Elie Wiesel’s Night should not be banned from the book list for ninth grade because it is a book that teaches very important lessons despite the fact that it contains violent scenes. The book shows that we should treat people in a good way even if they are not like us. It reveals the horrible consequences of inhumanity, the meaningless suffering and unbearable pain of innocent people. These reasons show that the book is very important for the grown-ups because it deals with fundamental questions about humanity and moral values. This book should not be banned even though it portrays so many violent moments because it shows us the horrible reality of racial prejudice and discrimination.
The 2012 ruling in Miller v. Alabama required the court to consider the circumstances of each juvenile charged with heinous crimes before sentencing life in prison without parole. The Supreme Court considered mandatory juvenile life without parole sentencing as unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment. However, with the 2012 ruling in place, many proponents such as victims of juvenile crimes believe that juveniles should be sentenced to life in prison. While juveniles who commit heinous crimes should not go unpunished, they do not deserve life sentences like an adult. First of all, juveniles should not be sentenced with life in prison like adults because scientific studies confirm a strong difference between an adolescent
The death penalty can be a greatly valuable device in sentencing criminals that have perpetrated a portion of the most exceedingly terrible crimes known to society. It is basic that we start to pass enactment making capital punishment lawful all through the United States so justice can be served appropriately. The morality of the death penalty has been hotly discussed for a long time. Those opposed to the death penalty say that it is immoral for the government to take the life of a citizen under any circumstance. This contention is refuted by Immanuel Kant who set forth the idea that, a society that is not willing to request a life of some individual who has taken another person 's life is essentially immoral.
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
Hurt teenagers are teenagers who were hurt children and are now on their way to becoming hurt adults, who will in-turn raise hurt children unless the cycle is broken. As children they were not nurtured and taught how to be resilient and properly face adversity. Hence, they were left to themselves to figure out how deal with adversity. As a result, they dealt with adversity in a negative, unproductive, harmful way. This has lead to a lack of ability to deal with adversity in a productive manner.
Also, this punishment will also be a deterrent and set the precedent for others to see and understand the implications of violence. On the flip side with a resounding “No” answer, the court sees and focuses on the intellect and moral capacity of said juvenile. Laws are in place to protect the vulnerability and the lack of moral
‘’The principle of manipulability refers to the predictable ways in which people act out of rational self-interest and might therefore be dissuaded from committing crimes if the punishment outweighs the benefits of the crime, rendering the crime an illogical choice.’’(http://www.biography.com/people/cesare-beccaria-39630) Beccaria believed that the criminal justice system needed to be changed, he thought the present criminal justice system was ‘barbaric and antiquated’. Beccaria also believed that certain laws should be changed and who they should benefit. He believed the system should establish the appropriate punishment for each crime committed. Unlike many of the other theories ‘’On Crime and Punishment’’ wanted to help and protect the rights of the criminals as well as the rights of the victims, he believes that punishment of the criminals should be that which serves the greatest public good. Beccaria also put forward in his theories the first modern argument against the death penalty.
Life without parole Juveniles who commit first or second degree murder should they receive a mandatory life sentence without parole? Most supreme court justices agree that this sentence violates the eighth amendment , banned on cruel and unusual punishment. But in my belief everyone knows their right from their wrongs, even if you was a child who grew up in a bad society and was left abandoned. I agree that juveniles who committed a crime that involves first or second degree murder should receive a life sentence without a chance of parole because equality everyone deserve the same treatment , adolescents should know their right from wrongs , and last but not least keep the streets safe. Juveniles who committed a murder deserve a life sentence without parole because in scientific facts your brain is not fully developed till your 25 years of age, but in the U.S you're committed as an adult at the age of 18
Words have power and not to just inspire, but to harm, separate, intimidate, and in some cases kill. Although the freedom to say what we wish is a right that every American is given, which speech should be protected and which should not? The line between offensive and harmful language is a very thin one with no real definable border. It is impossible to avoid offending everyone now and days, but attempting to harm another with words to deliberately cause emotional or psychological damage should be unacceptable. Charles Lawrence, Derek Bok, and Gwen Wilde all had interesting perspectives on the first amendment and what controversial ways it is used.
Stronger measures must be taken, especially by developing countries to terminate such corrupt practices that hinder the practice of justice being served to victims of various crimes. Crimes committed by felons belonging to the cream of the society. It would be in the best interest of these nations to make sure that their system is so strong, that no amount of power or money can influence the judgment of an impartial judge. That all citizens must be aware that their actions will have consequences no matter what their social standing. All people must be equal in the eyes of law and certain people must not be able to get away with their crimes because of their fame and
Suspects commit crimes and often the victims are left wondering why the suspect’s rights seem to be more important than those of the victim. It does seem like an unfair game, the bully gets afforded everything, the victim left to suffer. In order for the justice system of the United States to stay the most balanced and civil rights friendly system in the world; suspects’ rights have to be respected and guarded so chaos doesn’t take over. Police officers through the years have gotten better with training and experience, guidance by prosecutors, and increased motivations to “do the right thing” to ensure suspects are processed correctly, and interrogated within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution. Seeing a conviction through to the end, the suspect afforded all protections under the law, and the victims seeing closure is the ultimate testament to how far law enforcement interrogations have come since Miranda.
Stare Decisis Examining Hofsherier’s equal protection analysis the majority in Johnson not only held that the analysis was wrong but also concluded that stare decisis did not compelled to court to follow Hofsheier as precedent. In addition, Johnson indicated that Hofsheier’s analysis was faulty, which resulted in a number of sex crimes against minors. The Court referred to these “broad consequences” as the reason why stare decisis should not be allowed in order to correct an error in our constitutional jurisprudence. Stare decisis is one of the most important doctrines for the legal system. The doctrine states that courts are bound by decisions held in earlier cases.
Mattie’s approach to justice is not justified. I feel this way because first you need to know that without a reasonable doubt that whatever you’re convicting someone of the right charges. It also depends on the situation because if someone steals my pencil, I will be fine with that and not require any type of payment in return. Also my religious upbringing tells me to not take revenge on someone and to rely on God to help that person not do it again. I also believe that you need to have a fair trial if you are to punish someone of something you think they’ve done.
Supposedly capital punishment was created to deter criminals from committing horrible acts of rape and murder, however, today judges and the jury are eager to make anyone the scapegoat for the crimes committed; even the innocent. Nowadays, the judicial system becomes more discriminatory, toward gender, income, and race, in capital crime cases because of the desire to find, what is hoped to be, justice. When someone is convicted of any crime and is in the process of being arrested it is a law that his or her Miranda Rights must be stated before the arrest takes place. One of the major rights stated is “ If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you.” Now, if the person being arrested has a higher income normally the attorney hired is very experienced and can make the most guilty person sound innocent. On the other hand, if the person being convicted has a lower income and has to receive their attorney from the court there is a high chance of losing the case.
This also empowers the attackers, as they know that their victims cannot legally fight back with lethal force. Stand your ground laws create a situation where criminals are immediately stopped in the act. To put it normatively, the common man should not be punished for taking a life in self-defense, and should not be forced to retreat when his life is threatened by another person. The only people whom this law directly hurts are those who chose to perpetuate violent crime. Repealing stand your ground laws would simply protect those who threaten the lives of