The issues with wrongful convictions for the criminal justice system is that people in society look up to the criminal justice system because of its almighty power to protect the citizens from criminals. However, when such cases of wrongful conviction appear, people are frightened that an innocent person can be convicted for no reason and the same may happen to them. The public is confident in the criminal justice system and how it would do its job in protecting and serving the society. People give up some power in order for the criminal justice system to protect and ensure people’s freedom and rights. If someone commits a crime on someone, the law makes the wrongdoer pay in some way.
Public shaming at times is not even a punishment for some, if someone does a crime they should also do the time. Public shaming can comes with serious consequences if given to the wrong person and if given to others it is just a slap on the wrist. Crimes should be taken seriously and so should the punishments. People should go to jail or do community service based on what they have done, they should not be let go so easily. The court system seems to think that by using public shaming a criminal will not do the crime again.
Capital punishment is usually only sentenced when the prosecution feels that the crime is so unjust that there is no other recourse but the death ... ... middle of paper ... ...an effective deterrent to crime as it is meant to be. Some opponents of capital punishment point to the fact that capital punishment is rarely used in comparison to the amount of actual murder convictions. The logic behind this claim seems to be at fault. This is especially noticed when considering that many of the opponents of capital punishment believe life to be the most important thing that one can have, that it is a basic right bestowed to everyone. Logically, wouldn’t threatening to remove the most important thing in somebody’s life serve as deterrence to committing such a crime?
The hardest punishment therefore is being imprisoned for life. Beccaria believes the need for the death penalty isn't necessary in majority of the cases. Instead of having the crimes of the convicted spread all over the media for attention and entertainment, which is the reality of capital punishment, the justice should be paid for with the criminal's life through his years. Through the process and years of being in jail, the convicted begins to process his actions and the emotions of forgiveness or repentance come into play. Just as the justice system believes murder is a crime, they shouldn't use the same to punish a criminal.
At first society and government officials respond positively due to the getting tough on crime policy but did this law really keeping the public safe by locking up all those petty criminal offenders, or are we just spending billions of tax payers dollars on the prison system. What does it mean to be for or against it, should this apply to everyone in all criminal situations given the fact that some are minor verses major violent crimes? In a study by Kovandzic found, first, that Three Strikes laws are positively associated with homicide rates in cities in three strikes states and, second, that cities in Three Strikes states witnessed no significant reduction in crime rates. Kovandzic, et al. 2004.
Capital Punishment Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison. The most famous retributivist Kant, states that the guilty ought to get punished because they chose to act wrongly, and by punishing them, we are respecting them as a moral agents. This occurs because humans are given the ability to reason and act morally and thus if we don’t punish them we are not treating them as moral agents.
Take into consideration that the Constitution states that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can not be taken away without due process. The offenders committing the brutal, heinous crimes have not applied this right to the victims of their crimes. Why should the government take their rights into consideration when the victims rights meant so little to them? People always put forth the idea that killing is wrong in any sense, yet they don’t want to punish the people that commit the crimes. If a person is so uncompassionate for human life and not care what happens; are sick enough to harm someone else, they should also pay the price with their lives.
In this world we live in many feel that prisons exist to punish, not counsel, offenders. That may be true that Prisons exist for punishment, but they also have an important contribution to make to reducing re-offending by engaging prisoners in rehabilitation programs and purposeful work. Society is flawed in its thinking that by putting criminals in a place away from society we would be better off. To make it worse I am sure that more that 60 percent of Americans are against social reform because they have made up their mind that once a crook, always a crook. This is flawed mainly because it seems to assume that showing people that what they've done is wrong will always accomplish something, that punishing those who commit crimes will deter others from following the same pattern.
An execution takes one’s life to warn the community with the hope that the crime rates would go down. But it is extremely cruel, and it makes people feel like they are living in the ancient world when there are no human rights. Now the world is evolving in the way of civilizing, so execution should be kicked out of this society because instead of bringing benefits to the community, the execution brings a lot of more destruction. There is a common knowledge that capital punishment would prevent people from committing crime. But until now, there has not been any actual statistics or scientific researches that prove the relationship between the capital punishment and the rate of crimes.
Though the two theories have society as a common denominator, they still differ in the aspects of perception such as how people are perceived into crime and how others are enticed into it. No society will ever be crime free and likewise probably could not function it they were. Theories will come and theories will go as many different societies try to figure out how to pinpoint to origins of wanting to commit criminal behavior. On its search to answer this question, society can slowly be turning people to feel that they have no choice but to want to commit offenses because they want the best in life too. Also giving rise to a generation of individuals who are born with good intentions but are swayed to be and act different because of labels and the stigma that surrounds being who they