Capital Punishment: Justice in Retribution The American government operates in the fashion of an indirect democracy. Citizens live under a social contract whereby individuals agree to forfeit certain rights for the good of the whole. Punishments for crimes against the state are carried out via due process, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The use of capital punishment is decided by the state, which is legal in thirty-seven states. It is a moral imperative to protect the states' rights to decide their own position on the use of capital punishment. Capital punishment is a method of retributive punishment as old as civilization itself. Both the Greeks and the Romans invoked the death penalty for a wide variety of offenses. Socrates and Jesus were perhaps the most famous people ever condemned for a capital crime in the ancient period. Hammurabi's Code, a code of laws developed by the king of one of the first empires, dates back from the third or second millennium before Christ. This code claims that retribution, an eye for an eye and a life for a life, is justice. In Anglo-American law the death penalty has been a customary response to certain kinds of offenses. The movement in America to have the death penalty declared unconstitutional received paramount attention during the landmark case of 'Furman v. Georgia,' rendered on June 29, 1972, which declared the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment. No executions took place between 1967 and 1977 (Bedau, 1992). However, after a supreme court decision in 1975 'Gregg v. Georgia', which stated capital punishment did not violate the Eighth Amendment, executions commenced again under state supervision. Should capital punishment be continued? Retribution is a ju... ... middle of paper ... ...nal awaits the sentence to be carried out. This lesson may be said not to benefit society since it is too late for the criminal. It is also too late for the victim who was murdered in cold blood. To look at this as "bloodthirsty revenge" would be saying that capital punishment is itself the injustice. Is it not an injustice to let a cold-blooded killer escape the consequences of a crime? A society that tolerates injustice can by no means be called just. Works Cited Bedau, Hugo Adam. In Spite of Innocence. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992. Block, Eugene B.. When Men Play God: The Fallacy of Capital Punishment. San Francisco: Cragmont Publications, 1983. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Civil Government. Ch 2, Sec 6. Meltser, Michael. Cruel and Unusual: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment. New York: Random House, 1973.
According to Morris Liebman, author of “Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Society Under Law,” “Never in the history of mankind have so many lived so freely, so rightfully, so humanely. This open democratic republic is man’s highest achievement—not only for what it has already accomplished, but more importantly because it affords the greatest opportunity for orderly change and the realization of man’s self-renewing aspirations.” What Liebman fails to realize is that while the United States of America has made improvements, the United States still has a far way to go before it can be considered a fair country. Liebman also states that “The plain fact of human nature is that the organized disobedience of masses stirs up the primitive. This has been true of a soccer crowd and a lynch mob. Psychologically and psychiatrically it is very clear that no man—no matter how well-intentioned—can keep group passions in control.” While disagreeing with the first example from Liebman, it would be difficult to disregard the way that many protests seem to spiral out of control. Peaceful protest for the most part remain peaceful, however some may turn violent very quickly. Liebman also believes that there is no such thing as “righteous civil disobedience” as men and women are deliberately disregarding laws set in place to protect the country, and regards it as deplorable and destructive(Liebman). To combat Liebman, a new age of civil disobedience is rolling in, a more inclusive type. With various social media platforms, word of walkouts and peaceful, with an emphasis on peaceful, protests are spread more quickly. These student led activist groups are popping up more quickly and are not lacking in passion. Many students of today are tired of being told their too young and inexperienced to be taking
Although most people would find violence a necessity to gaining what they want, Caesar Chavez recognizes the benefits of nonviolent resistance. Violence is the instinctive reaction people have to a variety of situations. This was often the case with opposing views people had during the Civil Rights Era. In a magazine of religious organization the author Chavez emphasizes how nonviolent resistance will earn them equal rights with little to no bloodshed through the use of several rhetorical devices.
"Lesson 3 :: Non-Violence and Mass Civil Disobedience « Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Web. 16 Nov. 2010.
The Death Penalty is cruel and unusual, however we still give constitutional acceptance to the federal system. It presents “a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in civilized society.”(1) It is wrong to advocate the the use of the capital punishment when numerous options are available to those in need of rehabilitation. Three of the most prominent problems with continuing this archaic method of retribution are innocents conflicted with inaccurate verdicts, the death penalty being a state-sanctioned killing that only continues the evolution of violence, and the nation's taxes going towards the purchase of fatal narcotics used in the killings of fellow human beings.
A key argument expressed within “A Force More Powerful” is that non-violent protest is an effective method to motivate social and political change. The documentary provides three case studies as historical instances where non-violent protest met high levels of success. A main purpose of the filmmakers is to investigate the non-violent aspects of popular uprisings that had been previously underestimated in terms of their contribution to a larger conflict. The instances taken as case studies are all of groups marginalised due to racial, colonial, and economic reasons. The histories of the conflicts from which arise the case studies are given only briefly, with a focus upon the groups shown to be oppressed by their respective states and governmental institutions.
In this paper I will argue for the moral permissibility of the death penalty and I am fairly confident that when the case for capital punishment is made properly, its appeal to logic and morality is compelling. The practice of the death penalty is no longer as wide-spread as it used to be throughout the world; in fact, though the death penalty was nearly universal in past societies, only 71 countries world-wide still officially permit the death penalty (www.infoplease.com); the U.S. being among them. Since colonial times, executions have taken place in America, making them a part of its history and tradition. Given the pervasiveness of the death penalty in the past, why do so few countries use the death penalty, and why are there American states that no longer sanction its use? Is there a moral wrong involved in the taking of a criminal’s life? Of course the usual arguments will be brought up, but beyond the primary discourse most people do not go deeper than their “gut feeling” or personal convictions. When you hear about how a family was ruthlessly slaughtered by a psychopathic serial killer most minds instantly feel that this man should be punished, but to what extent? Would it be just to put this person to death?
Sometimes civil disobedience can become violent as in the case in South Africa during the struggle to end apartied. It started out with passive resistance, but after years of struggling with no change, a violent group was formed and was willing to do anything to get the freedom they desired.
Since the 1700’s forms of the death penalty have been used for one reason or another, but today some disagree with this judicial practice. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment imposed for murder or other capital offenses, and in Alabama a capital offense is murder with eighteen aggravating factors. In 1972 the Supreme Court moved away from abolition, holding that “the punishment of death does not invariably violate the constitution” (Bedau, Case against 2). Since 1900, in this country, there have been on the average more than four cases each year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder (Bedau 7) and because of these startling numbers people are against capital punishment. It is a horrible reality to convict an innocent person of a crime and even worse to put this person on death row. There are even more horrific stories, like the one of Roger Keith Coleman, who was executed in Virginia despite widely pu...
Offenders given mandatory life in prison on charges of murder, on average only serve 16 years before being released back into society. One in three of these killers carries out a second murder even under the supervision of the probation officer.1 If we allow murderers to spend life in prison we run the chance of them getting out and killing again. Capital punishment can also deter future perpetrators from committing such a heinous crime, and it will end the prisoner’s suffering by giving them a humane death and give closure to the victim’s family. Without a concrete meaning of “life in prison” we need the death penalty to put an end to the most evil of people.
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
From Black Lives Matter protests to Pro-Gun protests- if you have an opinion there is a group willing to voice it with you. Civil disobedience is uncomfortable. It calls you to make a choice, to take a side or at least consider one seriously. While uncomfortable and awkward for the passerby, the right to peacefully protest is an important one that keeps free society from becoming stagnant. It forces not only the every day citizen to have an opinion, but also those in power to look closely at the decisions and impact of such
The “tension” that nonviolent direct action creates, can become a positive force which may enable change; far better than violent direct action as, who would want to listen to a violent person? The violent person is likely to snap under pressure; however the nonviolent person can better bend to logic. In fact one of the meanings of the word violent is “of, relating to, or constituting a distortion of meaning or fact.”
In the months leading up to President Trump’s presidency, there have been a constant flow of protests and marches against his policies and political views. With the mass demonstrations taking place every other week about a different issue, it is important to examine whether peaceful resistance is beneficial to a free society or rather becomes a nuisance to the public. Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a society because it allows groups to freely express their opinions and mold government to fit society’s changing morals.
To discern the overall effects of civil disobedience on a society, one must consider the purpose of a government, and determine the lesser of the two evils that the concept of peaceful resistance may bring about.
The Theme of Death in Poetry Robert Frost and Emily Dickinson are two Modern American Poets who consistently wrote about the theme of death. While there are some comparisons between the two poets, when it comes to death as a theme, their writing styles were quite different. Robert Frost’s poem, “Home Burial,” and Emily Dickinson’s poems, “I felt a Funeral in my Brain,” and “I died for Beauty,” are three poems concerning death. While the theme is constant there are differences as well as similarities between the poets and their poems. The obvious comparison between the three poems is the theme of death.