Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the importance of punishment
the death penalty introduction abstract
effects of punishment on behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the importance of punishment
Catholics and Capital Punishment
Catholic opponents of the death penalty sometimes seem to lose sight of the primary purpose of punishment. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense." If I commit a serious offense against society, I bring about a disorder, and the point of punishment is to reestablish the lost order. If I willingly accept my punishment, "it assumes the value of expiation." And it can protect you from future crimes I might commit. The Catechism thus gives three purposes of punishment: defending public order, protecting people, and moral change in the criminal.
Paragraph 2267 reminds us that "the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" but then adds, "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." This appears to make a secondary purpose of punishment override the primary. That appearance has led to some fuzzy thinking. The correct meaning must be that the primary aim of punishment can be achieved short of exacting the death penalty. A single means-say, life imprisonment-restores the order lost by the crime, protects society against future crimes of the incarcerated, and gives the prisoner a chance to repent.
The paragraph should not be read as making the protection of society trump everything else. Why? Because imprisonment protects society against future possible crimes. But the criminal cannot be punished for what he might do; he is in prison because of what he has already done. If life imprisonment is to serve the primary purpose of punishment, it must, like the death penalty, be primarily justified as sufficiently "redressing the disorder introduced by the offense."
Paragraph 2267 is concerned exclusively with a secondary purpose of punishment: protecting society. Unless, as suggested, "protecting society" be taken to comprehend "redressing the disorder." (Paragraph 2266 distinguishes "defending public order" from "protecting people's safety.") One sometimes hears in the clamor to end the death penalty that retribution is no longer the aim of punishment. But if there is no cause for retribution, punishment is unjust: All that would excuse it is the fear that someone might in the future harm us and that solitude might better his soul.
Enthusiasm sometimes obscures the fact that the Catechism "does not exclude recourse to the death penalty." However rare such recourse might be, even if it were only once in a millennium, it would have to be justified.
film. But the clue that it is a horror film is the music, it is
' 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
Gelernter argues that we do sentence for 6 reasons. We sentence for retribution, deterrence, incapability, rehabilitation, reparation, or denunciation. We do not have the death penalty for retribution because if we did we would have the family of the deceased kill the murder. The death penalty is not use to deter crime, because if that was the case we would do public executions. There are other means for incapability, so that is not the function of the death penalty. The death penalty has no sense of rehabilitation because your killing the guilty, and there are no reparations. The death penalty functions as a public proclamation that murder is a crime that will not be tolerable. Gelernter argues that murder requires this communal
The use of the death penalty shows us that revenge is honored in our society. The cost of incarcerating an offender for their lifetime is much less than the cost of executing that same offender. In spite of the lower cost to imprison, we continue to execute offenders. To me, this mindset shows a system that considers the death of another to be a victory.
The majority claims that the death penalty serves two purposes, restitution and deterrence. Quoting the prior case of Fruman v. Georgia, that “The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by laws. …
Capital punishment, otherwise known as “The Death Penalty,” has been around for many years and has been the cause of death for over twelve hundred inmates since 1976 (“Death Penalty Information Center”), but is the Death Penalty really beneficial to the American public? This question is in the back of many people’s minds, and has left many questioning the meaning of the punishment. The death penalty targets murderers or high profile cases. Some say that the death penalty should apply to those who murder, rape, or abuse human beings such as children, or women. The significance of the penalty is to teach these criminals that there are laws that must be followed. In a figurative sense, it is to teach those potential wrongdoers a lesson. By examining the facts around us, we can gain a greater sense of security, and a greater understanding of what the death penalty can accomplish, all while assessing the high-quality aspects that the penalty has to offer.
Eliminating the death penalty as a method of punishment will only allow criminals to wreak havoc and chaotic in our community without the fear of death. When a person commits a crime, they are disrupting the order in the community. Justice help restore the disruption of that order. The Death penalty restore social order and give the states authority to maximized retribution for the victims. When the state does not have the authority to maximum retribution, the public may put the law in their own hands. Although, execution may be cruel and inhumane, it is nothing compared to the fate of many victims in the hand of the murderers. The purpose of the death penalty is to provide retribution for the victims and their families. However, retribution is not revenge. “Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime” (Pojman, 2004).
Travelling around the world, this paper presents the various religious perspectives evidenced in recent actions taken regarding the death penalty.
He argues that the only punishment possibly equivalent to death, the amount of inflicted harm, is death. Death is qualitatively different from any kind of life, so no substitute could be found that would equal death(6). The down side of the retributive system of just can be observed in our modern practices of zero tolerance laws. These laws have placed values of some wrongdoings so high that punishment for relatively minor offenses can see an offender detained for substantially longer than arguably needed to repay the harm they caused. Placing a grater demand on our prison facilities and creates a circle of offense and
During the spring semester I read Evangelium Vitae: The Gospel of Life. Paragraphs 27 and 56 of this encyclical prompted a discussion of the death penalty with other students. Their first reaction was that the Pope was against it and that he was saying that the penalty has no justification. There was general resistance to the suggestion that while the Pope's attitude toward the death penalty is, to put it mildly, unfavorable, he did not flat out say that it was immoral, wrong, without justification.
Hopefully I’ve made the point that the death penalty is useless except for delivering some sort of closure to a victims’ loved ones, through this type of closure is morally wrong, and can be achieved through life imprisonment of the murderer. And because capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, because life imprisonment is a better option, and because the innocent wouldn’t have to die; capital punishment should be abolished.
The death penalty or some prefer to call it capital punishment has been around since 1608. During the foundation of our country there were twelve death – eligible crimes of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and they were as follows: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, murder, manslaughter, poisoning, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, man stealing , false witness in capital cases and conspiracy & rebellion. While some are absolutely for it and some are absolutely against it there is one factor that comes into play on both sides of the argument and that factor is religion. Many people will state that there is or should be a line between church and state however religion has and will always play a major role in ones conceptual thinking as to what is right and as to what is wrong what is moral and what is immoral. Despite the fact that people would rather think or rationalize without involving religion is nearly impossible. “By virtually any definition, religion involves a central concern with making sense of life and death. The American legal system, rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics, routinely confronts issues that test our basic assumptions about the meaning and sanctity of life and about the role of the State in shaping and sustaining such meanings” (Young,1992).
Above all else, capital punishment should be morally justified in extreme situations because it will have a deterrent effect. Many criminals seem to be threatened more by the thought of death rather than a long-term prison sentence. If a criminal is sentenced to twenty-five years in prison then he/she knows that all the necessities needed to survive for those twenty-five years, including food, water, shelter, and even a possible chance of release will be pro...
as Hertz (Hz). The sounds of speech are in the range of 250 Hz to 4000
The death penalty has been an ongoing debate for many years. Each side of the issue presents valid arguments to explain why someone should be either for or against the subject. One side of the argument says deterrence, the other side says there’s a likelihood of putting to death an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder itself. Crime is an unmistakable part of our society, and it is safe to say that everyone would concur that something must be done about it. The majority of people know the risk of crime to their lives, but the subject lies in the techniques and actions in which it should be dealt with. As the past tells us, capital punishment, whose meaning is “the use of death as a legally sanctioned punishment,” is a suitable and proficient means of deterring crime. Today, the death penalty resides as an effective method of punishment for murder and other atrocious crimes.