More people get incarcerated for non-violent crimes and crimes caused by mental illnesses or drug abuse (Webb, 2009) and because these people get put in regular prisons, instead of in mental health facilities or facilities to help against drug addiction, where they could be treated to further prevent crimes driven by their illness (Webb, 2009), the prisons get overfilled and cannot hold the more ‘important’ prisoners that needed to be locked away from the public. A strong link of the criminal justice process is that the system tries to keep it fair for everyone. Every defendant has the right to an attorney so they can be defended properly and fairly and “Only judges who are adequately informed about a case can effectively control the proceedings and examine evidence” (Tochilovsky, 2002) It is also important for the criminal justice system that those involved show discretion and although this is not always the case, discretion by the judges, police, etc. further ensure proper treatment of the
Socrates was placed in prison by the unjust laws of his accusers. Yet, after Socrates’ sentencing, he obeys the laws of staying imprisoned and is determined to not escape. Also, he does not commit bribery to the guard. In a way, the laws are both good and bad in Plato’s Crito. The laws, or in fact the accusers, unjustly put Socrates in prison and did not give him a fair trial, instead chose to execute.
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. If people knew the law, then they should not have a reason to make those horrible crimes. When someone kills someone the police needs evidence to make what they need to prove the crime that has or had happened. People that are in prison is still living with a happy life because they are alive and they think that no one can hurt
The commonness of public executions would be appalling today; however, it encouraged the citizens of England to stay away from any form of crime. Queen Elizabeth’s laws did not mean death was imminent for all criminals. Pregnant women could receive pardons, as killing them would mean the death of an innocent child. Priests could also avoid execution, but only once. Elizabeth’s efforts to reduce crime during her rule were extreme, but affected the public in a way that made England a safer
While the test subjects did in fact consent to the experiment via documents, they developed this false understanding through the experiment that they could not leave at any time, that “there was no way out”. During this time period, there were no existing laws that this experiment violated but it did pave the way for several to be introduced. For example, in the consent form it stated that the prisoners would not experience physical harm, but several days later they were brutally beaten by the guards. A few scenarios such as this one would be considered illegal with today’s legal system. One law that was created after this required federal prisons to separate minors awaiting trial from adults to avoid them suffering from abuse.
Although inmates are being put to death, their death does not have to be stressful and painful. The inmate serving death-row and facing death may deserve death for their actions, However, a painful death is a cruel punishment and inhumane. The lethal injection drugs should be carefully evaluated by Drug Enforcement Administration and be free of cruelty when being administered to the inmate. Just because someone is going to die anyway, the lethal injection matters on what will be administered. Off market drugs is illegal to obtain when there is not a prescription, therefore, off market drugs should not be allowed for use in a correctional center for death
The idea that the offender will no longer be alive after sentenced to death provides peace for families of the victims. This assures the victim’s families that the killer will not strike again. Of course putting the murderer to death does not bring back their loved one, but it sure does provide a sense of justice. On the contrary, opponents of capital punishment believe that instead of sentencing offenders to death, they should not seek revenge and should instead decide to give them life in prison without the possibility of parole. However, for most people, their suffering is immeasurably increased knowing that the person who murdered their family member or friend –and who in many cases, inflicted unimaginable terror– is not only alive, but also being cared for (Prager).
Therefore our two choices are to release the prisoners, or overcrowd them into jail. The best choice for us is to release the prisoners to save our nation from tumbling into a massive hole. First of all, there are prisoners that should not be behind bars. I’m talking about those who committed an unacceptable act, but are not involved in any violent activities. Those who executed a violent act, most wanted, or dangerous, deserves a spot in jail.
If we could make this happen, the number of people being sent to jail can decrease. People who actually need the help are mistaken for criminals on a daily basis. "Medical professionals can and do treat addicts as patients, not as criminals, with far greater success and with far less damage to the rest of society than vanquishing these hapless souls in a brutal and expensive war" (Geers, et.al. 3). If drugs were legal, no one would think you 're a criminal and they 'd still treat you with the same respect.
In solitary confinement, prisoners may be punished by limiting human contact which have made prisoners “mentally even more ill” (Yamashita, “Human Rights of Prisoners”; Casey, “Solitary Confinement in the UK”). In the end however, further inhumane treatment would not affect changing morals in psychopaths for according to Dr. Bruce Gage, chief of psychiatry for the Washington Department of Corrections, they “tend to lack fear and have a ‘reduced response to punishment.’” Additionally, moral justice is not created if the penal system further damages the mental state of prisoners. For example, in the United Kingdom, one inmate claimed that there were “ten suicide attempts so far” in one prison, while another claimed
They would learn for the future. If they were not harshly punished and tried for adult consequences, they may not learn and take a life again which leads to the argument, “if you put the kid in prison, you’re taking his future, and everything he has going good for him away”. This concern has an obvious response. Nathaniel Abraham not only murdered and took a life and future that wasn’t his, but this is permanent. If he spends a decent portion of his life in prison, that may only be temporary.
Criminals that are apprehended are punished with jail time. Some go to state run jails, federal prison, boot camps, or maximum security prisons. I theory that criminal sanctions should scare criminals straight, and convinced them that they never want to commit a crime again because of jail time. You would think that the loss of freedom, privilege to vote, and ability to enjoy life would scare someone straight. Well it does not, Research has found that prisoner’s in max security prisons has a higher return rate, than prisoner’s in state ran jails.
In today’s day and age, a person does not get put to death for just any crime. A recurring argument against the death penalty is that sentencing a defendant to death violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition. The Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment. Mental illness is expressly recognized as a mitigating factor in most death penalty statutes. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion in the case of Ford vs. Wainwright that the use of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to execute a person whose mental state renders understanding of capital punishment is impossible.
By having these laws in place, everyone is protected. They are preventing the therapist from getting malpractice suits filed against them if their patient does harm someone. They are protecting third parties, because by being informed, they can take precautions in protecting themselves instead of being blindsided like Tatiana Tarasoff was. The laws also protect the patient because they know ahead of time what they should and shouldn 't say in therapy in order to not have their confidentiality breached. Therefore, I definitely believe that the Tarasoff Laws do not breach the confidentiality of a
S does raise the possibility of higher risks for not doing the surgery, but not having any other health issues contributes to her decision to not take the risk of having the surgery. The physician is ethical in the decision to decrease Mrs. S anxiety. The physician made the correct call which is backed by the principle that the patient is assumed competent unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. Medical professionals may not agree with the patient’s decision but it must be respected to avoid issues. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF.