Not only has the death penalty proven to be constitutional, cost effective, ethically correct deterrent of future murders, but it also is a punishment that fits the crime. First of all, the abolitionists argue that the death penalty is actually illegal or unconstitutional (Eckholm & Schwartz, 2014) because it violates the 8th Amendment’s ban against cruel and unusual punishments. But in fact, the Constitution sanctions the death penalty in several contexts. The 5th Amendment states that “no one shall deprive you of your life, unless you are properly judged and convicted in a due process of law” (Cornell University, n.d). This means that the State actually has the right to put you up for capital punishment after you have been properly sent to trial.
For example, a person speeding over the posted speed limit would not need to be sent to prison like a person who murders someone. The Utilitarian perspective is that of whatever results in the greater good for the greatest number of people is what is right. Punishment can only be justified, according to the Utilitarian perspective, under two circumstances. The first-way punishment is justified is if the pain and suffering of the criminal are outweighed by the benefits of punishment. The second-way punishment is justified is if the benefits of punishing them cannot be with less suffering or at a lower cost to those being punished.
Hayward argued, “despite considerable success in combating certain forms of economic/acquisitive criminality, much of this Rational Choice Theory inspired Situational Crime Prevention lacks reflexivity.” (Hayward, 2007) Hayward criticizes how Rational Choice Theory emerges from the discipline and behavioural psychology, he believes that Rational Choice Theory may not be the best theory and believes that people should use Cultural Criminology, a theory where crimes are in the context of culture. “Cultural Criminology points to the subjective experiences and highly textured socio-cultural situations behind all crimes.” (Hayward, 2007) Theory’s as to why people commit crime and Situational Crime Prevention practices aren’t as effective as many claim for it to be. Essentially, Hayward believes Rational Choice Theory is not a valid theory and people should use Cultural Criminology, however, Farrell thinks Haywards argument was poorly written and Rational Choice Theory is still the best theory to
The two principles are principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity. By following the Principle of Universalizability, you have to universalize the maxim. The universalized maxim would be, everyone always breaks the law when doing so it allows him/her to do much more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal of maximizing public safety. However, by universalizing the maxim we are specifically violating the first violation of categorical imperatives, which refers to violation by contradiction. Torture is against the law, therefore torturing the man would break the law.
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. The morality of an action is determined by the outcome of that action.
Utilitarianism Justification of Exam Cheating Utilitarianism is one of the best ethical approaches that can be used to justifying a right action from a wrong action by focusing on the outcome of the path taken. The most important thing is that the action taken to achieve a certain outcome has to be of the greater benefit of the society at large. Whether the outcome is bad, it can be used to morally justify some deeds regardless of how inhumane they can be. On the other side, utilitarianism also does not justify everything because it is difficult at time to predict whether the actions taken will be good or bad at the end. Additionally, values cannot be accounted for.
This paper explores the importance of a better policing and crime prevention by reducing minor social disorders. This topic is important because, it is obvious and apparent that the process of reducing crime and disorder shouldn’t only focus on the big crimes, but instead, it should first tackle all issues that impact the neighborhoods, things like graffiti, trash, social behaviors that might be deemed threatening (public intoxication, drug use), street lightning, the conditions of buildings, things that affect the quality of life. There’s something about tolerating minor infractions, which can be the reason for the increasing of more serious violent crimes, allowing low level crimes shows a lack of control and order in a community. On average
Also, for their failure to put recent high-profile cases in a much broader perspective. By lacking this kind of contextual data, it is easy for the members of the public to take an amplified crime event out of context and believe that crime is ever on the rise. The media however have been known to hasten the process of crime reporting and ensuring that correct and accurate data is presented as well as spurring criticisms from the public on data gaps. Another use of crime data by the media elicits accusations of negative stereotyping and unfairness of provinces and police departments, and it includes reporting of simplistic crime ratings or rankings. The media outlets simply rank regions or police departments by using a crime index of violent occurrences.
However, the severity of punishments and the methods used by the law were beneficial and practical and they helped to reduce the amount of crime in England. The article “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” expresses that crime was an issue in Elizabethan England, and a threat to the stability of society. To maintain order the penalties for committing minor crimes were generally punished with some form of public humiliation. For major crimes including thievery, murder, and treason those convicted were put to death. 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.
I don’t think the theory can overcome these objections, for example, take a looks at the paradox of self-harm, According to the desire satisfaction theory, it is impossible to intentionally harm yourself but what about people who commit suicide? I believe virtue ethics is superior to the desire satisfaction theory because it is a moral theory that emphasizes the role of an individual 's character and virtues in evaluating the rightness of actions rather than just focusing on having one’s desires