Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why capital punishment allowed
Why is capital punishment justified
Why capital punishment allowed
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why capital punishment allowed
Why is capital punishment justified
Why capital punishment allowed
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Nathanson continues to argue against capital punishment by arguing not only against the equal punishment principle but also the proportional retributivism view. While Nathanson believes proportional retributivism plays an important role our determination of appropriate punishment for criminals, it does not, however, apply nor aide arguments in favor of the death
Within this framework, individuals are considered to make rational choices, equally capable of reason and therefore shall be deemed responsible for their actions and deterred through potential threat. Today, classical thinking is evident in sentencing via the “just deserts” approach. This approach to sentencing assures that someone who is found guilty of a crime must be punished for the crime. The just deserts approach rejects individual discretion and rehabilitation – insisting “justice must be
From a utilitarian perspective, the potential deterrent effect of capital punishment is questionable, as research has shown that it does not significantly reduce crime rates (Equal Justice Initiative, 2023). Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of violence and retribution that undermines the ultimate goal of
He suggests that other social policies also lead to the death of innocent individuals, but they are not banned. The author presents deductive arguments to support his position, including the idea that murderers who are not executed have the potential to harm more innocent people. He believes that opponents of capital punishment should acknowledge their responsibility for innocent lives lost due to murderers who were not executed. Prager concludes that capital punishment is necessary to protect innocent lives. Opponents should confront their responsibility for every innocent already murdered and yet to be murdered by murderers who should have been
The criminal code must be have the individual give up some sort of liberties back to the state (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball 2015). As Beccaria explained, utilitarianism reformed the criminal and revisits the usage of incapacitation, deter
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.
Injustice in The Criminal Justice System Due to several injustices within the American justice system, society has become more divided. The criminal justice system in the United States has been criticized for being a race-based establishment Institutions where minorities are subjected to more strenuous punishments than their white counterparts. Nonetheless, it goes without any debate that racism exists in the justice system. Are these realities the errors of a moral justice system, or does it prove that the criminal bias organization is working as expected? Is the criminal justice system utilized to regulate and manage the minority population?
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.
Incapacitation refers to removing an offender’s capacity to commit further criminal offences (Carison et al). Incapacitation focuses on two approaches, selective and collective. Selective incapacitation is reserved for repeat offenders. It has emerged from the ideal that the overall crime rate would be reduced if chronic
The retribution part is to punish the person for the crime that they permitted against society, and the incapacitation part is to remove that person out of society so they do no further harm. Deterrence means the prevention of future crime, and the rehabilitation teaches life skills and in the betterment. However, author Sandiford says that instead of solving crime, mass incarceration has infected our communities and striking them with devastating symptoms, and prison costs have skyrocketed, inmates ' families have been torn apart, and the system is overwhelmingly stratified by race and class (Sandiford,
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
In this essay, I will discuss whether the claim that retributivists are making are right by justifying whether their assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded. A person who has committed a crime must be punished. Punishment makes sure that the offender pays their debt to the society or state. Retributivism justifies that punishment is payback for crime and its main goal is to give the offender their just deserts.
However, crimes are committed whilst in prison, such as drugs and assaults. Some critics say the ‘three strikes and you are out’ law where repeat offenders get a longer sentence are wrong, as the third strike could be a lesser crime such as public disorder. Nevertheless, if just incapacitation and no rehabilitation some critics say will be costlier to society as they will go out and reoffend and, they are not employed and pay taxes. Rehabilitation is also a punishment which should improve the offender's behaviour and stop them committing crimes. Advocates of rehabilitation state prison does not work; however, critics of rehabilitation state prison does work as the criminal cannot commit a crime against the public while incarcerated (Cavadino, 2007 p 36/56).
The theory views the offender as either a patient or a victim or both. According to this theory a person who has committed an offense is not morally responsible for the offense he or she has committed because the offense might be the product of an illness in which treatment is required; this type of person is regarded as a patient. When the offense is the product of a dysfunctional social environment the person is regarded as the victim. The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the offenders, instead of punishing the offenders this approach focuses on repairing and treating the dysfunctional areas that the offenders are experiencing by means of behavioral therapy and other therapeutic programmes.
In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.