I think that Utilitarians favor exploring the alternatives because doing something to someone, even a criminal, who has committed a heinous crime, morally wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right, it is setting the wrong view for society. I do not agree with not punishing people who do wrong things. I feel that no matter how big the crime or infraction is, there must be punishment, if not then society will keep breaking the rules, and then we would live in an unsafe world, we would not have a sound mind, and be able to function,
In jail, there is no freedom and not having freedom is not something an innocent person should suffer. The second reason Tom and Huck should have told the police that Injun Joe killed Mr. Robinson was that Injun Joe should not have been able to run the streets a mad, malevolent murderer. If Joe was capable of killing Mr. Robinson surely he could kill someone else without a second thought. Murderers shouldn’t be able to run free because they feel as if they got away with it, that it’s ok, or that they could do it again and get away with
Public order crimes are acts considered illegal because they do not conform to society’s general ideas of normal social behavior and moral values (Siegel, 2000). Public order crimes are viewed as harmful to the public good or harmful and disruptive to a community’s daily life (Siegel, 2000). Some public order crimes are considered very serious, others are legal in some places and at sometimes and others are illegal at other times and in other places (Sage, n.d., p. 218). It is thought that allowing or ignoring public order offenses can only lead to more serious crimes it signals the community that nobody cares (Sage, n.d., p. 218). Public order crimes cause great debate.
The Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) effect might also affect the verdict of the jury. The American jury system should not be used because of it not being cost-effective, the lack of experience of the jury, which leads to justice not being served, and the CSI effect impacting the
The killing shows that this society is flawed and corrupt, proving them to be a dystopia. If the police had caught the real Montag like they portray, the society may not be classified as a dystopia, but that wouldn’t follow Bradbury’s vision. The police are focused more on entertaining these viewers’ attention spans than they are about keeping these same viewers
To use this form of ethics one must ask, if everyone bribed the judge to win their case how would it affect our justice system? There would be no true value of justice just like if everyone cheated on their test their would be no value in a degree. Lastly, under the principle of rights Bucket would not bribe the judge because bribes are contrary to the natural desire for justice. It would impend on the judges decision to make an ethical decision and affect other attorneys who come into contact with this judge Under outcome-based ethics Mr. Bucket would bribe the judge, however. The bribe would essentially hold the corportation responsible for all the victims it negligently injuried.
As a result, if a crime is committed in the Hispanic or foreign communities, no one will be willing to help the authorities because they fear being prosecuted themselves. This scenario leads to a domino effect which can cause more corruption in the community. Criminals will then have no limit to the crimes they can commit, due to no one willing to testify in fear of getting in
This may result in wrongful convictions or acquittals and as a result, would severely undermine the efficacy of any justice system. People may start to lose trust in the justice system in meting out fair and impartial judgements, resulting in a total disregard of the justice system. In the contexts of crimes carrying the death penalty, jury tampering can have serious ramifications. The irreversible damage done to the accused’s family due to the wrongful convictions cannot be fixed with any sum of money. With Singapore’s strict anti-corruption stance, cases of corrupt judges would hence be rare.
Addressing this issue causes a huge debate due to stigmas. Many believe that any convicted criminal should be set away from society. This is due to the stigma that anyone convicted is a “delinquent” or is “crooked, evil, or a possible murderer.” But, it is quite naive to believe that prisons should be set separate from society. It is crucial that services are provided inside those walls to aid the inmates whom-with a few exceptions- will be released and it is our job and in our interest to ensure that they will not return to crime and be locked up yet again. Assisting them would be to not lock up people for pretty silly crimes, to relieve the problem of overcrowding, to not believe that a person of a darker skin tone is more likely to commit a violent crime, to as a whole support non violent offenders to turn around their life during their sentence and be released ready to start over and be welcomed back with open arms instead of silenced whispers and icy stares, to rid these prisons of industrialization and profit and encourage rehabilitation, rejuvenation, and
Stop and Frisk can be a very slippery slope for anyone to process the idea of someone committing a crime from observation. Sometime people can look like they are committing a crime. However, “who’s to say that the person isn’t mentally ill or playing a prank”. Somehow, we don’t know for sure but on the other hand maybe we should question the person that looks suspicious. I’m truly not a fan of “Stop and Frisk” because many lives have been taking for bad