is no doubt that the country must be ready and willing to do whatever is necessary to keep
Jihad is supposed to be an internal struggle however; people often confuse it with an external struggle in which they use violence for dominance. “Despite the fact that Jihad is not supposed to include aggressive warfare, this has occurred. Jihad means to counter such threats and assert the predominance of Islam.” Intercollegiate Review; Spring2002, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p24-32, 9p Just and Unjust War in the Terrorist Age. Many people consider Jihad to be a movement which causes a problem in the Muslim community because of the misinterpretation of the religious beliefs.
I think that ‘vengeance vs. reform’ is such an important topic where it can affect the family of the victim and the criminal could have different opinions towards the type of punishment the judge will choose to apply in the case. Victim side will most likely want lots of vengeance or no mercy on the criminal while the criminals side will always think that the punishment they received was too much or that it was unfair. I think that is fundamental for the court and the judge to think for a perfect punishment that will be the most equal and fair for both the victim and the criminal , but not forgetting the type of crime that was
Terrorists are extremists who believe that they are supposed to hurt a certain group of people because their god or someone that they obey and respect told them that this is the right thing to do because that group is a possible threat to themselves or their religion so they want to take them out before the people group can hurt them. There are also more reasons why terrorists attack but this is one of the main reasons. Since 9/11 has happened, these beliefs and practices have not stopped or disappeared. If anything they have strengthened and become more dangerous than they were before. Since this is a great possibility, terrorist extremists may have become more extreme in their tactic than they were before 9/11 happened.
The death penalty has been viewed by many people as wrong, while still other people see the death penalty to be acceptable in today s society. People who oppose the death penalty complain that it is morally wrong, and the majority of the people who receive the death penalty are wrongfully treated, either due to race, poverty, or even gender. Even though many people oppose the death penalty, there are still people, such as myself, who feel that the death penalty should be accepted in the United States today. Whether it is to reduce overcrowding in prisons, or to cut down on serious crimes, I