In American culture, punishment is seen as an essential effect of the crimes of criminals. In political ideology, the notion of common punishment addresses the explanations, practices, and objectives of inflicting pain or impoverishment on a human being for a crime that he or she has committed. (Sheldon). Additionally, two main principles are set for carrying out punishments in society. The first concept is based on the saying “eye for an eye”, meaning imposing pain on someone who has injured another person as revenge. The second concept is based on a more sensible view. People view punishment as ensuring civil peace and providing a barrier to further crime. Yet, the punishment that America considers necessary is inhumane and does not help …show more content…
In the early stages of the American colonies, the punishment was usually cruel and barbaric. The customary forms of punishment were torture. In a study by Julie Beicken, torture is defined as,
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Now, as the era changes America, our methods start to shift as well. The US legally opposes torture, yet continues to support its use in the psychological field (Beicken).
For instance, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 shocked the world and introduced new types of threats, panic, horrors, and national responses acknowledged as the War on Terror. In the course of this era, the practice of torture legally abolished back then and mainly considered uncivilized and morally wrong, surfaced as a potential aid in this global war (Beicken). If America does not change its methods, then history is doomed to repeat itself and go back to its barbaric
…show more content…
People believe that if a definite punishment for criminal activity exists, people will be less likely to commit crimes against others (theft, assault, murder, etc.). Moreover, some Americans believe in capital punishment. Capital punishment implies that the government deliberately takes human life as a form of punishment for a crime, such as the death penalty. In an article by John R Vile, he states, “Advocates of capital punishment argue that it is a just penalty for those who have maliciously taken the lives of others and that the penalty properly vindicates the value of the lives of the victims. Proponents might also argue that the penalty is an effective deterrent to murder”. This refers back to the first concept of punishment, an “eye for an eye”. The reason why people agree with capital punishment is that they believe this is the best way for someone to learn their lesson. Also in some cases, people aren't punished because they feel they aren’t getting what they deserve. However, the people who are pro-death penalty do not recognize it as a type of savage practice. In particular, “Electrocution and lethal gases became widely accepted as more humane alternatives toward the end of the 19th century, when executions became less public. More recently, most states with the death penalty have used lethal injections,” (Vile).
The death penalty goes far back into history, across many different civilizations, and many different cultures. It has been around since the beginnings of colonial America, and was very different compared to todays standards. “In colonial America, criminals
While many opponents argue the economics of the issue, they fail to acknowledge that the main goals of punishment are to correct behavior that is deviant from the law and to prevent similar incidences from occurring. Without capital punishment, the culprits would not have to confront the potential of death, meaning that the marginal cost of violent crime would be diminished. Therefore, capital punishment is an effective method to deter
Many have said that they would want nonlethal torture to be used in such cases but “did not want torture to be officially recognized by our legal system.” Similar statements have posited that while “torture might be necessary in a given situation it could never be right.” This approach, that of keeping torture off-the-books, is in direct conflict with the necessity for accountability and transparency in a democracy. A democracy cannot work if the public is kept in the dark. The public must know what is going on in order to approve or disapprove.
Retribution is seen throughout the criminal justice apparatus as a practice put into place to combat the execution of a crime. In other words, expressing how we as a conformed society are able to evaluate the appropriate response to the completion of a crime. Additionally, throughout time we see how this ideology of retribution has taken the “eye or an eye” approach. Implying that malefactors that partake in wrongdoings should undergo punishment that conveys equality to the intensity of the committed crime.
Punishments for severe crimes around the world have been a subject of debate for many years. Different countries have varying views on what punishments are too extreme. The legality of certain forms of punishment is continually evolving in today's age. With the determination of constitutionality, a complex and evolving issue there are many debates around what constitutes cruel and unusual punishments. Despite ongoing controversies and discussions, punishments for serious crimes, including capital punishment, remain legal in some countries and continue to be imposed.
Often, justifications for punishment defied neat theoretical distinction: When introducing
Melissa Mossey Honors Ethics Dr. Farley Capital Punishment In this essay I will explain the views about capital punishment as expressed by Igor Primoratz, in “Justifying Legal Punishment,” and Stephen Nathanson, in “An Eye for an Eye?”. I will also assert and defend my point of view that capital punishment is wrong, citing several strong utilitarian and Kantian objections. Igor Primoratz discusses the concept of justice purely for the sake of justice. He believes that fair punishment involves depriving a criminal of the same value of which they have deprived their victims.
According to Cullen, the penal harm movement is “…a movement whose supreme aim is the infliction of penal harm” (58). Society have used words such as incapacitation to mask and minimize the true intentions of penal harm. However, the issues and consequences of penal harm still remains unmasked.
In Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture”, he uses many cases of emotional appeal to persuade the reader that torture is necessary in extreme cases. There are many terms/statements that stick with the reader throughout the essay so that they will have more attachment to what is being said. Levin is particularly leaning to an audience based in the United States because he uses an allusion to reference an event that happened within the states and will better relate to the people that were impacted by it. The emotional appeals used in this essay are used for the purpose of persuading the reader to agree that in extreme instances torture is necessary and the United States should begin considering it as a tactic for future cases of extremity. One major eye catching factor of this essay is the repetitive use of words that imply certain stigmas.
Deterrence and retribution are two major philosophies that underpin punishment in the Criminal Justice System. Deterrence is a philosophy which aims to prevent or reduce crime through the fear of punishment with the aim that the threat of punishment will prevent people committing crimes. Whereas retribution is a philosophy which aims to punish the criminal for the act caused with the idea that the punishment should be proportional to the harm caused for example the idea of ‘an eye for an eye’ (Philosophies of punishment 2005). The aim of this report is to define and explain both retribution and deterrence compare and contrast the philosophies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. Identifying which philosophy is the most effective for
The author believes that the thoughts of enlightened societies are unwise and ascertains that there are situations whereby torture becomes morally mandatory in dealing with terrorists.
The attractiveness of this theory is primarily based on the ethical code that Hampton subscribes to, which is that pain-inflicted punishments should not be condoned when it comes to disciplining wrongdoers. Rather, constructive analysis done pertaining to why certain actions are morally wrong in society would be intellectually stimulating and productive for both the wrongdoers and the public, all while avoiding the infliction of physical pain. Compared to the retributivist argument, which circulates around the idea that the purpose of punishment is to make wrongdoers pay for their misdeeds, and that they should be treated the way that they have treated others, the MET is a more humane way to treat wrongdoers, and in the long run, would perhaps help them emerge from confinement as better citizens within society, rather than as potential repeat offenders. Therefore, the appeal of the MET stems from the positive implications of treating wrongdoers with respect and dignity, all while teaching them why their actions were wrong while simultaneously instilling positive and moral values in their psyche before allowing them to re-enter
The death penalty, is the loss of life, which is induced by different tactics. The most common methods in the United States is lethal injection, hanging, firing squad, and the electric chair. The most chosen method by inmates is lethal injection. Lethal injection consists of the inmate being strapped to an operating table or gurney and a trained medical doctor will place two needles into the veins of the arms(Death Penalty Information Center).
Torture is a topic that has come under intense scrutiny and debate regarding whether there are any circumstances in which it should be employed, and if its is absolute legal ban should not be protected and respected. Recently, terrorism has brought to the public 's eye the violent tactics used by terrorist, against humanity. The September 11 terrorist attacks, in the New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, lead to the passing of the "Patriot Act" when George Bush signed a secret finding empowering CIA to "Capture, Kill, or Interrogate Al-Queda Leaders"( Bush, 2001:). The most predicted and widely publicized
There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation.