The definition for insanity defense has evolved throughout history. The root of the word is the Latin, sanus, meaning healthy and of sound mind. Insane meant the opposite, sick or of an unsound mind. Barron’s legal dictionary defines the insanity plea as one by which the defendant claims innocence because of a mental disorder or inability to reason that prevented him from having a culpable mental state i.e., from having a sense of purposefulness that is a necessary element of the crime charged. Basically, defendants accused of a crime can acknowledge that they committed the crime but argue that they are not responsible for it because of their mental illness, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity."
"Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson). Another example of this is imagine a rapist. It would be barbaric and morally unacceptable to rape the rapist. Even though it may seem that those who kill should be killed themselves, it really isn't moral and is not universally
To some readers, that is exactly the reason why they think the insane killer should be safe from the death penalty. But is that really the case? Is the killer simply an insane killer? One may think that while he is mentally insane, he is also a calculated killer. As stated in this quote, “I put in a dark lantern… then I thrust in my head.
The Crucible Argumentative Essay John Proctor should have risked taking a stand against a system that was against his beliefs. In the past, people have sacrificed themselves for what they believed in. As seen in The Crucible by Arthur Miller, John Proctor defies the court, and it results in his execution. John Proctor should have risked taking the stand, because he maintained his reputation as a good man and role model. His act of defiance resulted in death, but caused the people of Salem to question the court, which prevents any future deaths for suspected witchery.
I’m one of the innocents who could have spoken up and out when no one would listen to the “guilty”, but I did not speak and thus became guilty myself’”(Bradbury, 82). If people do not stay cowardly and stand up to the bad situations going on they can make a difference. When a person lets other people do bad things like killing that makes them as guilty as the killer. Even when society says that crimes and killing are okay but a person knows it is wrong they cannot keep quiet. If the person does stay quiet they are saying it is okay to do morally wrong acts which is wrong.
In order to comprehend the thesis, it is essential that one understand the psychological makeup of the Misfit. The Misfit accepts that he is not “a good man”, but he isn’t “the worst in the world neither” (O’Connor, 619). The Misfit has made his fair share of mistakes but more importantly, is conscious of his shortcomings and his strengths. A major strength that the Misfit possess is that he does not pass judgement onto others because everyone has done wrong, including himself. “I found out the crime don’t matter.
In addition, Atticus went against his moral code and principles he had always upheld before, especially in the Tom Robinson trial. Now, Atticus is faced with the decision of abiding by the law or breaking it in order to do the right thing. He knew that incarcerating a man, as withdrawn and solitary as Arthur would have been unforgivable. Especially, after Arthur had performed a great deed by saving his children 's life. He knew that exposing him would be an awful way of repaying him; it would have been like "shooting a mockingbird."
Herold did help a murderer; however, he is like everyone, in that he is susceptible to violent threats. For this reason, Herold did not deserve a conviction with a capital sentence; the punishment was far too severe, and does not fit the crime. Herold’s actions are understandable; he was stressed to Booth out of fear and pressure from him, he didn’t
This cynical approach in his article causes one to reevaluate their mindset; knowing that nobody is morally perfect makes us as people accept the humanity we all possess. While Sartwell focuses on the traits that made people genocidal killers, Szegedy- Maszak focuses on what made them sadistic torturers. According to Szegedy- Maszak traits that are necessary for torture are “authorization, routinization, and dehumanization” (76). These traits differ from Sartwell’s traits because they involve removing oneself from the traits that make us human. Szegedy- Maszak includes a testimony from one of the psychologists that says that these traits “ seem to tantalize someone’s moral compass, making it possible to do things that might be personally distasteful ” (77).