In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
A Defense of the Death Penalty Louis P. Pojman The death penalty serves as both a deterrent for would be murderers and a fitting punishment for those who intentionally and out of malice take the life of another human being. Retribution: It is sometimes argued that the death penalty serves as a form of revenge for the victims of heinous crimes. For those who argue from this stance, revenge is never the proper method for assigning punishment because it is done out of anger and with the intent of inflicting harm upon another human being. Vengeance itself is not the basis for designating the death penalty. Instead retribution is justification enough, although it may be accompanied by feelings of anger and hatred.
In the words of Lord Simon he stated that “…the mode of resentment must bear a reasonable relationship to the provocation if the offence must be reduced to manslaughter.” In the light of walker v R , lord fenton Atkinson said that “It has never been the law that the man who completely loses his temper on some trivial provocation and reacts with gross and savage violence which kills his victim can hope for a jury to find a verdict of manslaughter on grounds of provocation." this principle was also relied upon in the case of Makomela v the people , where the court was of the view that that for a man to shoot another on the reasonable belief that he had stolen your money and also threatened to beat you with a stick does not bear the necessary reasonable relationship to the
These are wounds that would mostly likely not be caused by another person. Homicide is the killing of one person by another. Criminal homicide has two categories murder and manslaughter. Non-criminal also has two categories excusable homicide, as in an accident, and justifiable homicide, such as self defense. The difference here is that excusable homicide is when someone never intended to kill and justifiable homicide there was the intent to kill but it was justifiable.
The law of murder encapsulates the notion of how the common law deals in homicide cases. Murder carries the legal definition of ‘the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace, with malice aforethought’. There are two fundamental elements that need to be present in order to prove murder. The first element, actus reus, is the act itself that proliferated the consequence of death and the second element, mens rea, is the intention or mental element that caused the death of another human being. However, the question really begs whether or not the law of murder is in need of a reform in situations where one or both of its fundamental elements are absent?
Decision of the Court: His charge was held and he was charged for the murder of his wife. Reasoning of the Court: If the suspect could destroy the evidence then at that time and manner it is constitutional to take the sample or whatever they may need. There was no formal arrest therefore it technically could also be allowed. Under these circumstances, the police are justified in subjecting him to the very limited search and seizure to preserve the evidence they found under his fingernail. Notes * Don’t need search warrant for fingerprints, voice, handwriting * Search to take place because of probable cause, not a full search b/c not arrested.
This inflexibility prevents the court from taking into account motive or circumstances, both of which can make a significant difference to the way in which society would view the individual offence. In R.v.Lichniak (2002) the defendants argued that the life sentence was disproportionate to the offence, in breach of article 3 of the European convention of the European Convention of Human Rights, an arbitrary, in breach of Article 5 of the convention. These arguments were rejected by the House of Lords. A further Criticism of Murder is that of the actual definition
What is moral is what you have to do, its your duty. On the other hand, Teleology is concerned with using the means to reach an end, Euthanasia can be used an example of this as you are killing someone in order for them to feel relieved from pain.From a teleological thinkers point of view you would consider this right as they would see that the consequences outweigh the means. Although Natural Moral law shows that this is clearly wrong as the natural order of the world- when you born and when you die is being tampered with and Natural moral law thinkers believe that only the supernatural power such as God has the right to take a
According to Woodruff, justification makes an action right and an excuse only reduces the blame for an action that is wrong. The important question that is asked in this essay is, “can a soldier at war clear himself of blame for killing civilians on the grounds that he does so to save his own life? (282).” In other words, can a soldier justify himself for killing civilians, or does he just end up with an excuse? As indicated by Woodruff, a soldier with perfectly respectable morals may run in to some tribulations when attempting to justify his actions in war. Self-defense seems to be the key reason for harming, or even killing another person.
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