In the movie Minority Report there is a group of government workers, or at least I think they are, that work for the “pre-crime” section. These workers are there to prevent murders before they happen. As a result of this program, there is a huge drop in crime rate, in Washington, D.C. The government is testing it out to see how successful the program will actually be before they make the program national. Considering this, I thought about many situations where a murder could take place and whether it was just; meaning if it’s reasonable or not. Any situation in which a life is being taken the justness of an action is completely subjective, but because sometimes action must be taken, it is necessary to acknowledge that precrime is both fundamentally …show more content…
In most situations where there is a mass shooting they typically happen in places such as schools. For example the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the victims of that crime consisted of fairly young people that did not deserve to be killed. If their murder was prevented, the families of the victims would not have to have to suffer like they did from the loss of loved ones. Another reason I argue that pre-crime is just are assassinations, due to the fact that assassinations tend to be calculated plots. An example of this is during the feud between the North and the South Abraham Lincoln was assassinated due to the fact that Booth, his assassination was very mad at the president for abolishing slavery, and thus his family business. This was a crime that should have been prevented even though Booth thought that what he was doing was okay. There have been countless political figures who have been assassinated because of some opinion that the assassinator might not agree …show more content…
You have to think about the craigslist killers’ families that would be affected by pre-crime, how are they going to get food on the table? The poor children of these folk, that are sometimes called hit men, will go starving if pre-crime continues to exist. What if their wives or husbands leave them because they can't make any money since there's no way to kill someone without being stopped? You must think about the killers themselves and how much they will be affected by this. Putting these hit men out of business will lead to them not putting any ads up on Craigslist. If there are less ads on Craigslist then that could mean Craiglist could go out of business. Do you know what would happen if Craiglist went out of business? Well I will tell you, it will very to sell your used cars, you will be left with going to a sketchy thrift stores to buy used furniture. How are you supposed tell the world you need help finding your cute golden retriever
The ‘Trolley Car Problem’ has sparked heated debates amongst numerous philosophical and jurisprudential minds for centuries. The ‘Trolley Car’ debate challenges one’s pre-conceived conceptions about morals, ethics and the intertwined relationship between law and morality. Many jurisprudential thinkers have thoroughly engaged with this debate and have consequentially put forward various ideologies in an attempt to answer the aforementioned problem. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate why the act of saving the young, innocent girl and resultantly killing the five prisoners is morally permissible. In justifying this choice, this paper will, first, broadly delve into the doctrine of utilitarianism, and more specifically focus on a branch
In the United States there has been, “372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870” (BBC). Some recent shootings in the United States, for instance are Sandy Hook, Antigo high school in Wisconsin where there was one death and two injured, Madison high school in Ohio where 4 kids under the age of 15 were shot and injured, etc. One shooting in particular that will be focused on is
In order to defend my standing in this argument I will reason that the use of capital punishment has many benefits that trump any possible objections. Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary.
Out of this research a variety of possible causes came to light consisting of arguments stating that high school bullying, availability of guns, mental illness, violent movies and video games are the cause of mass shootings. However, these researchers and debaters tend to ignore the role of massive media coverage in the increase of copycat shootings in the United States. The history of school shootings has shown an increase in mass school shootings. The very first known school shooting in the United States occurred on July 26, 1764 in present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania. As part of the Pontiac's Rebellion, four Lenape Native Americans entered the school house and started shooting, killing the schoolmaster Enoch Brown and about nine students.
School shootings have gone up in tremendous numbers since the Columbine mass shooting in 1999. This unfortunately opened a door to cause malicious copycats to react such crimes that still happen to this year. There have been 200 shootings at school in the last past decade. School shootings have an impact on how we go to school everyday without knowing there is a possibility of being attacked because of a heinous crime. One of America’s most deadly social problem is school shootings because it can create mental problems for students, they occur because of bullying, and can lead to unemployment.
Despite Norway’s strict requirements in order to own a gun, they couldn’t prevent a mass shooting that took the lives of 77 people in 2011 (Masters). One thing you don’t hear very often from the leaders of our country, is the idea that more guns could prevent shootings. In the United States, we have “gun free zones,” which include schools and other public places. In these areas, guns are strictly prohibited, and instead of preventing shootings have actually became a target for them.Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “found that 92 percent of mass shootings since 2009 have taken place in designated gun-free zones” (Blackwell). The author of “Ban gun-free zones,” Ken Blackwell claims that those who commit mass shootings want the publicity, and will go where they know they can do the most damage, because the more serious the shooting is, the more publicity it will receive. Blackwell goes on to say, “most mass shootings don’t end until the police arrive. Killers typically have several minutes to slaughter as many victims as they can without fear of interference” (Blackwell). John Lott, the author of “A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones,” backs up Blackwell’s claims of mass shooters targeting places where guns are prohibited. Lott uses evidence from mass shooters themselves as his evidence, and one very recent tragedy is the shooting in a Charleston, South Carolina church, in June 2015. According to the Crime Research Prevention Center, cited by Lott in his article, the shooter told those around him about his plans to carry out the shooting. His original plan was to go to the College of Charleston, but apparently veered away from the college when he realized that there was heavily armed security, obviously settling for the Church. Another example is James Holmes, who committed a mass shooting in a movie theatre. Holmes had what Lott referred to as a
Many people believe that these shootings have occurred is because the availability of weapons in our society. This is not true. Guns have been in our society for hundreds of years. Before 1968 anyone could buy a gun through the mail with cash, and a hand-written statement that they were of legal age and without criminal record. (Bridgeman 14a) Yet in 1968, students didn't go to school and try to commit mass murder.
Background checks lay a big role in the ownership of guns and by applying stricter background checks it could most likely decrease the rate of gun crime. Even with stricter background checks criminals will still be able to obtain guns online or at private gun shows but if we were to say make private gun shows illegal that would prevent at risk people from obtaining firearms that are meant to do harm to others. Private gun shows now don’t have to do background checks and this causes a problem because we don’t know who they may be selling these firearms to and what the person they sell them to attends to do with them. With lack of background control within private gun shows there has been a proven increase of guns falling into the hands of criminals in and out of state. If we were to close this loophole by making private gun shows illegal or even making them have to do background checks like any other gun seller we would close the loophole and reduce the gun ownership to criminals and high risk
As defined by Mother Jones Magazine, a mass shooting is when four or more people (not including the gunman himself) are killed in a single, typically public location (Follman et al.). Since 2006, 32 such incidents have occurred in the United States, with 10 occurring since the beginning of 2012 (Thomassie et al.). In addition to being more frequent, the incidents also seem to be getting more deadly. In fact, of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history (each of which killed 12 or more), seven have occurred since 2007 (“Deadliest U.S. Shootings”). Indeed, if their entire recorded history is taken into account, the recent numbers certainly show a sharp spike in number of incidents and deaths, as only 21 total shootings occurred between 1900 and 1966 (Duwe).
Guns kill people. That is the way society thinks now-a-days. Everyone is now becoming an expert on all things guns just so they can have a say in how the United States should regulate gun usage. If half the people who want to ensure more restrictions are put on guns actually understood how to use them and understood the pros of concealed carry—or even open carry—they would stop being so anti-gun. Open and concealed carry could potentially be a problem solver in these mass shootings. A victim possessing a gun can create intimidation between shooter and victim, and the said victim could in turn use his weapon to stop the offender from killing.
With the media shining so much light upon this topic, it is evident that mass murders in the United States of America are more frequent and deadly. In fact, studies have found that the USA has more mass public shootings than any other country (Christensen). These numbers have only been increasing in the past decades. This is shocking because the USA holds only 5 percent of the world’s population, but as a nation, contributes to 31 percent of mass murders (Christensen). Although these murders continue to be a rare phenomenon, weak gun laws, the need for fame, and issues with societal views are the main causes of the increase in cases.
Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
Minority Report is a 2002 science fiction film directed by renowned director Steven Spielberg and is set in the year 2054 in Washington, D. C. The film revolves around an elite law enforcing squad; Precrime. The Precrime Division uses three genetically altered humans called Pre-Cogs whom possesses special powers to see into the future and predict crimes beforehand. After each crime is foreseen and analyzed, Precrime police officers are sent to the crime location to apprehend the future murderers and place them under arrest. The future murderers are then put into a sleep state with a device called a "halo". Based on Minority Report, it suggests that humans are free willed beings and have the ability to alter the future that was predetermined for them.
In this essay, I will detail why justice requires that people are given what they deserve through the scope of punishment, reward, and need. In the case of punishment, justice must be upheld, and to be just, one must be fair. It appears intuitively clear that it would be unjust to punish someone who stole a packet of gum from a grocery store with a death