“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”(Mahatma Gandhi) The Death penalty was utilized as an approach to free themselves from jeopardous crimes, yet was later optically observed as a lawful offense against human rights. The controversy on whether or not capital punishment is justified is still raging on this day. The U.S. is failing to realize that they are violating our human rights because they refuse to abolish the death penalty which contravenes a person 's right to life, it is not fair and there is nothing to truly gain from it. We ought not save it in light of the fact that everybody has the privilege to life, even the liable. So taking the life of anyone, particularly when it is basically for revenge, it makes us just as barbaric as the murderer.
Then almost immediately after Alex contradicts himself by thinking “ In my book and the blind eyes of justice, the fact that a man had it coming doesn’t make killing him right “ (Patterson 194). This shows Alex’s true opinion in that he believes that killing a man who was clueless doesn’t make it right. It also shows he thinks everyone is innocent until proven guilty just like most cops are caught not and that he believes only courts can issue punishment not some group of vigilante
I also got to note on his impact on the modern world and how having a holiday named after a mass murderer isn’t very remorseful to the people he killed. Letting his mistakes go is disrespectful to the people of the past and he should be considered a villian and not a hero. There are kids who learn about his doings in
The Grudge Informant is a case that is easy to look back and pass judgement on since most can agree that the soldiers wife should be punished. H.L.A Hart agrees, but as a legal positivist, he understands that the wife did nothing illegal at the time and cannot be punished for following the law. So, Hart would suggest the only way to legally punish the wife would be to enact a retroactive law that would make conversations between husband and wife confidential therefore making the husbands criticisms of the third reich private and the wifes admission to the gestapo illegal. This demonstrates Hart’s commitment to legal positivism and his opposition to natural law theory because it would set in place a new law that has to be followed while maintaining the legitimacy of the law and the need for it to have been followed when it was originally in place. Hart’s approach is a morally good one because it seeks to correct a past wrong while staying true to the current laws.
For every 1,000 people killed by police, only one officer is convicted of a crime. In “MLK Freedom Rides Speech” MLK argues that we should always use peaceful methods to have change. In contrast, in “By Any Means Necessary” Malcolm X argues we should use peaceful methods but if violence is used upon us we should also fight back with violence. Indeed, some argue that if we are using peaceful methods and violence is being used upon us we should fight back with violence while others believe we should fight back with peace. Violence doesn 't solve nothing it just gets more people killed.
Abolitionists disagree, stating the punishment is too harsh to serve justice, and it will not deter the committing of heinous crimes. The scriptures of the world's major religions seem to agree with, "an eye for an eye," advocates while at the same time concurring with abolitionists that, the death penalty--no matter the circumstances--is an immoral punishment. From these opposing views, we must conclude that scriptures were written by human beings, some accepting, others rejecting capital punishment. Therefore, it isn't possible to go to religious writings to find an answer acceptable to everyone. In searching for solutions, however, we should look at the Oklahoma City bomber's (Timothy McVeigh)
Which have reduced crime rates drastically. Furthermore 54 countries apply death sentence in their legislation thus isn 't weird and no common to see results Many people argue that death penalty isn 't an effective deterrent because the mind of a criminal doesn 't get affected with anything due to their psychopathic characteristics. Therefore, people would not matter to kill knowing the consequences. And that argument is totally missing the point of death penalty as a deterrent. This measure does not aim to reinstate criminals back to normal social lives, it aims to eliminate criminals that does not do any well to society.
If we keep watch of what is going on in other countries, we can send help to suffering countries who are facing discrimination and stop genocides from getting out of hand. In life, treating people as equal is the best way to prevent these chauvinistic murders. Moreover genocides should never be the solution no matter how logical it appears to be and how many people are doing
Why should law breakers be given more sympathy by our justice system compared to the victims that have been prejudice? They are assuming that it is the death penalty that will uphold justice to the victim’s family as the saying goes “an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.” The victim’s family may suffered mental disturbance after losing the one that they love so only by that sentence they will feel at ease. But then again, if you act in the same manner as a killer, what is the difference then? It send us the message, why kill another people who kill people to show that killing is wrong? There is no way to judge or punish person who commit mistakes as every person in this world make fault and they deserve second
So this duty is hard to fulfill as it is circumscribed and selective. Even when the two duties clash, like the John and Mary example, we can only help Mary by killing John, the negative duty is probably to take precedence. This is also an explanation of why killing is morally worse than letting die, killing is ‘a breach of negative duty’ and letting die is ‘a breach of positive duty’. If we let someone die, that person is no worse off for our presence than absence but has a possibility to live due to our presence. So fail to save the person do not worsen his situation.