People believe that if a murder takes this rights from a person, why should they still be connected to society? They are no longer a part of us. But why let our standards down, why fall below our humanity and cause pain to the criminal’s family. Although he might’ve not had remorse for the person he killed, we shouldn’t be the one to punish with death. It’s absolute cruelty to let the person know when will it be their last day.
Lennie´s mental disabilities and psychotic tendencies prevented him from acting like a human. Someone that kills people certainly does not fit in society, especially if that person is mentally disabled and does not control his actions. Lennie only needed hair to kill an innocent woman. Along his life, he would run into several women with long hair, making every woman with long hair and a dress in danger. It would not be rare to suppose that Lennie would keep assassinating innocent people.
But I do not think Rainsford will get away with no punishment because either way he murdered a human being. For Rainsford, killing Zaroff could have been just to win “The Most Dangerous Game” or for survival because General Zaroff would have definitely killed Rainsford if he saw him again. Was Rainsford’s murder justified?
Mission-oriented killers are not generally psychotic, but often have an explanation for the crime they are committing. They usually purge the people they believe to be immoral, in order for the world to be in a better place. Some of the people they believe are immoral could be prostitutes, homosexuals, and people with different ethnicities or religions than the killer, himself. An example of a mission-oriented killer is Colin Ireland. He was a former soldier who decided to become a serial killer that only target gay man.
It becomes apparent that the standard for humane actions can be easily skewed with a majority of a social group being instilled with fear. Inhumane actions can easily seem humane if everyone believes it. In any case, murder is not accepted by the laws of society and is a cruel act of hate. In Malcom Gladwell’s work, he discusses the murderer Bernie Goetz, and how he was able to get away with murder, with his name in good standing, because he murdered what many people feared. Gladwell describes the way the people in the city perceive Goetz’ actions when he says “They seemed the embodiment of the kind of young thug feared by nearly all urban-dwellers, and the mysterious gunman who shot them down seemed like an avenging angle” (150).
It should be in every circumstances that their is in this world. If someone murdered someone just because they wanted too needs the death penalty. If they were put in jail for doing a bad crime them they should not be put in prison when they should get the death penalty. Jail’s get overcrowded when that becomes a problem. Capital punishments needs to be enforced because crimes are happening every day and people needs to be punished for the things they have done to other people.
Once he is dead, he will not be at my table. He will not be in my head." That was a quote from a father who had lost his daughter from a serial killer. To conclude, society wants to feel safe. "I believe the death penalty should be used sparingly for heinous, forensically supported crimes.
Perry killed because of the way he was raised to be, or not raised to be. It was inevitable that in the end, he would become a killer. A psychopath created by years of abuse and feeling nothing but hatred towards so many, Perry’s chances of becoming a murderer was inescapable. “... it is only people like Perry, ‘isolated’ and ‘animal’, who are driven by a lonely search for distant ‘mirages’ (Conniff 82). What this means is, psychopaths like Perry Smith kill because they are seeing things that others do not, they see
The law is there for a reason, to follow it, why doesn’t the law come into play for the death penalty? Killing people is a horrible thing to do, even if they did thoughtlessly murder a whole family in the middle of the night. It makes you just as bad as a killer then they
What are Fowler’s consequences for his actions? When these two killings are compared, the main difference is that Fowler planned and prepared for his murder while Richard acted in the heat of the moment. In the laws eyes that makes Fowler’s killing worse because it is premeditated. Each of these killings has a clear motive or reason but that does not mean they are justified. The legal definition of murder differs depending on where you are, but is best defined as follows, “the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who
This rule proved to be highly immoral, because it basically led one achieving and performing their revenge on another. Sentencing an individual to death for a crime they had committed, whether it be murder, rape, or another heinous crime, is using Hammurabi’s code. Individuals on death row were put there because members of the court believed that they had committed a crime worthy of death. By sentencing them to death, the court is committing a murder as well, even if it is of a guilty individual. Murdering or sentencing one to death row is not just, even if the individual is guilty of treason.