Punishing individuals for wrongdoing is an ethical issue that is still current in modern day society. It can be argued that we need punishment for various different reasons. Without punishment, crimes would not be illegal and it would be hard to differ between what is right and what is morally wrong. Punishment highlights the need to focus on the consequences of our actions and show us what could happen if we go against the law. Punishment has the ability to make criminals better individuals through deterrence and rehabilitation. It also allows people to have better social cohesion and benefits society as a whole. Many philosophers, including Hobbes and Mill share these views. Within Leviathan, Hobbes defines punishment as An evil inflicted …show more content…
It does not seem fair to punish someone for something that was out of his or her control. If the suspect did not intend to commit the crime, they can be regarded as innocent. The suspect could have lived a perfectly good, moral life, where they attended church and regularly gave to charity, but one-day luck was not on their side. Life is unpredictable and we never know what is around the corner. In cases like this, it seems unnecessary to punish individuals for wrongdoing. Additionally, there are many ethical issues surrounding punishment. Various people may question whether it is morally correct for the government to use the law to inflict punishment on its citizens. This is the case for abolitionist theories, which believe we should aim to replace punishment with restorative justice rather than justify it or reform it. The majority of ethical issues surrounding punishment come from the use of the death penalty. Professor Roger Hood proposes four main objections to the use of capital punishment: (1) Capital punishment violates the fundamental right to life; (2) capital punishment is not a unique deterrent; (3) the administration of the death penalty, even in developed legal systems, is inherently and irredeemably flawed; and (4) its effect is counter-productive in that it gives out very confused moral messages. (Hodgkinson and Schabas, 2009,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Murder constitutes harm and abuse of power. 3. Capital punishment is murder 4. Therefore, capital punishment is unethical as it violates the government’s basic duty to protect its people.
Some see the death penalty as the only means to extract justice for victims. Others see it as a morally reprehensible act where a second wrong is committed in order to make something right. With recent issues surrounding the death penalty in which execution hasn 't gone as planned sparking a nationwide debate, this is my outlook on why I 'm for the death penalty not only being abolished in the state of Texas but in addition to the entirety of the US..
The topic of capital punishment presents a test of values. The arguments in support of and opposition to the death penalty are complex. In the end, this is a question of an individual’s values and morals. The topic requires careful thought to reach a reasoned position. Both sides of the argument are defensible.
The 20th century was a time of both success and sadness, triumph and tragedy, however, no event in European history has been quite as disheartening as the Nazi Holocaust, the darkest hour in European History. In less than a decade, The Nazi Party murdered well over 6,000,000 Jews. 6,000,000 mothers, children, fathers, even babies. This tragedy was justified on the grounds that the people of the Jewish population were subhuman, a burden to the Nazi regime. Similar to the Jewish population of Europe, the people of Salem in The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, were unfairly sentenced to death without any justifiable reasoning, other than suspicion and hatred.
Annotated Bibliography Draft Student name : Haider Zafaryab Student number: 2360526 Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society. Source 1: Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996).
Abstract America's founders assumed they had a solid grasp on the best way to punish criminals and keep peace in the new land. The Death Penalty Act of 1994 greatly expanded the number of crimes punishable by death. Today, there are many people who are conflicted on whether or not punishing someone by murder is acceptable or not. There are also additional agreements on the morality of the death penalty in regards to a human's right to live and the substantial number of wrongful convictions and deaths. The Bible also comments on the subject telling how murder is a sin, and God will give justice to all people when he returns.
There are almost limitless differences in the way people view capital punishment throughout the world. Capital punishment, better known as the death penalty, is defined as the practice of executing an individual as the punishment for a specific crime after conviction by a court of law. In the United States, (in 2016) capital punishment is legal in 32 states, with Texas receiving the highest rates for death-sentencing. Across the world, however, since July of 2015, 140 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Some people believe that it is simply unethical to determine when a human being should die, and others believe that the crime a person commits should match the consequence they’re presented with.
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
Punishment serves as a method to deter people from wrongdoings, and to let people know what actions are wrong. If there were no negative repercussions to wrongful acts, people would simply attribute their wrongdoings to determinism and claim they are not morally responsible for their actions, since their actions stem from prior causes that they have no control
Many acknowledged the fact that capital punishment decreases the value of human life, which misrepresents the values of what the American government stands for. This argument not only defends the claim that the death penalty is unethical, but also introduces the idea that capital punishment remaining legal has a negative effect on a country's society as a whole because of the trivialization of human life. Many human rights activists and individuals interested in protecting the inalienable rights of American citizens also argue that the use of capital punishment violates a person’s inheritable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The legality of the death penalty can be seen as a violation to an individual's freedom and liberty, as it strips a person of their most basic right to life. Although there are still many that argue that lack of capital punishment for crimes such as murder takes value away from human life, this argument is fundamentally flawed
Punishment on Trial: Six Basic Principles of Punishment Irvin Arias National University Punishment on Trial: Six Basic Principles of Punishment This paper explores six basic principles of effective punishment in which are most relevant for consideration when using procedures that may function as punishment to change any child's given behavior and if these factors influence whether a given contingency functions as a Punisher. There Must Exist A Behavioral Contingency
There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation.
The attractiveness of this theory is primarily based on the ethical code that Hampton subscribes to, which is that pain-inflicted punishments should not be condoned when it comes to disciplining wrongdoers. Rather, constructive analysis done pertaining to why certain actions are morally wrong in society would be intellectually stimulating and productive for both the wrongdoers and the public, all while avoiding the infliction of physical pain. Compared to the retributivist argument, which circulates around the idea that the purpose of punishment is to make wrongdoers pay for their misdeeds, and that they should be treated the way that they have treated others, the MET is a more humane way to treat wrongdoers, and in the long run, would perhaps help them emerge from confinement as better citizens within society, rather than as potential repeat offenders. Therefore, the appeal of the MET stems from the positive implications of treating wrongdoers with respect and dignity, all while teaching them why their actions were wrong while simultaneously instilling positive and moral values in their psyche before allowing them to re-enter