According to Hinman (5), just punishment is the one that happens to those who are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is important because capital punishment is irreversible and hence only the guilty should be executed. However, there are many cases of innocent people who have been sentenced to death only to have their appeals granted at the last minute, or worse, denied and executed. It is on these grounds that Bedau (2007) argues against the death penalty because it is unjust and unfair. About unfairness, he goes on to add that racial and economic discrimination are also a factor to consider when meting out capital punishment.
Criminals who commit murder are divided in two groups, ones commit murder for self-defense and another group does it for fun. the Death penalty cannot be applied to both groups, for example, some who commits it to defend from yourself, do not deserve to receive capital punishment, however someone who has committed a serial murder. Definitely deserve to death penalty. We have a proverb in Dray that each tree has a couple of rotten fruit and for preventing from spoilage of other fruits they must be removed, society is the
The death penalty is a highly debated part of American society. But does society’s view on the death penalty have more to do with the violence that surrounds us or personal experiences with it? This view on the death penalty is invalid seeing as a person’s views on the death penalty has more to do with morals and ethics. The death penalty has both pros and cons. In the case of murder, the death penalty serves as the ultimate punishment and a deterrent for crimes.
Capital punishment. The big debate on who gets to decide whether someone lives or dies? Pacifist would say that it’s unethical and inhumane and that it is highly ironic that you’re killing those who kill, just to get the point across not to kill. Realist, like me, however, would retort back that by not ridding ourselves of these kind of people, it would feel as if we were just letting them get away with what they’ve done, without them knowing that there are serious consequences to your actions. The actions of certain criminals is the main reason why we need the death penalty.
The awnser to this question lies my opinion also on how Socrates made his choice. Take for instance a murderer is punished to death and guilty of his crimes, he should be punished not only to be just and reprimand him for his actions, but also to protect the lives of other people from getting hurt. In Socrates situation, he is unjustly accused of corrupting the youth and failing to acknowledge the gods his city acknowledged. This in opinioin is not only a real crime but the crime even if he truly committed it does not match the punishment. To conclude, Socrates in some peoples eyes may seem that the right thing for him to do is to escape and save his own life, even though he would be ricking the the lives of his friends and family and inevitably be caught later on down the road the face once again the same situation.
Rainsford is a competitive hunter just like Zaroff so there is a possibility he killed Zaroff because he is stubborn and wanted to win, which would lead him to be guilty and have a more intense punishment. In the end I think even if it was for survival rainsford will have to serve some jail time for his actions. I believe Rainsford should serve some jail time because he did push Zaroff’s body off the window and let the dogs eat his flesh, pushing Zaroff’s body off was unnecessary but the actually murder has its own punishments. Do you think he should be in jail for murdering Zaroff even if it was for his own protection?, keep in mind that Rainsford would be guilty for many things he has done as
I don't think Plato would agree with how they are going to achieve this by killing everyone who is evil. Those who do harm to others should be punished to the extent of the seriousness of their crime. If someone kills someone in cold blood, I believe they should be put away for the rest of their life no matter how old they are. I believe the nature of the punishment should match their crime. The people who make the laws should be the ones to be tasked with finding facts and determining the appropriate punishment.
The death penalty should be put in place for the sole purpose of punishment for people such as Hitler for he was responsible for the killing of many men,women, and children. He is also the one who started a historically horrific atrocity, the Holocaust. If the criminals that commit severe crimes are penalized for their actions, other people that are thinking of committing similar crimes will think twice due to the consequences they might suffer. Violence is only justified in such cases since the death penalty is a requisite for those who cause major damage to society or have major capacity to harm innocent
Death penalty or the capital punishment is the harshest punishment the authority can give to a crime, there have been many debates on many aspects of the element of the death penalty whether on philosophical aspect such as is it really a good thing to kill the people who killed other to show that killing is wrong and is it morally right, or on religious aspect such as god give us this life so the state shouldn’t take this life god gave us furthermore the act of taking a life go against almost every religion on earth and even on a legal aspect since the person on death row might be falsely accused and if the act of execution is done there will be no going back, and death sentence seem like an “eye for an eye” type of punishment(such as cutting off the hand of the thief for stealing) but it has been proven many times before this type of punishment doesn’t work .This report is made as part of SPD 202 as of why death penalty should be considered as social problem. Since the death penalty concern the matter of life and death of a person, the execution of an innocent person isn’t simply a tragedy it is a major false from both the state and the institute of justice. There have been many reports of false execution coming from all over the world. Take Jesse-Tafero case for example he was accused and executed via electric chair back in May 1990, he was accused of killing 2 Florida highway officers, but later on in 1992 the whole case was overturned when crime scene
He tells the readers that the eye makes his “blood run cold” and because of that he had to kill him. If that’s the case then I could kill a person just because I didn’t like how their teeth looked. No, even if somebody had a another person coming out of their eye you shouldn’t take their life or treat them any different. I mean of course there are many, many violent acts in today’s world, but people nowadays should try to make this world a least a little