Summary Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust.
Comparison paragraphs using the CEC technique on The Most Dangerous Game and The Cask of Amontillado Violence is a crucial part of both The Most Dangerous Game and The Cask of Amontillado. The theme of these stories is murder, and, what is more, both murderers see nothing wrong with their actions. In The Cask of Amontillado, we know that Montresor is taking Fortunato to the catacombs to kill him. We see that Montresor’s intentions aren’t the ones he’s telling Fortunato from the beginning in the following quote: “he did not perceive that [Montresor’s] smile now was at the thought of his immolation”. In this quote, we see that Montresor’s intention is to kill Fortunato, rather than take him to taste the expensive wine.
But are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting these punishments because they are cruel? If a more lenient mode of correcting vice and deterring others from the commission of it would be invented, it would be very prudent in the Legislature to adopt it; but until we have some security that this will be done, we ought not to be restrained from making necessary laws by any declaration of this kind’ “ (Bomboy). In other words, Livermore was arguing that all citizens who commit horrible crime do deserve severe punishments for the crimes that they commit, and until the government figures out a way to place restrictions and guidelines on the penalties that we believe are morally proper to give, then they cannot hold back from reprimanding those citizens. Consequently, The Founding Fathers created the Eighth Amendment to be intended for further generations to interpret the meaning of “cruel” and “unusual” over time (Donnell). The amendment was then ratified in 1791 nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment and the death penalty is still highly debated today because the differences in interpretations
In ‘Education for Leisure’ the persona states “I am going to kill something today. Anything.” the literal meaning for this quote is that the persona is going to harm something or someone, the connotation on the other hand could be that the persona has lost his mind, the reason being is “kill” is a very strong word and it does not just mean hurt someone, it is taking someone’s life away from them, which is not an act a normal would perform. Secondly, “.Anything.” suggests that he does not care on who he hurts, as long as he fulfils his desire, in addition to that, Duffy uses this word as a sentence which creates an effect on the reader that the persona is suborn and does not change is mind easily like a child. Another quote to prove this is “I pour my goldfish down the bog”, this quote can clearly tell us he is psychopathic as he is harming something that has done no harm, this also could implement that he has gone through a lot of stress and torture which could be the leading reason of his behaviour, too much stress could change the state of mind. The effect on the reader would be that the persona has a deluded state of
Antigone 's thoughts are violently acknowledged to move the play forward, her decisions show how the law is unruly and unjust in governing the people. Sophocles uses the act of burial as a metaphor that is a tool of violence. Referring back to this particular scene, we understand that Ismene pleads with Antigone to also think of the dangers ahead but she refuses to listen to her (Sophocles [sa]:35). The act of thinking is known to be violent, just as stated previously, but it can bring about transformation and progression because it can bring change (Arendt
¨We reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers.” I can see why the Supreme Court doesn 't want these people in prison, because they might kill somebody in prison, or if they get bailed out they wouldn 't learn their lesson and do what they were doing AGAIN. ¨We have the responsibility to punish those who deserve it, but only to the degree they deserve it.¨ I can also see why they think people deserve it for their horrible actions, they believe that since they did some outrageous murder, or a really bad crime they deserve to die. ¨"Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, one thing most people will never know is the pain experienced when a family member, or in my case, family members are brutally tortured and murdered.¨ This is saying that families go through a lot when a murderer kills one of their loved ones, and the family wants that person executed. Personally, the death penalty in my eyes can help families feel like they 've got justice, and make them feel like they did something for the loved one that was
He said that it is impossible for him to declare Pi innocent.The more he examines this case and think about it, the more deeply he become involved and making his mind entangled.He found that every reason to declare him innocent was balanced by a reason to prove him guilty. He withdraws from the case making no decision. Justice Keen He puts two questions before the Court. First that whether executive clemency should be extended to these defendants if the conviction is affirmed and second that of deciding whether what these men did was "right" or "wrong," "wicked" or "good." He says "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.
Consider that when A stabbed B he did so under a delusion that he was in fact fighting with a monster of fictional sorts, and that this said delusion was caused by a mental disorder. Though A’s act was voluntary, through no fault of his own he did not understand the reality what he was doing. It would therefore be very harsh to find A culpable for B’s death. So A has proven himself to be a danger to others and will need expert treatment before being allowed to return to society. The law deals with these situations by treating insane offenders as patients who bear no criminal responsibility for their actions, but who must go under medical care if medical experts think it is necessary.
The government works to ensure the guilty receive adequate justice for their crime, and the act of pursuing justice granted to the state by the will of the governed ensures that “[executing] a lawfully condemned prisoner” defies the label of murder (Koch). The common misconception of characterizing the death penalty as murder rejects the rights of the state which supersede those of the individual. In the government’s efforts to ensure justice to criminals for crimes committed, they have a wide variety of options available to them, and it is the job of the judge and jury to confirm that the punishment meets the crime. If the average citizen executes those they believe culprits of heinous crimes, they willfully choose the path of manslaughter over specious justice because only the government has the power and ultimate responsibility to condemn the
Due to the violent civil war, society made lawlessness a synonym with just action. Without the constructs of justice, human nature tends to lean towards self-interest and self-destruction. The civil war demonstrated that unrestrained human nature leads to the destruction of civilization and citizens with reject the necessity of restraint and found new laws and societal norms. In addition to this, in the Melian dialogue, the Athenians completely ignore justice when addressing their expansion campaign. For the purpose of self-interest, honor, and security, the Athenians decide upon the policies of power and their representative
This of course resulted in anger and outrage causing protests, vandalism, and more unnecessary crimes and violence. There being a possibility that race did play a factor in the outcome of these trials the point that I rather focus on is how even if there was no racial factor to consider the verdicts should have still gone the other way. Deadly force is an act that can’t later be reversed or rectified if misused so unless a police officer is put in a life threatening situation deadly force should not come into play. In the Eric Garner and Mike Brown encounters there were specific moments where the deaths of the two victims could have been avoided. Choking or shooting an unarmed suspect should never be considered reasonable force.
Murdering or sentencing one to death row is not just, even if the individual is guilty of treason. By saying the individual on trial shall not live because they murdered another, this reflects back on the decision makers. It deems those making the decisions hypocrites. The court members are choosing whether one lives or dies, and if they choose the death option they are performing the exact crime the individual could be on trial for. Murder.
Even though this type of an attack is certainly horrific and all efforts should be made to prevent such attacks in the future, another more perfidious and incremental threat to the US is on the rise- domestic terrorism. Despite the fact that the legal distinction of domestic terrorism may or may not be applied based on legal or perhaps even political motivations, the carnage that domestic terrorism can unleash upon the US is formidable. Domestic terrorism comes in any forms and is driven by many different ideologies. The domestic terrorist can desire the destruction of the US, the elimination of certain populations of Americans based on the color of their skin or the god they choose to worship, or they may wish to overthrow the government and establish their own version of utopia. The aforementioned examples are of course not an exhaustive list, and there may be individuals or groups that are as yet unknown.
This blog, is based on Evan Defilippis overview on the pros and cons of gun control. Defilippis develops well written and clear visual arguments on both sides of the issue. For example, he states “The main point of this argument is that criminals do not follow laws; therefore laws restricting gun ownership and types of guns would only hurt those who follow them.” “Gun control laws only help criminals, criminals do not play by the law. That is why we need to punish criminals, not law-abiding citizens by disarming them. Gun control laws is not the answer.” What he meant by this is why punish EVERYONE including people who abide by the laws that are already in place?