Free will of mankind is a gift from God. Nowadays, it is difficult for us to distinguish what is right from wrong. Free will sometimes eradicates values. In our country, different crimes and unjustified acts of human beings because of excessive freedom destroys one another’s life. In the old days, the very popular barbaric law was “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” which it is a vengeful nature of compensating justice that a person who has injured another person is penalized to an equal or similar degree of damages the victim received. Everyone feared for their lives. Today, many people firmly believe that, it is against the law of God especially with the modern Christians and the moral standards of the society. Thus, laws are promulgated …show more content…
Laws protects you from evil or outside aggression or harm, creates a framework to establish rules for a society to live and work together and to reduce crime, promotes the common good, ensures that justice has been served, and maintain social order. Further, it lays out the nature of proper and improper human conduct, denounces punishments for misconduct as a deterrent, and establishes the creation of enforcement mechanisms –police, jail management and penology – both prevent crime and carry penal acts. Yes, the Philippines do have laws because it is a democratic and republican State where the rule is majority of the people in which power begins from the people and government for the people. If there is a conflict of interest between the State and the majority of the people, the latter shall prevail. In other words, any law passed by the Congress constituted by the representatives of the people should be one that benefits the majority of the people. However, not all of these laws, that are passed, are beneficial, prevalent, or properly penalized. Such are the cases of the late transgender Jennifer Laude, the Subic rape case of Suzette Nicolas and the drug mule Mary Jane …show more content…
Perhaps, a harder stance on punishing is required in order to make real change. Thus, I truly believe that in order to prevent such heinous crimes, death penalty should be restored. It should be administered to these social deviants of serious and violent crimes. In China, no social class is an exception. Even a billionaire who ran a criminal gang was recently executed. It instills fear to the Filipinos and provides closure to the victims. Although, it may not completely eradicate crime but the Filipinos are hungry for some real change when it comes to dealing out justice and perhaps, this could be a good first step. Death execution can be restored if only and only if there will be a major reformation of the Philippine politics and the way of punishing social deviants. There should be no exception or be given special treatment in being penalized under the Philippine law for it is a fact that money talks in the country, and that, justice here in the Philippines can be influenced by the mighty and the wealthy. Lastly, the purpose of the restoration of death penalty and reformation of penal acts is to tame the wild Filipinos which I believe that, not only it would strengthen the Philippine government but also would help in our economic growth.
The road to amending the justice system is definitely going to
Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.
The code of Hammurabi, dating back to 1772 BC, is one of the oldest recorded legal codes and reflects the early Babylonians’ views of justice. The code is best known for “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” By enumerating punishments for certain crimes the code removes ambiguity and combined with its relatively harsh penalties, especially on lower class citizens, served as an effective deterrent. More profoundly however, Hammurabi’s code formally shifted justice-seeking responsibilities from the individual to the state. Today, most modern legal systems are structured similarly to Hammurabi’s code with their own codified laws and listed punishments. Capital punishment and the idea that “the punishment should fit he crime” are derivatives from the ancient text that are widespread in the world today.
' The notion that punishment is needed as an example asserts that the punishment for murder, or the punishment any crime for that matter, should be employed as a deterrent and to inspire fear that will prevent others from fulfilling the said crime in the future. This illustrates a depressing and gloomy view of human nature, as being corrupt at its core and that fear remains the only thing that prevents us from committing evil acts. Rather, I believe that laws and the punishments associated with the infringement of laws are an agreement between a citizen and the society they live in about what is appropriate and agreeable behavior that protects the basic rights of all citizens and holds all citizens as equal in front of the law. Thus, if someone kills another person and the circumstances of the crime are not within the previously established laws, then the person should be held responsible regardless of whether one would kill that person if they could help it or
The two extremes of our behavior, in which we may self-sacrifice, but may also take the lives of others, demonstrate our highly mixed nature. However, with the exception of “moral monsters”, most of our sinfulness rests on “unchosen evil” facilitated precisely by our human nature (Kekes 84; 66). Philosopher David Livingstone Smith identities authorization as a necessary condition for behavior contrary to our need for cooperation (127-26). When “persons in positions of authority endorse acts of violence, the perpetrator is less inclined to feel personally responsible, and therefore less guilty in performing them” (Smith 127). Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience to Authority” experiment, in which subjects delivered shocks to another person despite hearing and even seeing the suffering they were inflicting, confirms this phenomenon. When interviewed afterwards, Milgram’s subjects expressed sentiment that they did not want to continue with the experiment, but they firmly believed such decision was not up to them (Lecture 9.28.2016). Participants’ autonomy became corrupted acted in response to the powerful cultural values of loyalty, “obedience, and discipline” which often “count for more […] than individual conscience and private morality” (Gray
Reverting back to flogging, a primitive form of punishment, would counterbalance the efficacy of crime prevention. Clearly, times are different. Both people and the crimes they commit have changed and flogging as the popular process of edification for convicted criminals is of the past and jail time is of the present. In actuality, people should be investigating ways to inhibit crimes from occurring rather than seeking out ways to punish people. All in all, criminals whether convicted for murder or tax evasion are still criminals and will serve imprisonment accordingly.
Most are familiar with the phrase "If you truly love it, set it free." There is a grander implantation of the phrase. For example, in the bible God created man and woman. God also created the Tree of Knowledge and said not to eat from it. This was the one sin that they were capable of committing. Adam and Eve only new one right and one wrong which was not to eat from the tree or to eat from it. Why would God create the opportunity for them to sin? If he did not create the tree they could not have done wrong. The answer is that he loved them so much that he gave them free will and the ability to sin. This relates to the question of morality with our government. It is not the place of the government to remove our ability to commit crime or the thoughts of crime. Punishment, rather than prevention, should be the focus of our judicial system. That fear of punishment should be the sole preventive of crime. As Michael stated,"Using technology to prevent the crime entirely would not unduly burden individual freedom." Thus, it is better to allow the possibility of a crime being committed and punished if found guilty rather than preventing it entirely at the cost of
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
Capital punishment is a declining institution as the twentieth century nears its end. At one time capital punishment was a common worldwide practice, but now it is only used for serious violation of laws in 100 of the world's 180 nations (Haines 3 ). It can be traced back to the earliest forms of civilization. The origins of the movement away from capital punishment are difficult to date precisely. The abolition movement can be heard as early as the religious sermons of the Quakers in the 1640's (Masur 4). In the seventeenth century, the Anglo-American world began to rely less on public executions and more in favor of private punishments. The possible decline in popularity of the capital punsihment system is directly related to the many controversial issues it entails such as: the questions of deterrence, morals and ethics, constitutionality, and economics.
While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that capital punishment is being used for vengeance or as a deterrent. Capital punishment has been used worldwide, not only by the governments to instill fear, but to show that there are repercussions to ones actions. From the time we are born, we are taught to learn the difference between right and wrong. It is ingrained in our brains, what happens to people that do bad things? Capital punishment is renowned for being the worst thing that could be brought amongst ones life.
To begin this discussion on mortality, it is necessary to define the moral context. Therefore, for the purposes of this essay, I define the act of regularly torturing people to death without due judicial process as an affront on general morality. Discussions of Kant's views on free will would suggest that this is because taking a person's life deprives them of their free will (Newton). The act of torture, which, by definition, is an activity which the participant does not wish to engage in, also deprives a person of free will. The act of ending a person's life also deprives society of further contributions from that person which is a key element of greater enlightenment. The lack of due judicial process is more ambiguous and is not the major subject of this essay.
Capital punishment, a topic that is constantly debated, is questioned on whether or not it serves its purpose which is to deter criminals and if it is morally acceptable. It is my goal to evaluate arguments that promote or reject capital punishment and its deterrence factor. It would be beneficial comparing crime statistics for states that uphold and states that abolish capital punishment. Finally, an investigation of criminals facing the death penalty and their thoughts as well as modern prison conditions will provide insight to this debate. Capital punishment could be a great deterrent to crime or it may have no effect at all.
The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge. Capital punishment is a custom in which prisoners are executed in accordance with judicial practice when they are convicted of committing a “capital crime.”
...ent defendants can be killed and a large amount of money can be spent annually are all the consequences of executing death sentence. The world will become worse and worse as everyone follows the steps of government for being violent. Therefore, in order to avoid these inconceivable consequences, we should support fully for abolishing death sentence. Life in prison without parole is a more effective punishment for offenders. The offenders can not only given a chance to appreciate the government for no implement death sentence to them, but also can be educated to become a better person who can contribute to society and expiate of their errors. Thus, there is no reason to continue the capital punishment in the nation while the phrase “If you murder, you must pay for a life” is no longer suitable as prevent violence by violence cannot be accepted anymore by the society.
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.