Issues Surrounding Punishment

The first objection is that the death penalty does not "provide a measure of moral desert" (Nathanson). For the second, Nathanson states "it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment." The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that

They want to make sure when punishing an immoral act, there is benefit to society. Shaw says this because utilitarianism does give established laws and reasoning behind them. Shaw also says that Utilitarians say that our system of punishment as it functions, succeeds in rehabilitating many convicts and discourages them from future mistakes. his reasons for saying this. 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.

Apart from the fact that cathartic retribution is dubious justification for punishment, there seems little reason to believe that it is necessary to favor present modes of execution over the paradigm in order to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands. It can just as easily be argued that executions through cruel methods encourage public brutality and disrespect for the law. In the past, lynchings seemed to occur more often in states that employed the traditional modes of execution than in jurisdictions that had abolished capital punishment. Because a significant proportion of the public favors abolition of capital punishment, any execution could inspire public resentment of the legal system, particularly if the capital punishment were performed in an unnecessarily cruel

Eliot Spitzer once said, “Our criminal justice system is fallible. We know it, even though we don't like to admit it. It is fallible despite the best efforts of most within it to do justice. And this fallibility is, at the end of the day, the most compelling, persuasive, and winning argument against a death penalty.” Many people in America are in favor of capital punishment because some crimes violate the moral codes of our society.

My proposal and personal recommendation is to abolish the death penalty on a national level. I do not think that it benefits society as much as it harms individuals and causes unnecessarily excessive judicial costs. However, I still believe that the death penalty should remain in effect for some extraneous situations. The federal government should still be able to preform executions when it deems them necessary. Yet I believe that traditional murder sentencing’s should be free of

Luckily, it is known what causes wrongful convictions and how to fix them. Many wrongful convictions are due to mistaken eyewitnesses, jailhouse snitches, or false evidence. I think many of the wrongful convictions could be solved with harder evidence, more information. A case should not rely on a single eye witness but multiple.

This research paper will discuss why there is no value to the just deserts approach and why, if supplemented with a re-entry program, just deserts will have a greater significance. The theory and practice of the just deserts approach will be examined as well as why it does not appear to be working for offenders. Additionally, re-entry programs will be analyzed; those operating in Canada and in the United States, to further explain why reintegrating is better for the community and offenders. It is easy to agree with the just deserts approach to crime, however, when a loved one is affected by the harsh punishments and the negative consequences of prison, it makes life afterward extremely

In several different ways, the principle of equality of opportunity is relevant to the criminal justice system in the twenty-first century. John Rawls “assumes that we are self-interested, rational beings motivated to select laws, rules, and ways-of-life that are most advantageous to ourselves” (p. 117). The principle of equality is a theory that we all wish truly existed; however, it is unfortunate that it does not exist due to our own personal biases. Unconsciously, we all have biased and prejudicial thoughts—we are human and this tends to result on a reality based on social values; however, it does not make it correct. Unfortunately, we have not all learned to put our differences aside in order to get along.

As such, the public should have more sway in the decision making process for proper punishment for the officers in question. Furthermore, the details of the investigation should be made public so that the law enforcement agency employing the offender cannot pull punches in regards to their punishment. In effect this would lower the chances of negative police deviance as there would be no room for making a horrendous decision that affects the life of another individual. This is not to mention the fact that such a public disgrace goes beyond the slap on the wrist that the agency usually attempts to use. It would single out the offender and keep the agencies public face intact as opposed to giving every officer a bad name as a result of a few bad

Some retribution support punishment but many also limit it as well. My ethical position aligns with the goals of punishment because my ethical argument is one of

Individual versus Community in Bret Harte’s “Outcasts of Poker Flat” “The Outcasts of Poker Flat” is a short story written by American writer Bret Harte in 1869. This story is an example of traditional American literature of that time. It is a naturalistic story piece which received prominent critical attention when it was first published. Harte describes many of the vices of the society of that time and shows in which ways American public community was found on wrong moral principles. This paper will show the contrast between individuality and community, between a person and public as the main theme of “The Outcasts of Poker Flat”.

“Many that live deserve death and many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment” – J.R.R Tolkien. Capital punishment has been around for many centuries but has been suppressed in several countries as punishment was thought to be medieval and barbaric. I strongly disagree with the statement ‘capital punishment should be reinstated’.

“The punishment for sin is death”; “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”; “karma shows that you get what you deserve”; all of these are long-standing, well-known perspectives in regards to wrongdoers’ consequences. The common view of justice, tracing back to Hammurabi and the Bible, is that the person who does evil deserves the same, or equal, evil to be brought upon them. However, the modern approach to due process is much more complicated, and, as many countries agree, far more humane and reasonable. The United States differs from these countries on the grounds of capital punishment; more specifically, the death penalty. In the film “Dead Man Walking”, death row inmate Matthew Poncelet was convicted, and executed, over the murder of a

Punishment is defined as the deliberate infliction of pain on a person for the sake of attaining revenge (Gilligan, 2000, p. 746). The social construct of punishment is prison; it is putting the wrongdoer behind bars. Society seeks revenge, and revenge can be prison. Penitentiaries or prisons are institutions, the main purpose is to inflict pain on people for the sake of revenge (Gilligan, 2000, p. 746). Furthermore, punishment tends to be subjective and irrational in comparison to being objective which would remove the emotion.