In his article “To Kill or Not to Kill”, Scott Turow tries to convince the audience advocating the capital-punishment system in Illinois to inspect its fairness and efficacy. He tackles this issue because he provides that the system is defective. Even though he goes back and forth from favoring the capital punishment issue to rejecting it, he clearly states his penalty opposition, supporting it with powerful examples, factual data, and a metaphor. To appear moral, credible, and knowledgeable, the author uses his scholarly tone, demonstrating his respectable position. He, as a lawyer and “one… members of a commission appointed by Governor”, had to present his position on the law during the reforms of the capital punishment system in Illinois.
Marilyn Armour and Mike Umbreit suggest, “Moreover, it may be assumed that receiving the ultimate penal sanction gives control back to survivors, allows them to move on, ends the ordeal, and confirms that bad things happen to people who do bad things, which denies the operation of chance and redeems the victim as a person of value” (Armour, Umbreit 396). This quote is significant because it suggests that the death penalty can be effective in helping the victims of a crime in many ways. Like mentioned in the quote, it can allow for victims to move on, feel like the whole ordeal has come to a close, and even to feel as though a sense of karma was inflicted. Samuel R. Gross and Daniel J. Matheson suggests, “In some cases, victims' relatives explain the relief they feel after the execution in apparently concrete terms: Now the defendant is no longer a threat to them or to anybody else” (Gross, Matheson 490). This is important because, like mentioned previously, the death penalty can help the victims or their families in so many ways.
This unyielding mentality calls for a neutral third party to intervene to mediate and solve the discord. Justice intervenes logically, ethically, and legally. It has to do with making up for a wrong that most reasonable members of the said society would agree is wrong versus the opinion of the victim who is seeking justice. Revenge could also be defined as, usually violently, exteriorizing negative emotions. It can express a fiery desire for fatality.
As we know, there are many ways criminals can be punished. When sentencing happens, the defendant is usually sentenced to the following punishments, listed from minor to extreme: Fines Community service Diversion programs Probation GPS monitoring Jail Prison Death penalty (Rio Salado, 2022). Most of these punishments can be listed under either the utilitarian or retributive theory of punishment. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to 'deter' future wrongdoings.
This process will ensure that each offender receives the proper punishment and that the community is satisfied with the decision. The offender-based models, retributive and utilitarian, does not help the victim recover. Restorative justice is designed
Revenge is an emotional response to real or imagined injury or insult which requires punishment in return. This is done more on feeling than by law. The second goal is retribution (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2015). Retribution involves the payment of a debt to both the victim and society. The way this is explained is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Restorative justice programs integrate protective factors to eliminate the risk factors. For example, according to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, this model keeps punishment in proportion to the criminal act by focusing on three basic principles: 1) offenders who commit a wrongful act deserve appropriate consequences; 2) citizens have a moral right to give criminals only the sentence they deserve; and 3) society must avoid punishing an innocent person. Restorative justice still can involve traditional disciplinary measures, such as fines, incarceration, probation, or a combination of all three (Newton, 2013). Restorative
Annotated Bibliography Draft Student name : Haider Zafaryab Student number: 2360526 Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society. Source 1: Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996).
Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty. " In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal.
Execution is the act of carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person. This is carried out either by lethal injection or electrocution. Execution despite its barbaric nature has survived in many legal system and will continue to because it: reinforces a state of security of the general public, detters other individuals from committing such crimes, and enforces the concept of cause and effect within the legal system. In the text “The Penalty of Death” H.L. Mencken discusses not only why he supports executions, but also the ripple effects this action has on a society. While in a text entitled “Death Penalty,” Anna Quindlen discusses her objections to execution, because, as she states:”it consists of stooping to the level of the
“Retribution” or “Retributive justice” can be defined as “a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime.” (Wikipedia, 2016) Peter Koritansky, philosopher and author made a distinction between two views on retributive punishment in his work entitled “Two theories of retributive punishment: Immanuel Kant and Thomas Aquinas” in 2005 in which he believed that the Thomistic understanding of retribution is superior to that of Kant and this write-up is going to outline the reasons as to why he think this is the case. To illustrate this, it is vital therefore that we understand the Kantian retributivism and Aquinas’s understanding of punishment. Firstly the Kantian retributivism or the theory of retributive by Immanuel Kant suggests that punishment in the form of coercion of force is necessary to establish justice and to punish criminals, he emphasized that “Punishment by a court…can never be inflicted merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but that it must always be inflicted upon him for the fact that he has committed a crime”
Punishment is an infliction of a penalty that resulted from an offence. Punishment is also naturally justified when administered to those who deserve it. Retributivists claim that people who break the law deserve the punishment they get. Retributivism views punishment as a fair judgment and believe that the state should punish those who are found guilty of their wrongdoing because they deserve it. A person deserves the same treatment they inflict on others.
Revenge can be a horrible emotion; it can sometimes lead people to do horrible things. By definition, Revenge means to get retribution for a wrongdoing done to you. In my opinion, revenge is mostly caused by fear and the overwhelming feeling of payback Throughout history, revenge, or vengeance, has been altered by several cultures and religions, and even the American culture. Though it often leads one to perform criminal acts, Howard argues that it is a necessary component in the functioning of society. He points out that revenge is a threat that acts as a disincentive to undeserved violence.
Each year in many countries around the world people are murdered in the name of “justice”. But can justice really include a sanitised form of revenge? Many people are for the death penalty regardless of what it actually is. A major way that the death penalty is flawed is shown in the amount of innocent people who are sentenced to death.