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,
The killing shows that this society is flawed and corrupt, proving them to be a dystopia. If the police had caught the real Montag like they portray, the society may not be classified as a dystopia, but that wouldn’t follow Bradbury’s vision. The police are focused more on entertaining these viewers’ attention spans than they are about keeping these same viewers
What the public has failed to realize are the internal strife and emotions that the perpetrator has to bear due to his crime. If he or she were given the choice to steal or to be robbed, a generous person would choose to be the victim rather than the despised doer. Such a thought did not escape from Nietzsche, who regarded this concept as a folly of injustice: “An injustice we have perpetrated is much harder to bear than an injustice perpetrated against us” (Nietzsche). However, does everyone who perpetrates a crime bear much more than if he
Even the justice system believes, as if they shouldn’t be convicted. “The legal system doesn’t like second guessing police officers because they know the job is hard and violent and they have to keep bad guys off the streets ” ( Stinson para. 3). For a regular person convicted of a crime they are more harshly faced then police who gets a free pass. Instead of taking responsibility of the situation, they claim they did not do anything even when there is clear evidence.
What if after the investigation is complete and it shows that the police officer did commit the crime? We basically paid them for doing something wrong and that isn't right. Granted, yes, they have bills and everything else but they should have thought about that before committing a crime. As far as harsher punishment – let's say a 'normal' person robs a person and takes their drugs and gets caught. They normally get charged with robbery (armed robbery if they used a weapon) and possession of the drugs.
There are various charges against the employment of restorative justice. Basically, these charges critic the work and ideas of the way restorative justice aims at addressing crime in society. Let’s explore the following charge; “Restorative justice does not fit the thinking of legal practitioners”. (Batley 2005; 24). Thus, legal practitioners often argue that this approach is not fit enough for the criminal justice system.
In many instances police officers and citizens alike have been caught on the wrong side of the law and made to justify the amount of force used against another person while defending others or themselves. However deadly force has proved to make things work in the right way and thus ensure public safety to
They generally misunderstand the standards of proof officers rely upon to stop/detain, investigate, search and/or arrest such as reasonable suspicion and probable cause. It causes police brutality because the victims assumes right then and there to make themselves look
“The subculture of poverty thesis is that the values of the poor either directly cause crime, because people socialized into particular sets of values, norms, and beliefs engage in crime rather than patiently wait for legitimate opportunities, or indirectly cause crime because their values do not attach sufficient importance to such things as education and hard work”(Crutchfield). This is saying because people are poor and go directly to committing crimes instead of trying to work towards opportunities. They should be trying to do better for themselves and they should be focusing on trying to get a job or trying to get good grades to get into
This is because he is informed that his action was unauthorized and does not comply with the superior rules. Therefore, he feels uncomfortable with his coworkers’ violent methods. Soon, he requests transfer to the Criminal Investigation Bureau, always hoping to find more righteous partners and also having learned that it is a convenient route to get a detective’s shield. According to the above description, the occurrence of police brutality is one of the plot and contains one of the ethical issue in this movie. We can see that this issue is not completely resolved.
However , there are many controversies going on whether the former criminals to should have the right to vote again. Should they get the right to vote again? No, they should not because ex-cons have shown irresponsibility and dishonesty, they have violated the the rights of others, and they do not value society. According to, Voting Rights: 6 reasons Ex felons should not vote by Jerry Shaw, “Ex prisoners prisoners have demonstrated dishonesty and irresponsibility in their character by committing a crime, especially a serious crime and
Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face. Furthermore, It is right to oppose something that is unjust. Individuals should do what they best believe is right in their opinions but laws shouldn’t be fully subjected by the people only or else it may lead to future conflicts and misleading mistakes. Overall, by desired changes, it causes destructive tension for
Most teachers have great relationships with their students and want them to succeed. Some students struggle and end up cheating. Having an Honor Code would destroy these resected student-teacher relationships non existent due to the fact that students would have to tell on other students. The balance that had been established would be destroyed and could never be recovered. Having an Honor Code will fracture the trust that students have with teachers.
The punishment serves as a reminder of those facts and helps students come to realize that cheating hinders your education. Later in life you will not be able to simply copy another person or look to the internet to answer all your problems. If you go down that route you run the risk of your employer firing you based on your inability to complete the assigned task. Pelton’s punishment was necessary because in a way it is similar to the consequences you might receive on a job later in life. Within the student handbook for the Piper School District it clearly specifies that the punishment for plagiarism will be an immediate zero on the given assignment.
This could be a reason why people believe the system is so heavily criticized, when in reality people only criticize it because they disagree, not because the system is actually unjust. This idea shows that maybe the American criminal justice is not as an unjust as people make it