This objection states that the guidance that lex provides is often wrong as it requires the state to be responsible for inflicting the same deeds on criminals which ultimately compromises the morality of law enforcement (186). This objection is relatively easy to support, however, there is potential to highlight the shortcomings within its argument. For example, it can be argued that there are rare situations in which rape can be justified and therefore not a punishable offence. The claim that there is a situation that rape could ever be considered a feasible action is preposterous in today's society, however, it is a situation in which this objection could be
Martin Luther King, Jr. explains in his “Letter From Birmingham Jail” that what is going on in the United States is ethically unstable. “ I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends” (7). An author John Patton even chimes in on King 's approach and questions “ Can the plan be ethically justified in line with King’s strong believe that the means for social change are as important as the ends?” (61).
However, even though someone may think torture is wrong, most have an exception to their belief. Some are even “convinced that the use of torture is inevitable” (688). A Kantian would say that the respect of the human rights of the kidnapper is still important, and that by threatening to torture him, it is saying that his rights are invalid. Though, he may have not have respected the life of Jakob von Metzler, that is
I. Descartes – Evil Genius Problem A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DESCARTES’ THEORY The Doubts about the Evil Genius Doubt 1. Does the evil genius exist? Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions.
Critics of the insanity plea often contend that a crime is still a crime, and it does not matter who committed it, sane or insane. Opponents of this defense also question, “They are criminals, so who cares if they are sent away?” In truth, it is still a crime, however, this crime cannot be considered guilty, if the defendant had no criminal intent to do so. When dealing with a person who is mentally incapable to comprehend and do certain things, one must analyze their thought process. Some people are eminently schizophrenic, and believe they are doing the world a favor by “eliminating” another individual.
"Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson). Another example of this is imagine a rapist. It would be barbaric and morally unacceptable to rape the rapist. Even though it may seem that those who kill should be killed themselves, it really isn't moral and is not universally
Something potentially responsible for this phenomenon is the Backfire Effect. David McRaney describes the Backfire Effect with great accuracy in his article “The Backfire Effect”: “coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead” (1). This unbreakable resolve for maintaining beliefs in contradiction to logic prevents us from seeing truth effectively. However, what drives the Backfire Effect?
Albert Einstein once said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” Einstein is implying by this statement, in a more fundamental state, “criminals are not at fault for their crimes.” This is, of course, incorrect; one cannot use a bystander as a scapegoat. However, what did he mean by his statement? Is his quote to be taken literally, where onlookers to crimes are more guilty, or rather as a metaphor, simply implying the observers’ faults?
There has been times when someone that committed a crime uses their unconsciousness as an excuse to justify their atrocities. I don’t believe that someone’s unconsciousness is an excuses for anything. Some people might need therapy to help solve and forget about some of their problems, but they are still going to be there like Freud said “ Unconscious thoughts may reappeared as dreams or neurotic symptoms, disturbing normal thought with their insistent desire and fears” (Bishop, pg. 397).
This could be a reason why people believe the system is so heavily criticized, when in reality people only criticize it because they disagree, not because the system is actually unjust. This idea shows that maybe the American criminal justice is not as an unjust as people make it
that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil. ”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists.
One of the main arguments or criticisms are that ‘the rule does not permit complete and adequate testimony’ and that the psychiatric operating under the rule serves as a judge. These are both arguments that people have against the rule. Many people have tried to pledge that they are insane at the time of the crime. Some of them were actually aware of the crime they were committing it, but are able to fool the legal system and get away with the defense of insanity. A valid argument towards the defense of insanity is that is difficult in proving beyond the reasonable doubt that the criminal was insane during the commitment of their crimes.
These conclusions are not supported by the available data. Justice Stevens has also argued that the risk of error in capital cases may be greater than in other cases because the facts are often so disturbing that the interest in making sure the crime does not go unpunished may overcome residual doubt concerning the identity of the offender. The same could be said of any criminal penalty, including life without parole; there is no proof that in this regard the death penalty is distinctive. He also states: I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty" is