Koch’s intellectual strategy works on the emotional, rational and logical aspects of human thinking and deduction. For example, he brilliantly disables the alignment and compassion one might hear in a convicted murderer’s pleading words as he faces execution, “killing is wrong…. It was wrong when I did it and it is wrong when you do it”. (para 1) For some people this quote from a convicted murderer seems to compel a sense of
It’s a Hard Knock Life Sending people to jail when they've done something wrong is an exceptionally good idea. After all they deserve the punishment they get because a law was broken. This is a true statement but just like there are advantages to this system there are disadvantages as well. “There are many like me who made a one-time only mistake that has resulted in a lifetime of punishment. That unwarranted punishment is, in effect, a civil death sentence because of the barriers to meaningful employment created by that sigma.
For example, he feels people who break the law should be punished accordingly and not necessarily be locked-up and behind bars. Another point presented by the author is how United States citizens have to rectify and acquit oneself in order to be punished and imprisoned for their wrongdoings. Kevin Carr feels that people should not be restrained and confined behind steel bars. Despite the previous arguments, another reason Kevin strongly feels that “criminals convicted of non-violet crimes” should not face jail terms is because it can leave a psychological affect on people who are not a threat or danger to others. In other words, offenders that find themselves incarcerated for a small case such as being a thief, a beggar, or being a violator for parking infractions should not be labeled and put in the same classification as people who are convicted of repulsive, despicable, and inhuman types of criminal violence.
3. If we have the death penalty, people will refrain from committing those crimes. This argument is valid because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusions. However, the argument is not sound as premise one is not necessarily true—not everyone will refrain from committing crimes that will lead to their death. This is because some people may be unaware that a crime has the potential to lead to death or they would rather see someone else die than keep their own lives.
It also instills fear of punishment in would-be violators of the law. Unfortunately people believe that punishments should not be too harsh or disproportionate because they believe that if criminals believed that they have nothing to lose, that their crimes might escalate if frequency and severity. I disagree with this sentiment. Punishment should be swift and it should be just and it should be harsh, especially for capital offenses. Specific deterrence assumes that an individual, after being punished once for a certain act, will be less likely to repeat that act because he or she does not want to be
Suffering also includes physical and psychological. They criminologists believe that to end crime they need to end suffering not only at a global level but at a personal level too. Humans need to have the right understanding to end suffering. We need to be aware that nothing is ever permanent In my own opinion I don’t believe this is the right way to go in terms of criminology. I think that if someone isn’t given strict punishment for a crime they committed, they will just commit the crime over and over again because they know they can get away with it.
He wrote: ‘over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’. It should be noted that Mill’s views are not straightforward as he was against voluntary slavery and against prostitution as both involve the decision of someone to give their freedom. It can be argued that euthanasia is the ultimate sacrifice of freedom. Both Jeremy Bentham’s hedonistic utilitarianism and Mill’s view argue that euthanasia is right. Bentham would say that if a person’s continued existence brings more pain than suffering, both to them and their family, then their life could be ended.
This word “impermissible” perfectly sums up what Levin is arguing against. Levin argues that even though society says torture is not allowed, in certain situations it becomes the only tool left to save innocent lives. He doesn’t condone the use of torture as a punishment; instead, he offers it as a way to avoid gambling with innocent lives. Levin is addressing the United States as a society. He gives examples of multiple terrorist attacks, which current readers can relate to because of 9/11.
Some people simply enjoy torturing others and are proud to do so. When torture is used as a method of punishment, this is simply wrong. There are humane ways we have in place in America to take care of criminals, and the rest of the world should follow our example. If a person commits murder, he goes to prison and is put on death row, if a terrorist is captured, he gets the same. There is no need or justification to torture these individuals.
| Death Row | Is Death Row Needed? | | Jeff Callahan | 7/21/2010 | This paper is an argument that identifies the questions associated with the use of Death Row. The concerns that are identified are cost, rights, wrongful sentencing, and length of death row sentences. | Is death row in today’s society the best option? Do criminals that commit such crimes really deserve a right to be placed on death row?