Shame and embarrass is not an emotion many want to experience and to avoid shame people will not commit criminal activity as they do not want to be humiliated. Shaming affect the pride of criminals and when combined with other punitve measure can be effective, shaming punish criminals psychologically. The fact is no punishment will be suitable for all individuals, as not even capital punishment is proven to be a deterrence to all. I think shaming will be especially beneficial in punishment of sexual
Those examples can be fixed with time, what can not be fixed with time is people 's emotional state and the reputation our country has built for themselves. If hate speech is banned from the U.S constitution people over time will adjust and it will allow for others affected to finally breath, live a normal life, and no longer be pressured by community members hateful remarks. Hate speech should no longer be protected by the U.S constitution because hate speech in itself promotes hateful actions and expressions, the negative effects hate speech has on people is widespread and laws around the world have proven effective to limit internet-based hate speech. The banning of hate speech is extremely important for the future of our country and the people living long after this current generation passes. The more people promote hate speech the further our country gets from being a peaceful, and loveable place to live and grow up.
The sheer ruthlessness of the punishments discourage any sort of crime as they will scare the citizens into never breaking the law in fear of the consequences. The document “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” also points out that the law was flexible and could be applied differently based on the situation. When a person was convicted of treason, they were not always executed immediately. Some were inhumanely tortured for more information to see if they were working with others, despite the obvious lack of morality in doing this, it worked. However, on the other hand, the Elizabethan Law did have at least some moral sense to it as people some were spared from torture, and even execution in certain circumstances.
To argue this idea, Baker dismisses the concept of speech as an illocutionary act. Instead, he claims that the purpose of speech, even if intended to injure, is solely “instrumental,” providing that the injury is a consequence of speech rather than an integral component of its utterance (Waldron 2012, 166). Incidentally, Baker approves of certain speech limitations, distinguishing these from other speech acts as bearing grave and imminent material consequences. Within these limitations he includes the harm to an individuals autonomy, as well as pre-existing exceptions like obscenity and sedition (Waldron 2012, 145). Contrary to these aspects, Baker views hate speech as a facilitator to potential material consequences, who's utterance alone does not present immediate effects.
His definition is more specific and related to how hate speech affected people. While interviewing fellow classmates about what they define as hate speech there were many similar definitions. Many agreed that hate speech is anything that attacks someone based on their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Some said that hate speech makes the world a scary place because people are so harsh. This proved to support Zafar’s notion that hate speech promotes an unsafe place.
It is made even more disturbing upon recognizing that these biases are not, as is often believed, seen only in consciously racist individuals, but even in people who believe themselves to be neutral and objective. It would be simplistic to pin police brutality and racial violence on racist actors - that would imply that institutional racism could be remedied by removing such officials from the system. However, acknowledging these ingrained biases and understanding their impact is crucial to recognizing that the system is itself inherently biased, and that a neutral and objective institution of law enforcement can only be created when the emphasis is placed not on racists, but on the construct of racism itself. Ingrained racial biases clearly impede rational decision-making
If you were a victim during a riot occurring would you want to give revenge? Would you have done something about it? Honestly, revenge is not a good thing to do, it will only provoke worse things on occurring in the way. But also revenge is not a bad thing to do because that person wants justice into what had happened, they want equality; therefore there is no right or wrong answer. The ideas in the reading “The forgotten victim from Florence and Normandie” by Steve Lopez are agreeable.
There may be a few wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system, however that does not make it cause more harm than good. In any system there are flaws, we cannot disregard all the good the justice system does. Although this system has flaws like all others, it is what safeguards our society's
Some may argue that public shaming towards an offender is not a form of cruel and unusual punishment. As long as sentences influence deterrence, “sentences involving public shaming are constitutional” (Beato). Judges have the right to use public shaming to deter others from committing the same crime. By using public shaming, judges can also avoid the costly effects of imprisonment. Through public shaming, offenders can avoid the harsh conditions of imprisonment.
Counter subpoint. Although censoring speech is a bad idea, there are some advantages it brings. Other citizens will not be offended if someone expresses something they disagree with. Censoring speech will cause less people around the world to not get upset because of different religions. Freedom of speech would be more respectful.