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,
The prosecutor or the police having separate law to deal with their conduct may misuse their power and is likely to exceed their authority, which they are not entitled to. Supremacy of law and equal treatment of the law for all segments of the society is not entertained. (C, 1996) After a close analysis of the inquisitorial and adversarial system of justice l came to the conclusion that the systems have provided an interesting comparative insights. Those attempts reveal important contemporary goals of criminal procedure.
If the person does stay quiet they are saying it is okay to do morally wrong acts which is wrong. It is easier to stay quiet, not create conflict, and accept the fact they are guilty but it is not the right choice to make. The people believe that they are powerless to the government but if all the people were to realize what was going on around them they could stop all the wrongs being done. Mildred, like everyone else, would rather stay cowardly and be guilty with society
Polus believes doing whatever is good for oneself is what matters. He does not understand or really accept this claim that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice because he believes justice is relative. Polus claims that he believes justice depends on the individual person and what is beneficial for oneself. However, Socrates denounces this idea that only good matters this in his scene of brutal murder when Socrates says “and if it seems good to me that one of them must have his head smashed, it shall straightway be smashed” (469d5). Polus denounces this instance, saying it is different.
Consequently, giving punitive sentences and failing to help them psychologically will not help offenders when they are released back into the community. The court system should acknowledge the offenders past and realize that the reasons they are committing crimes are not their free will, it is elements in their past that have caused them to act in a deviant manner. Furthermore, Cullen and Johnson (2017) agree by stating, “science has demonstrated that un-chosen individual traits (e.g., temperament, self-control, IQ) and un-chosen social circumstances (e.g., family, school, community) can be
His acquittal led to the development of a standard that required that at the time of the crime, defendants knew the difference between right and wrong and that what they were doing was wrong. This standard rule has come to be known as the “right/wrong test”. Common-court judges have noted that is M’Naghten had been tried under this standard that he would not have been deemed freed of responsibility because he in fact knew the difference between right and wrong when he committed the
Even the justice system believes, as if they shouldn’t be convicted. “The legal system doesn’t like second guessing police officers because they know the job is hard and violent and they have to keep bad guys off the streets ” ( Stinson para. 3). For a regular person convicted of a crime they are more harshly faced then police who gets a free pass. Instead of taking responsibility of the situation, they claim they did not do anything even when there is clear evidence.
- Mens rea would be irrelevant to crimes and would push towards individual not having choice or free will but genetically born to be deviant. Strain theory may help understand and implement measure to reduce criminality early on: - Understands the issue our society puts on individual that force them to crimes - Helps educate the system to reform for less punishment and more education based for
For Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the study of law is nothing but a prediction of how judges will decide a case. This view was illustrated by the “Bad Man” theory, in which a bad person’s view of the law is the best way of knowing what the law is because the bad man will carefully and precisely calculate what he must do in order to avoid state-enforced sanctions resulting from disobedience of the law. The bad man does not concern himself with morals, instead he is more concerned with the material consequences (e.g., staying out of jail or avoiding a fine). In this sense, the bad man will be more calculating in his actions, driven by the desire to pit his wits against the law—the codified will of others. Whereas, the common man will conform his actions to meet his desire to address those moral and social obligations which bind him.
This is not justice, but a process of persuasion and wit. D) How important do you think the ‘fact’ of a criminal trial – the performance of prosecuting someone for an egregious violation of international law – is to the idea of transitional justice? Criminal trials act as a process for punishment. Even though in itself they do not directly deliver transitional justice, they act as a vehicle A primary purpose of transitional justice is to seek recognition for victims, as well as the promotion of peace and reconciliation. Criminal trials are concerned with interests of the defendant, they do not allow victims to share their stories.
This is certainly a conflicting issue. While it is fair to value the welfare of law abiding citizens over the welfare of convicted felons, placing restricting on felons presents the issue of those felons lacking the ability to become a contributing member of society. Like you mentioned, that can provide the push needed for them to return to crime rather than working towards a steady life of their own. Further research into the costs and benefits of such restrictions is necessary to determine whether these types of restrictions actually do benefit society overall like they intend to.
To me, the arguments made by Beccaria, Howard, and Diderot against the mistreatment of absolutely anyone offered a new concept toward the perspective of conservative members of society to the marginalized population they condemned and exploited. In Beccaria’s On Crime and Punishments, he asserts that the method of torturing people accused of crimes is neither necessary nor ethical, because no one is aware if they are either guilty or innocent. I found it interesting that he mentioned the accused who are weak and succumb to the torture and confess to a crime they did not commit because it emphasized the insufficiency of this method of determining guilt. It seemed as if a prosecutor during their time would employ this strategy to quickly convict