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.
Although the rationale of peremptory challenges, ironically, would be for the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of any potentially biased jurors, lawyers may instead use their peremptory challenges to form a jury that would pass a more favourable verdict. As lawyers are also not required to explain their decisions in striking out jurors in most cases, the makeup of the jury can thus be heavily imbalanced. However, as a judge would be required to not let any preconceived bias affect the administering of justice, the accused would hence receive a fairer treatment as compared to juries that might have any bias towards either the prosecution or the defendant. With juries also not being required to explain their decisions, any bias that the jury might have would not be easily found and challenged. Especially in cases where the death penalty is concerned, it is all the more important that juries mete out a fair verdict.
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
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
One must assume that such extreme practices like the death penalty has to be unnecessary. If the cold-blooded killing of thousands does not lower premeditated murder, there is really no point (because let 's face it, the saying “eye for an eye” is childish and socially unacceptable). This same conclusion was agreed upon in a recent poll by almost 90% of the world’s criminological societies (Facts About the Death Penalty). However in all honesty, the argument against the death penalty doesn’t just stop at its redundancy, but also its
It is hard to separate the cases between instrumental aggression and bias motivation. I think not every bias motivation reflected as hate crime or breach the hate speech law. In some time you have the ability to like some one or not, so hate crime law could make many problems **** instigate retaliatory attacks. In conclusion, society would be better with more control and more law to live in an organized and pleasant community of humanity. Hate speech law does not prevent of exercising the freedom of speech but it has been found for reduce using freedom of speech and minimize making problems to other or causing harm to them.
Worrall appropriately points out that “any effective crime control strategy needs to be balanced against the possible argument that it threatens people's rights” (2008). Though this is true, there are too many cases of unethical civil forfeiture to ignore the problem. Controversy will always surround civil forfeiture because it has “powerful economic consequences” (Worrall, 2008), but every aspect of civil forfeiture must be examined so society can both see the merits of the system and stand up against the
Racial profiling suspicious people of specific ethnicities will create a safer place because if the police were to arrest these people then the crime rates will drop, creating a safer place. "Modifying airport profiling procedures to include scrutiny of race, gender, and age has the potential to impact fundamental consultation rights" (MacDonald). If the police were to use racial profiling as a major part to justify if a person was guilty of a crime, that would create a safer environment. Racial profiling should be allowed for the police to use because it is easier for them to track down criminals. If a criminals was on the run and they were of a specific ethnicity then it would help the police to use racial profiling on all people of that ethnicity.
Danforth understands Hale’s reasoning, but persist that “there will be no postponement(). This is because Danforth feels that if he is lenient with his decisions, it looks as though he is weak and being unfair to the rest who did not get postponed. Since Danforth has authority over the rest of the court, John Proctor is later executed due to Danforth signature. Additionally, he uses the number of cases he has had in court and the amount he has put in jail as a number to hold over peoples heads. The number Danforth claims is a point of trying to scare those who may being lying and show that Danforth is merciless.
For subsequent violations the fines are $100, $125 and $150. In my opinion, there should be not reduced fee for the first time because, if you didn 't have to pay so much the first time why not do it again. Jail time is a good idea if you 're someone that repeatedly disobeys the texting and driving law and in some serious case have caused harm to not only yourself other civilians. One more tactic is suspension of licence/ permanently taking it away for