In both of these scenarios, justice was not done. The systems responsibility is to promote justice, equality, fairness, and protection. However, wrongful convictions have broken this trust and confidence between the system and the people. People look up to the criminal justice system but when that trust is broken; the system also crumbles. Wrongful convictions do not just harm the innocent alleged criminal.
Therefore, to inflict harm to one,it is simply useless. However, the punishment fits the crime therefore, it is morally just. Capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at offensive conduct. This may be appealing to many but it is essential in an ordered society. It asks our citizens to rely on legal procedures rather than to self-help their wrongs doings.
Interpretations of the law allow a lot of leeway in order to shape legislation to the needs of the plaintiff or victim. General crime legislation serves the purpose of protecting the public, yet only certain motivations of crimes enable the judiciary to assign additional charges to a defendant guilty of a hate crime. The protected rights of citizens are believed to guarantee peace and tranquility. The most recent additions to everyday crime legislation have challenged this peace and created chaos between the supporters and opposers of these changes. Despite the United States developing hate crime legislation that suffices to maintain justice within the judiciary system, numerous legislative experts strongly believe these most recent changes create unnecessary bias.
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.
Introduction The author is a strong supporter of the notion that "punishment for the sake of deterrence is justified", and this is because people tend to obey the law after calculating the consequences attached by the law to a particular act of crime. Punishing a person for a crime in order to deter others from performing the same crime again does not guarantee us that the crime will never be performed by anyone at all, but it definitely lowers the number of people who would commit the same crime in future. In some instances deterrence has not proved effective in curbing the crime and for hardened criminals it fails to deter them from committing the crime second time, for such people the severity of the punishment has to be so intense that it teaches them a lesson, that is why the severity of punishment varies from one crime to another and from one situation to other situation. By punishing the offender we deter the individual offender from committing the crime again in the future. Moreover, "the deterrent theory emphasizes the necessity for protecting society, for so treating the prisoner that others will be deterred from breaking the law" .
A deterrence theory underlies in criminal laws and justice system to restrain from crimes. Corresponding to the definition, a deterrence theory itself simply means more strict and definite punishments will decrease the rate of crimes, including violent crimes, robbery, burglary, and even drunk driving and possessing drugs. The major goal for deterrence is to make people to avoid committing crimes because they do not want to approach unpleasant experiences and to reinforce people’s behaviors by strengthening the laws and justice system. However, the actual practices of this theory are not as simple as it looks. Walker pointed out few basic assumptions which are related to deterrence theory that may not work at the real world.
People who do bad things some of which are illegal and some legal for the purpose of accomplishing good ends are guilty of “Noble-cause corruption.” It usually occurs in circumstances where there is little chance of being held accountable. This happens most often with police work when people think that they can get away or hide these illegal This doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't laws against the action (though sometimes there aren't), but the individual who commits noble cause corruption either can't be held accountable or believes he or she won't be held accountable. Noble cause “is a moral commitment to make the world a safer place to live. Put simply, it is getting the bad guys off the streets. Police are trained and armed to protect the innocent and think about that goal in terms of “keeping the scum off the streets.” (Caldero & Crank, 2004) The noble cause in police ethics is a promise to “do something about bad people.” However, it can be corrupted “when officers violate the law on behalf of their own personally held moral values.” Noble-cause corruption is a way of thinking which promotes a belief that the ends justify the means.
Moreover , Machiavelli would still statecomplain that a merciful leader woulds allow too much crime while a cruel leader would keep the state safe. We see this in short sentences and early parole for serious crimes. Additionally, lyingLying in politics is still very relevant todayprevalent, and Machiavelli would say this is a positive. However, Machiavelli he would probably criticize today’s leaders for not being deceitful enough, as he believes believed that they should be perceived as telling the truth but in reality they should lie when it benefits them. (EXAMPLE??).
Doesn’t that give the edge back to those the police are trying to stop? If so, then officers must from time to time remove that edge, remind the criminals that the police are higher then them and will stop criminals no matter what. The Dirty Harry problem is much more than the violation of a few rights. It has at its core the equalization of police and criminals. While this equalization is better achieved thought legal and just means, from time to time that may need to be broken.
We see how cultural relativism affects laws as well because of what particular individuals or society wants to be enforced. All human laws involve some moral principle with the consequences if it be broken. Laws are enforced because of a moral conviction that risking other people’s lives is wrong. Applying the theory, relativism makes the laws just as opinions to which the only reason why they are followed is because of the consequences; which we see that it is sometimes ignored. Although the laws encourage people to not do such things without the result of being given a set of fines or jail time, it does not stop certain people.