A judge may choose a life penalty instead of a death penalty in the hope of the criminal’s rehabilitation; while this goal is likely feasible for the committer of a lone, spontaneous crime, multiple premeditated offenses like those of serial criminals render any form of rehabilitation highly unlikely (Bradbury, "The Death Penalty Affirms the Sanctity of Life"). Therefore, serial criminals should be considered for death row. Another common objection to the death penalty is the chance that an innocent person may be sentenced to death and executed. Likewise, even if they are found innocent, the consequences of their time on death row would follow them throughout their lives. Walter McMillan suffered due to the perjury of witnesses, whom law enforcement coerced to provide false testimonies placing McMillan at the scene of a murder.
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. I do not agree with not punishing people who do wrong things. I feel that no matter how big the crime or infraction is, there must be punishment, if not then society will keep breaking the rules, and then we would live in an unsafe world, we would not have a sound mind, and be able to function,
However, the severity of punishments and the methods used by the law were beneficial and practical and they helped to reduce the amount of crime in England. The article “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” expresses that crime was an issue in Elizabethan England, and a threat to the stability of society. To maintain order the penalties for committing minor crimes were generally punished with some form of public humiliation. For major crimes including thievery, murder, and treason those convicted were put to death. The sheer ruthlessness of the punishments discourage any sort of crime as they will scare the citizens into never breaking the law in fear of the consequences.
It is, in simplest terms, a way to torture someone and anyone who cares about them. A normal prison sentence can be just as harming to a person, and, depending on the conditions, may even be worse. A common misconception is that the death penalty will lower crime rates, but it is quite the opposite. From the author of “Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty” came, “ Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide.” There is no way to tell whether or not abolishing the Death Penalty will affect the way a killer might think; If it will somehow prevent them from committing crimes, but one thing we know for sure, is that Capital Punishment does not reduce crime. The same author wrote “The murder rate in states that do not have the death penalty is consistently lower than in states with the death penalty.” If some states in the United States have abolished it, and had promising results, the whole country should.
I looked upon them as superior beings who would be the arbiters of my future destiny. I formed in my imagination a thousand pictures of presenting myself to them, and their reception of me. I imagined that they would be disgusted, until, by my gentle demeanour and conciliating words, I should first win their favour and afterwards their love” (chapter 12). The monster’s desire for familial affection and love makes him a sympathetic character and deeply human. Yet it also drives him to commit his immoral acts.
To begin, “congress fell in love with mandatory minimums requiring anyone convicted of a given offense to receive a minimum penalty prescribed by legislation (Bazelon, 2).” For instance, if a person shoots someone in the leg, they are charged as if they killed that person. Oftentimes the minorities get more time than the whites. On the other hand, Alberto Gonzales reports that the mandatory minimum sentencing ensure tough and fair sentences for offenders and has nothing to do with race. People with too much power don’t know the differences between tough punishment and unfair punishment. This is unfair conduct because mandatory sentencing supposed is to unify for the crimes people make and be bias to one criminal to another.
Others believe it is well deserved as you get 3 chances to better yourself. There are many pros and cons resulting of this law. Some pros of the law is that it ends sentence disparity. Sentence disparity is when offenders are charged with the same crime and have similar arrest records but end up getting very different sentences. This is not only fair for all the offenders but also does not allow offender to get away with doing the minimum time allowed for the crime committed.
Mandatory sentencing laws often target moral vices like alcohol, sex, drugs, and to friendships and family via prohibition, and crimes that threaten a person's livelihood. The idea is that there are some crimes that are so serious there is no way to accept the offender back into the general population without first punishing them sufficiently. Some crimes are viewed as serious enough to require an indefinite removal from society by a life sentence, or sometimes capital punishment. It is viewed as a public service to separate these people from the general population, as it is assumed that the nature of the crime or the frequency of violation supersedes the subjective opinion of a judge. Remedying the irregularities in sentencing that arise from judicial discretion are supposed to make sentencing more fair and balanced.
Law enforcement agents are should behave to a standard that is greater than the average civilian. Police brutality comes from an abuse of power granted to the police. Police brutality is often drawn on by overreaction in certain situations drawn on by panic. Police using excessive force in the United States is a crucial dilemma and must be stopped. The regulation of the carrying of firearms reducing the movement of guns would obviously make police officers less nervous, regardless of the color of their skin and that of their interlocutor.
As a result of public shaming being a more effective punishment, criminals are less likely to repeat the offense. Public shaming could result in a criminal to have a traumatic experience. Unlike other forms of punishment, public shaming allows for a criminal to truly feel what they did was wrong and it “can be a strong motivator for good behavior” (Diana Kwon). A criminal could be sentenced to 4-8 years of jail time and remain unchanged, but with public shaming the criminal receives publicity that is “so unpleasant that it qualifies as punishment” (Greg Beato). Because of this, Some people would argue that with public shaming a punishment is extended beyond the sentence.
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.