This theory basically states that someone violates the law based on any number of reasons to include greed, need, lust, anger, jealousy, and vanity. This theory was formed in a time period when the fear of satanic possession was dominant. Cruel methods of punishment were used to deal with crime doing this time, Classic Criminology was developed with the thought process that people do things that bring them pleasure and help them to avoid pain. The purpose of punishment based on this theory was to prevent criminal offenses altogether, persuade the criminal to commit lesser offenses if it was going to happen, to persuade the criminal to use the least amount of force necessary, and for the criminal to commit as cheap of a crime as possible. The basic elements of this theory are that people have free will, crime is attractive due to the possible big pay off, crime can be deterred if the punishment is worse than the crime, and that the punishment must be severe and swift enough to convince criminals that crime does not pay.
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.
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. Besides the necessary actus reus, the prosecutor also bears the onus to prove mens rea in order to establish the criminal offences. The required mens rea for murder is a direct or oblique intent to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm . Even if no intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm, one might be liable for involuntary manslaughter if there is evidence showing either a dangerous act, gross negligence, or recklessness is involved. Currently, there are three partial defenses, diminished responsibility, provocation, and killing in pursuance of a suicide pact, for murder created under the Homicide Ordinance.
It is good, when they complement each other, but if they are skewed, it causes negative consequences. Among all possible punishments, the death penalty is the most extreme, and likely, the most ineffective and unfair type of punishment for any crime. However, there are many proponents with opposing viewpoints to this. To begin with, capital punishment cannot be economically justified. At first glance, it may seem that maintaining a life-term prisoner is more burdensome for taxpayers.
Incapacitation is justified through the Deterrence Theory. The chemical castration of sex offenders is another form of incapacitation as well as the disqualification of driving privileges and house arrest. Individuals can be punished for “hypothetical” crimes or crimes they may commit in the future. The “Three Strikes” law is an example of all three theories, Deterrence, Incapacitation, and Specific Deterrence. Incapacitation is cost prohibitive due to the cost of running prisons and housing inmates for an extended period of time.
First of all killing morally is a way of killing ones moral beliefs. Morality is derived from the Latin word “moralitas” meaning manner, personality, and behavioral ethics. It is the ability to make choices between the good and the bad. In today’s society, teenagers kill morally by guiding people to the wrong path, sometimes even forcing others to do something which is against their intentions or principles. For example, compelling someone to smoke, drink or doing an action against their will is eventually going to harm them in some way or another, either physically or emotionally.
When policy and claimsmakers label crimes as social problems, they do not always account for all representations of crime. They neglect to realize that crime is a reality that filters through a series of human decisions running the full scale of the criminal justice system (Silver 265). Jeffery Reiman states within “A Crime by Any Other Name” that, “although there is a wide range of behaviors that the law defines as criminal, people tend to view crime as involving only certain kinds of acts committed by particular populations of individuals”. For example, the rhetoric presented within the War on Terror in the United States lead to moral panic which exaggerated and distorted perceived deviant behavior (Silver 330). Similarly, the rhetoric presented
Countries that still wish to use the death penalty use it for very severe crimes/offences and are likely to be less economically developed countries such that of Ethiopia, Nigeria and Malaysia.Compared to the previous times, the death penalty is now reserved as a punishment for severe crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries, sexual crimes such as rape, adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy. In many countries that use the death penalty, drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China, human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also punished by the death penalty. Most economically developed countries have abolished the death penalty; an example would be countries in the European Union such as Greece, The United Kingdom and Germany.
We all know about todays code of law. It’s morally right and unfair, but back then it wasn’t They had a set of laws called the Hammurabi’s Code. Hammurabi’s Code was unfair and unjust because it was cruel to humans, there’s more reasonable punishments that could have been made that were morally right, and they seemed arbitrary for the rule that was broken. First of all, humans are animals that have the ability to feel aka emotions. According to Law 218, a mans hands would be cut off if he accidentally killed a man during surgery, even if he didn’t mean to.
Although her intent is admirable, I believe it is problematic. An example can clarify why this is so. If a person falls asleep at the wheel and hits and kills a pedestrian, the driver is culpable but the result is a tragedy, not an evil. If a person who is driving intentionally hits and kills a pedestrian, the person is not only culpable but also guilty of committing an evil act. Using Card’s definition, both events would be considered evils.