There are other instances when the harm principle has been invoked but where it is more difficult to demonstrate that rights have been violated.For example, hate speech. Most liberal democracies have limitations on hate speech, but it is debatable whether these can be justified by the harm principle as formulated by Mill. One would have to show that such speech violated rights, directly and in the first instance. (I am interested here in hate speech that does not advocate physical violence against a group or individual. If it does, it would, like the corn dealer example, be captured by Mill 's harm principle as speech that can be prohibited).
The Death Penalty The death penalty has been, and still is, one of the most discussed topics in the United States. Its opponents argue it to be an unnecessary and violent punishment because it seems no less barbaric than the crime, as well as it is sometimes not believed to serve its purpose as a deterrent. However, there is a fundamental difference between the loss of an innocent life and the execution of a criminal in accordance with the law. Death penalty might not be the most ideal solution, but abolishing it would put in danger the lives of many innocent and law-abiding citizens. 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.
As further rulings go on, it is eventually determined that with careful statues put in place that limits the abilities of the jury to rule capital punishment, the death penalty is officially said to not be unconstitutional. In our United States history, several rights of citizens have been interpreted differently by our judicial branch. During World War 1, two acts called the Sedition Act of 1918 and the Espionage Act of 1917 ruled that in times of national crisis, people can be prosecuted if they speak out against the government in a disloyal or threatening manner. This was seen as a violation of our freedom
Although black people made great strides in reaching for equality in this decade, there were still many systems put in place that continue to disadvantage people of colour in the justice system. This time period normalized heavy black imprisonment, so that in the future this disparity was seen as the norm. This heavy incarceration was a way for white people in positions of power to continue to be in charge of black and hispanic people’s lives. In a way, the huge amounts of arrests of black and hispanic people over time was an attempt to reinstate state sanctioned slavery. This will be expanded further later, but it can be seen that the people who wished to continue white supremacy in the 1960 may have seen prisons as a way to do this without it being common
When thinking about hate crime the first aspect that would come to mind is violence against an individual or group based on the color of their skin. The most common crimes being between blacks and whites. However, there are many other factors that can subject one to becoming a victim of a hate crime. Most of the prosecutors committing hate crimes feel they are just doing God 's work by mocking the victim for who they are and justify their actions by saying what the victims are doing is wrong according to their God. Hate crimes have occurred dating back to the Nazis and Jews, blacks and whites, Muslims, and still happen to this day to many more.
The leaders of the movement have stressed that Black Lives Matter is an anti-violence organization. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a violent approach to achieving equality is unacceptable and goes against what the movement stands for (Cohen). In the past, a small number of people have acted in an aggressive manner under the banner of Black Lives Matter, however, the movement cannot simply be labeled as violent based on the actions of a few participants. With this mentality, the majority of groups, organizations, ideas, beliefs, and values in America can be written off as corrupt or unethical (Cohen). There are other ways in which America’s society is hoping to deem Black Lives Matter as a violent cause.
this crime are deliberate action, unlawfulness and the publication of a disparaging commentary. Defamatory material is that which is likely to subject a person to animosity, derision, mockery or belittle the person in the eyes of others. While the court in R v Fuleza 1951 1 SA 519 (A) resolved ambiguity by confirming the criminality of defamation, doubt continued regarding the existence of this crime in South African law because redress for defamation was prevalently pursued in civil courts. In S v Hoho 2009 (1) SACR 276 (SCA) (hereinafter referred to as Hoho) the court affirmed the existence of criminal defamation. The court ruled that while the prosecution for criminal defamation was not limited to significant defamatory acts, sentencing would reflect the degree of the significance thereof.
Another argument put forth is that if insanity is an excuse, stronger causes of crime such as social disadvantage should also be considered. This however is due to a flawed understanding of excuses, derived by equating it with causation. Causation per se is not an excuse as every action is caused. Insanity on the other hand, is rooted in the non culpability arising from lack of
In ordinary language, the term crime denotes an unlawful act punishable by a state. The term "crime" does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,] though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes. The most popular view is that crime is a category created by law; in other words, something is a crime if declared as such by the relevant and applicable law. One proposed definition is that a crime or offence (or criminal offence) is an act harmful not only to some individual or individuals but also to a community, society or the state ("a public wrong"). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law.
Type 1 terrorism or what Lizardo and Bergesen termed as ‘terror in the core’ is perpetrated by core actors against core government organizations (Bergesen et al. 2003, 163). These core- based terrorist organizations have ideological grievances against a particular core government (Bergesen et al. 2003, 166). This means that the perpetrators of this type of terrorism stand against the present state organizations in the core which they usually see as too corrupt and does not respond to the people’s needs and grievances as citizens.