To what extent should the law reflect a moral vision even when this involves an interference with the rights of individuals who might disagree with that vision?
Stephen Buckley
1. Introduction
It is an irrefutable statement that all law is a reflection of morality. Morality preserves our sense of humanity and binds us to a common goal to distinguish right from wrong. It shapes our decisions from the most mundane daily actions to the most momentous historical dilemmas. It is a truism then to state that our law must enshrine morality as the crux of societal order. The question that I shall address in this essay, however, is to what extent should it do so? Morality is after all not an objective concept. Perceptions of morality have altered drastically through time. How can a society tread along the thin tightrope of liberty before plummeting to either a totalitarian nightmare or an iniquitous, unprincipled modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah?
2. Morality as a Subjective Concept
On the night of August 16 1996 in Langley, Virginia, 18-year old Daryl Atkins and an accomplice abducted a US serviceman from a nearby air force base, forced him to withdraw $200 dollars from an ATM, and then shot him eight times in the head .
…show more content…
In 1979, Johnny Penry was sentenced to death for rape and murder despite the fact he also had an intellectual disability. In this case the Court ruled that the execution of the mentally retarded did not violate the Eighth Amendment. So what swayed the Court in the Atkins case to overturn the ruling in Penry? The Court proclaimed that a “national consensus” had emerged that the mentally retarded should not be executed. It cited “evolving standards of decency” which led to this overturning of a ruling in a similar case just thirteen years before. In such a short space of time, a nation of 300 million people had altered their moral
King writes, “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (259). He illustrates this thought when stating, “All
Equality believes wholeheartedly in individualism and the concept of preference which relates strongly to judging others’ true intents and motives. Rand’s short essay explains that, while it is not something many would like to believe of their loved ones, many times people are not simply mistaken or misinformed, but rather know the evil in their actions and proceed to carry them out regardless (Rand, Paragraph 14). While it is true that some members of the Council have been brainwashed and truly believe what they say, the original intent of the many strict laws in place were malicious. Looking in at the society from the outside provides an objective point of view that makes clear that the statutes in action are there to control the citizens and not to help or protect
In Roper v. Simmons there are two issues that must be addressed, the first being the issue of moral maturity and culpability. The defense in the trial phase of this case argued that Mr. Simmons was an at an age where he was not responsible enough to fully understand the effects and consequences of his actions. The majority draws on Atkins v. Virginia to argue that this specific precedent supports their case that the death penalty should not be imposed on the mentally immature or impaired. However, an important point to be made is that the Atkins v. Virginia decision is geared towards the clinical definition of mental retardation: significant limitations that limit adaptive skills. Also, another important question to consider is the competency and premeditation of Mr. Simmons’ crime in this case.
In conclusion, after contemplating the cases’ distinctive historical background, the sharply divided arguments that prompted the courts’ ruling, and the wide-reaching impact of that ruling, it is evident that this case was a turning point in American history. Despite differing opinions, the Supreme Court stuck to the Constitution in their decision that the government is not responsible for protecting children from their
If a law is unjust, we need to understand that it is okay to break it. For example, King describes to us some situations where past laws were unjust, “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal’” (4). Throughout history, these laws have been broken and overcome. People will act against something they believe is wrong; it is a consequence of a marginalized group in a democratic society.
Georgie Milton did something not many people have the guts to do, he took the life of his best friend to save him from the torture that awaited him, but, he took the life of another man and he took this life with the intention of murder. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no difference between euthanasia and murder; and to this indictment, George Milton has pleaded not guilty. If I am to prove him otherwise, you must find him so. Lennie Small has been described to us as a caring giant. He had no bad intentions; and it is fair to say that our witnesses have provided us with sufficient evidence to support my argument.
Although the death penalty in Texas costs about three times more than life in prison without parole, it is reserved as the punishment of robbing another of their rights to life, freedom, and safety (Deathpenaltyinfo). It is a valid question to wonder why we should spare the life of one, opting to provide for all of their basics needs when they without question robbed another of their rights to life, freedom, and safety through murder or another cruel action. The case of Andre Thomas raised questions of whether or not the mentally incompetent should be eligible for the death penalty. Thomas murdered two children and the wife he was separated from, maintaining that the act was dictated by God. Statements by Thomas conveyed that he knew that what he had done was wrong after he had after committing the crime.
Justice Fried knew that the mass hysteria of child molestation had in fact affected the case. He also admitted that the children had been asked questions in a way that elicited a certain answer, one that confirmed the biases of all the prosecutors. To make matters worse Justice Fried also knew that the children 's testimonies were unlikely and knew how the defendant 's constitutional right of confronting their accusers had been violated. In the end Justice Fried’s position in the case was predetermined, it seems as if he did not even give the Amiraults a chance to prove their innocence. I think that Justice Fried was very biased and was not impartial at all and he did not adequately do what he was supposed to do in the situation presented to
Sentencing a criminal who is mentally retarded is directly going against the Eighth Amendment, which attempts to ‘evolve standards of decency’ in our nation. The Supreme Court of the United States prohibited the execution with mental deficiencies in the Atkins v. Virginia case in 2002. The Constitution enforces a substantive limitation on the States’ abilities to take the life of a criminal who is mentally retarded. (ATKINS V. VIRGINIA, 2002) Ethnic discrimination, financial influences, and factors such as mental retardation are three huge reasons why it is morally necessary to refuse to use the death penalty as a suitable mean of punishment, for this method would time after time fall under the realm of unequal or unjust punishment.
British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) are the main and the biggest expert relationship for guiding and psychotherapy in the United Kingdom with more than 34,000 individual members. The Association was established in 1971 and works deliberate self-administrative plans for individual counsellors/psychotherapists, bosses, instructional classes and administrations. The BACP Ethical Framework came into power in April 2002 and gives an expert framework to guides, delineating key zones of obligation and principles of behaviour (Rugby 2010). At present BACP authorises post graduate courses at 30 UK Universities over every one of the four home nations. More than 24,000 members have embraced centre preparing in advising and psychotherapy.
The violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendment were brought up. The eighth amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishments. This was said to be violated when Morris Kent was not allowed juvenile hearing and immediatelly sent to criminal courts and given sixty to ninety years in prison. The other amendment said to be violated was the fourteenth. This was violated when Kent was claimed to have not had equal protection under the court of law.
These reasons will prevent anarchy because one has a conscience to determine which laws to follow and which ones do not; therefore, one shows loyalty to the authority of law and also loyalty to one’s
Is out of harmony with the moral law.” (356). This illustrates for the clergymen where each type of law stands in a moral position. Each type of law affects a person’s personality in a negative or positive way. The just laws are typically laws voted for by the people, s
Thesis Statement: Origin of Morality Outline A.Universal Ethics 1.Karl Barth, The Command of God 2.Thomas Aquinas, The Natural Law 3.Thomas Hobbes, Natural Law and Natural Right 4.Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative B.Morality and Practical Reason 1.Practical Reason a.Practical Reason and Practical Reasons C.Evolution of Morality 1.What makes Moral Creatures Moral 2.Explaining the Nature of Moral Judgments F. Answering Questions 1. What is the origin of Morality: Religion or Philosophy? 2. What does religion say about morality?
Once morality requires justification, it stops being moral and becomes a