In Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, the murder of the pawnbroker bears little significance when compared to the 'punishment' that Raskolnikov endures. The murder is the direct result of Raskolnikov's Ubermensch theory. Though it takes a while for Raskolnikov to realize the profound mistake in his theory and in his logic, his tedious yet prolific journey eventually leads him to redemption. Suffering, guilt and societal alienation prompt Raskolnikov to reject his Ubermensch theory and ultimately achieve redemption. Through Raskolnikov's character, Dostoevsky reveals that the psychological punishment inflicted by an unethical action is more effective in leading to self-realization than any physical punishment.
They can find no reasonable solution for the conundrum presented by his actions, so brainwashing is the only way out in the eyes of the government. It is my personal belief that extreme punishments for the actions of violent criminals have not been a decent deterrent for their continued actions. If society can find a way to learn from the lessons of our history and the visions presented by Kubrick, there may actually be an intelligent solution to the problem of crime. The assertions of Vincent Canby were dead on in their description of this film, and I agree wholeheartedly with him. The next step in this process is identifying the overall messages and learning from them, only then will there be any resolution to the problems of law and punishment.
Whereas, Woody Allen uses the character of Chris to relate the nihilist theme: the world exist without a higher power or a moral justice system; therefore, there is no reason to conform to social constraints. Match Point challenges the ideals presented in Crime and Punishment, that one has to b... ... middle of paper ... ...esponsibility of moral obligation and punishes themselves. Chris, was able to move on from this, he moved on from the guilt and the crime, his indifference is the root of his success. By contrasting Match Point’s murder scene, to the murder scene in Crime and Punishment, Woody Allen challenges Dostoyevsky’s argument that society is bound by moral obligation, rather the reality is that there are no constraints binding individuals to a moral compass; therefore, one can do anything without fear of repercussion. The latter which reflects the society and the social standards that govern the actions of society.
If a person chooses to disturb this equilibrium by committing murder, he is no longer living among society as a rational human being. An irrational human being has no rights because rights come from man’s nature as a rational being. (Landauer) One of the top arguments against capital punishment falls back on one of the principles of morality. The principle states that the taking of one’s life is wrong in all aspects notwithstanding the seriousness of the crimes and wrongdoing of such person. (Yost) If this was the case, why do we allow people to kill in their own self-defense or authorize police officers the use of deadly force when needed, all which can be easily justified.
In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.
Locke fears the state gaining too much control over man in the long run. He holds a great deal of faith in man, as Mill does not. Although Mill does not necessarily distrust man, he yearns for limited rights of the individual by the state. This nullifies any rights individuals are said to have because they allow themselves to follow the whims of the state.
Furthermore, Justice Kennedy’s idea of “evolving standards of decency” in Roper v. Simmons (2005) demonstrates that the growing national consensus is against the death penalty and therefore in favor of equal protection for all persons. In order to prove the existence of purposeful discrimination, McCleskey must first demonstrate that he belonged to a group “that is a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment” (McCleskey v. Kemp 318). Here, McCleskey relied on the Baldus study,... ... middle of paper ... ...cision-making process, McCleskey has clearly been wrongfully punished for his crime. The death sentence imposed on him was decided in a racially bias manner that targeted him for his black background. The fact that his victim was White and not Black increased the likelihood of his receiving the death sentence.
All through this book Winston's convictions lead us to believe that he is ethical and the Party is unjust but it is left up to the readers discretion to decide whether he is the criminal or just a victim of a totalitarian society. The first instance of Winstons "criminal" nature was when he bought an illegal journal, quill and bottle of ink to record his thoughts. Although he had so called "criminal" thoughts before, the journal seemed to bring out the more daring ideas in him as to how to get free from the Party's reign. This all indirectly led to his meeting with a woman called Julia who shared his feelings and was either very brave or very foolish because she was more open then he about her feelings. I believe that these and the other actions following his initial "criminal" offence are justified and that Winston Smith is not a "criminal".
As he stated at a later time: “I just stood aside and said to myself that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me. My toleration for the anti Semitic campaign made me responsible for it.” This admission of guilt won a fair amount of sympathy from the court. The reasons he gave for being with the Nazi party was that he was taken by Hitler’s personality and also realised that if he was to achieve his dream as an architect he will have to sell his soul to the party. This image of Speer was to be accepted for a while by most historians and was given little attention. This was probably because Speer was a little less ‘spectacular’ than Hitler’s other henchmen.
Kershaw provides support for his argument by including the views of other structuralists, such as Hans Mommsen, Martin Broszat, and ... ... middle of paper ... ...ons imposed their own restrictions on Hitler’s maneuverability”. Therefore, Hitler made those decisions based not only on his own beliefs, but also in accordance to the beliefs of his followers and fellow leaders. Many of the developments that happened under Hitler’s reign would likely have still happened had Hitler not been elected, because they “were in certain respects likely if not inevitable as the unfinished business of the First World War and the post-war settlement”. There are few discontinuities in German foreign policy after 1933, giving reason to believe this theory. His choices were based on the traditions of German policy and were aimed at reaching domination in central Europe, which leads to the conclusion that World War II was not the result of Hitler’s master plan, because it may have been the result no matter who was in charge at the time (360).