Rainsford is a competitive hunter just like Zaroff so there is a possibility he killed Zaroff because he is stubborn and wanted to win, which would lead him to be guilty and have a more intense punishment. In the end I think even if it was for survival rainsford will have to serve some jail time for his actions. I believe Rainsford should serve some jail time because he did push Zaroff’s body off the window and let the dogs eat his flesh, pushing Zaroff’s body off was unnecessary but the actually murder has its own punishments. Do you think he should be in jail for murdering Zaroff even if it was for his own protection?, keep in mind that Rainsford would be guilty for many things he has done as
As states across the country strive to abolish the death penalty some states are still holding on. Which means that they will find any reason to keep or allow the death penalty to occur and happen. States are killing to hamper the pain of the victim(s)` families, and execution only extends a chain of violence. It`s sad to say that violence is the solution to violence, which it is not. Revenge is a substitute for pay back, it 's a human emotion to hurt someone that hurts someone else or loved one(s).
This would suggest that Bob Ewell was willing to have Tom killed, not because he truly believed he had committed a crime, but rather so he could promote his own prejudiced narrative at the trial and restore to himself the power that the social structures of Maycomb had taken away. Because of this, many of the less prejudiced people in Maycomb, including Heck Tate and Atticus, felt that Bob Ewell had in essence, murdered Tom Robinson. Thus, when Bob is killed by Boo Radley out of defence for the Finch children, Tate insists that
It wasn’t me. They made me come with them. You got to tell the law that Mr. Gropé.” (6). Unfortunately for Jefferson, Mr. Gropé dies. Jefferson goes to trial and is quickly found guilty: “A white man had been killed during a robbery, and though two of the robbers had been killed on the spot, one had been captured, and he, too would have to die” (4).
It’s immoral to be in favor of the death penalty. People who support it believe that by executing criminals well prevent them from murdering again, and they feel they deserve to feel the feeling of cruelty as they did to others. Citizens of the United States are fond to similar privileges and assurances. As Americans, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People believe that if a murder takes this rights from a person, why should they still be connected to society?
Death penalty or the capital punishment is the harshest punishment the authority can give to a crime, there have been many debates on many aspects of the element of the death penalty whether on philosophical aspect such as is it really a good thing to kill the people who killed other to show that killing is wrong and is it morally right, or on religious aspect such as god give us this life so the state shouldn’t take this life god gave us furthermore the act of taking a life go against almost every religion on earth and even on a legal aspect since the person on death row might be falsely accused and if the act of execution is done there will be no going back, and death sentence seem like an “eye for an eye” type of punishment(such as cutting off the hand of the thief for stealing) but it has been proven many times before this type of punishment doesn’t work .This report is made as part of SPD 202 as of why death penalty should be considered as social problem. Since the death penalty concern the matter of life and death of a person, the execution of an innocent person isn’t simply a tragedy it is a major false from both the state and the institute of justice. There have been many reports of false execution coming from all over the world. Take Jesse-Tafero case for example he was accused and executed via electric chair back in May 1990, he was accused of killing 2 Florida highway officers, but later on in 1992 the whole case was overturned when crime scene
The first was the case of Furman vs. Georgia. In this case William Henry Furman was found guilty of murder. During a home burglary a resident found him, and as he tried to flee he fell and the gun went off killing one of the residents. The supreme court combined the ruling of this case, Jackson v. Georgia and Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. They found these cases to be against the constitution.
Murder can be defined as “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”. How then, are others able to make us sympathize with not only murderers, but people who have committed horrendous crimes? For example, the media is constantly attempting to humanize rapists and even terrorists with phrases like “lone wolf” or “alienated and adrift.” Such phrases make some of us want to pity the criminal. This can be seen when we compare Perry Smith and Dick Hickock from Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood. Capote portrays only one of these two seemingly distinct characters (Perry) in a way that the reader feels the need to relate to and even sympathize with him.
According to Hinman (5), just punishment is the one that happens to those who are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is important because capital punishment is irreversible and hence only the guilty should be executed. However, there are many cases of innocent people who have been sentenced to death only to have their appeals granted at the last minute, or worse, denied and executed. It is on these grounds that Bedau (2007) argues against the death penalty because it is unjust and unfair. About unfairness, he goes on to add that racial and economic discrimination are also a factor to consider when meting out capital punishment.
The Sharia law says that in the case of murder and manslaughter the victims relatives can either request the perpetrator to be executed or spare their life in exchange for blood money. In a more modern era and with the emergence of nation states along with the creation of a more dedicated police force and a more permanent prison system gave rise to the concept of natural rights. The reasoning was “deterrence rather than retribution”. This reasoning was supported by many, such as Cesare Beccaria on his treatise “On Crimes And Punishments”, Jeremy Bentham. But due to violence occurring on the site of executions, as reported by Beccaria, Charles Dickens and Karl Marx, executions were moved inside prisons and away from the eyes of the public.
Capital Punishment Punishment is the imposition of a penalty as retribution for a crime, and the retribution deserves those who do the crime. The main idea of this chapter is whether the killer deserves to die or not, and we ought to kill them or not. Stephen Nathanson argues against the punishment that leads to execution. He said that the actual and moral beliefs based on the death penalty are wrong and must be repealed. Many people said that the death penalty is the best way to deter murder and thus save lives.
First the law says that anybody that murder will get charged for it. Because it, murder you just can’t do that. Also the assisted suicide jail law states that it is wrong to kill. But, some people might say that they could of been doing the right thing by murdering the person. In addition to the law, Religion plays a part in this controversy.
This rule proved to be highly immoral, because it basically led one achieving and performing their revenge on another. Sentencing an individual to death for a crime they had committed, whether it be murder, rape, or another heinous crime, is using Hammurabi’s code. Individuals on death row were put there because members of the court believed that they had committed a crime worthy of death. By sentencing them to death, the court is committing a murder as well, even if it is of a guilty individual. Murdering or sentencing one to death row is not just, even if the individual is guilty of treason.
The verdict was decided 64 days later, on March 18, 1963. On an unanimous vote, the Supreme Court ruled in Gideon’s favor. He was given another trial and the charges were acquitted. His efforts against this issue led to it being made known that no matter the crime, each and every person must be provided a lawyer if they cannot afford one themselves. “If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in his prison cell with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court, and if the Court had not taken the trouble to look for merit in that one crude petition ... the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed.
There were a few rare sympathizers, however, who identified with Jodi Arias’ anger at being used and lied to by a man and truly believed she murdered him in a fit of rage (Keifer, 2015). This would make the proper ruling manslaughter, and not premeditated murder, as the law dictates different punishments based on the premeditation, or lack thereof, of the killer. These sympathizers could argue that there was not enough mercy awarded by the court due to Jodi’s apparently sympathetic situation. What is the proper balance between mercy and justice? Should justice overrule mercy?