What if the transgression was thought to have been against an entire community? Killing the culprit would not be an option here because everyone involved would not agree to the finality or moral implications of the action. The crime however, is incredulously putrid and some repercussions must be pronounced publicly so that no one in the community would dare do the same. Confined by the boundaries of societal pressure a community may silently, but all in unison, agree to erase this life. In the essay Shunned, Meredith Hall writes of a “series of images” that are embedded in her mind from the events of her own shunning.
As people state “to take a life when a life is lost is revenge, not justice”. This suggests there is no humanity in the area, as everyone just wants vengeance. While many argue this is where theory of deterrence comes in. But they should answer the main question, how are people able to amend by witnessing wrong? Instead it brutalises the society and increases murder rates.
Nonetheless, it can also have a negative impact on our life. WHAT IS THE DEFINTION OF SELF-DEFEATING BEHAVIOUR? Self-defeating behaviour can be defined as habits that are usually destructive to a person. That may be as a result of repeating old patterns, during times of stress or even peer-pressure. There are many different sorts of self-defeating behaviours such as the misuse of damaging substances like alcohol,
For example people would say its correct and fair to kill a murderer, because they've taken someone's life so in punishment theirs should be taken too. On the other hand relativism isn't so good as one person could be favoured over another so the more vulnerable people will find it hard to stand up for what they think is right. Theological take a relativist view however they will say what would be the consequenence of the action taken? they look at what the outcome will be for example if a mother stole for the benefit of her children eating that day they would suggest that the thought behind it was to save her children however the action was morally
* The atrocities committed by these misguided extremists who hide behind their religion etc to justify acts of terror. Groups such as the IRA and Al-Qaeda have committed the most devastating crimes against humanity and if we want to meet them at their level “Eye for an Eye” is in our bible. This is my personal opinion but maybe I am not deserved an opinion on this as I have lost nobody to a crime but the victim’s family should have the right to decide if these people live or die. This may improve their lives and may help to find them closure. The death penalty should only be acted upon if there is absolutely no doubt that the guilty has committed the crime.
The similar objectives they both experience that are heritability entitled for them to feel guilt for, would be, for example, killing a person. It is never acceptable in the United States to commit a crime of killing another human. The legal laws in America would sentence both, Christians or Atheists, to prison if they were to commit such a crime. In extension, Christianity also has in the Ten Commandments telling them, “thy shall not kill.” The legal laws would send a murderer to prison, therefore this punishment would leave both groups remorseful for their actions. Atheist may feel their punishment is complete once they served their sentence, but since Christians believe taking someone’s life is committing a sin; they therefore question the likelihood of their soul entering into heaven.
Pohnpei are type of people who are afraid of death if they will hear a prisoner is going to be killed because he or she commits crime. They will surely change because they will be afraid of dying. This will make Pohnpei a very peaceful state. According to Roxanne Rodriquez, author of the book, A Legal Research Guide, stated that these convicted murderers deserve to die (42). The last reason Pohnpei must have death penalty is for the safety for the citizens.
Francisca Ledesma Mrs. beyone 11/21/11 Essay #3 Cruel and Unusual It's always puzzled me how we can show our outrage at the crime of murder by killing the perpetrator. The murder may have been committed in a fit of passion, or it may have been provoked, or the murderer may have a mental disorder in which normal human empathy is lacking and therefore cannot understand what all the fuss is about. But the executions are carried out in cold blood by people who know full well the horror of what they're doing. The victim's family may be excused the desire to see the murderer killed, and I might feel the same way under those tragic circumstances. But the executioner must pull the switch, or inject the poison, and then go home to his family and have dinner.
The definition of suicide is the act of killing oneself intentionally. To just go by that definition then one might say that it’s wrong. Then on the other hand to say that it was best or to put an end to suffering then one might say that it’s ok. Assisted suicide has been one of the most controversial issues plaguing our society today. The people that are trying to get assisted suicide legal believe that everyone should die with dignity
Ashley Beavers Period 6 9-26-13 The Death Penalty How would you feel if somebody killed your family or harmed them in anyway? Would you want them to be sentenced to the death penalty? Many people agree that the death penalty is the right thing to do but there are others that disagree. If someone kills your loved one you would probably want them to have some sort of punishment. Wouldn't you?