The Case Of The Shipwreck Sailors
Case:1
In the first case the judge would like to show the 3 men sympathy but he believes he isn’t above the law, he sentences the death penalty. The philosophical label of this judge is legal positivism. One thing that the judge says to back this up is “As much as I would personally wish that these men could return to their families and put this tragic event behind them, I cannot permit them to do so. I am not free to make the law”. This quote showed that this judge was a legal positivist because he says that he wants to show them sympathy and let them return to their families, but he is not free to make the law and he is not above the law. Another quote to back this up is “I have sworn an oath to apply the law that authorized legislators have enacted”. Similar to the last quote, the judge is showing that whether he wants to be sympathetic or not he cannot because he has sworn an oath to the law that he cannot break. One weakness of this theoretical approach is that it is very ruthless. These men did not have a choice, killing Ozzie was the only way for the men to
…show more content…
This sounds very bad but based on the circumstance they were in it doesn’t make sense to give these men the death penalty. The law is not a valid factor in this case because a circumstance like this was not even thought of when the rules were being made. Therefore the law should not even be considered.
I do not feel like these three men should be put to death because of what they have done and i cannot bring myself to doing so. They did what they needed to do to survive. The waited as long as they could and ended up doing what was necessary for the three of them to survive. Laws are made to make sure that there is peace in a society where there are a lot of people, but there were only 4 people on that boat. Therefore, I find these three men not guilty of any charges.
Case
Families do not receive the privilege to see their family members again so to equal out the justices, the one that has committed the crime should get the punish they deserve. Just in record, the death penalty will do no good because they will never have the time to think about what they did. They should serve jail time a minimal of ten years with no parole. Let’s us start by education are children in a young age of what is right and wrong and we can make a
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
It is the firm belief and position here that committing such a crime as murder is punishable by death. Americans should take a position for anyone on death row, to be executed sooner rather than later.
The court handles all cases with extreme seriousness; however, different cases are handled differently. For instance, murder cases have different pre-trial procedures to be followed as compared to a case like violation of traffic rules. This paper outlines philosophers’ view of punishment and how the County District Court Division handles capital punishment.
...t I do not think that the evidence presented is enough for a conviction to sentence any man or woman to death.
This extremely disturbing episode reenergized an ageless debate over the legality of the death penalty and sparked my passion on this controversial topic. The death penalty must be abolished in America. It goes against everything this country has stood for since the beginning of its existence. The underlying issues of constitutionality, morality, failure of deterrence, irrevocable mistakes, bias, and cost are among the many reasons that all point to how ridiculous of a punishment the death penalty actually is.
When a person inquires about death, they never expect that it will arrive early to meet them. A part of these innocent people never see it coming, but they are reconciled with death early as a result of another person’s malicious behavior. These people need to be punished by paying an equal price for what they stole from someone else: their life. Once a person is deemed a killer they are no longer a use to a society, they are a threat. Keeping them alive costs money that could be put to better use. Insurance is granted to them, even though they do not have a job and there are other hard working people who deserve it. They are given a decent home with accommodations that homeless people are forced to live without. There is an abundant amount of gray area in making a decision of this magnitude. The argument of being falsely accused often arises because once a mistake like this is made it obviously can not be undone. However, the Death Penalty is essential to keep the innocent citizens of the country safe.
Have you ever thought about if the person next to you is a killer or a rapist? If he is, what would you want from the government if he had killed someone you know? He should receive the death penalty! Murderers and rapists should be punished for the crimes they have committed and should pay the price for their wrongdoing. Having the death penalty in our society is humane; it helps the overcrowding problem and gives relief to the families of the victims, who had to go through an event such as murder.
The death penalty remains a very controversial and highly criticized topic. Both sides argue vehemently from many different angles about the constitutionality, morality, and justice of the death penalty; but, both sides know that there must be some form of punishment for the violent criminals who commit murder. The conflict arises with the question, “what punishment is fair for a convicted murderer?”
Dick and Perry both were involved with the murders of the Clutter family, but only Perry killed the four members of the family. Perry deserves to be hanged but Dick does not. Although Dick didn’t kill anyone there, he helped and planned going to the Clutter home. Therefore Dick does deserve to be punished, but the death penalty was extreme for his crimes. Perry does the death penalty unlike Dick. He openly confessed to killing the family and showed no remorse for the family. Some people think it safer for citizens if the criminals are executed after committing horrible crimes. Some also think its only fair if someone kills someone then they should not be able to live. Many people think the death penalty should be abolished. Numerous innocent people were convicted for crimes they didn’t commit. Also many religions believe that punishment is immoral. Having the death penalty does not have any regard for those religious
...cent man, it has happened before and would happen again. In fact, it was a member of my family who had the unpleasant job of hanging an innocent man and finding out what he had done after. So spare a thought not just for the innocent deceased, but the guilty hangman who has to live with it as well. I also understand that there are cases where the penalty is given because we cant be seen to be slacking, like that of Derek Bentley and the film of Let Him Have It. Once again it was my family who had to live with that. So, spare a thought for what that man has to live with for the rest of his life. As I said, these thing are inevitably going to happen and many people will suffer. But even after seeing what it can cause with my own eyes to my own family, i still think it Is a risk worth taking for the better of our country. That is why I am in favour of capital Punishment.
Unfortunately, the Peterson's case is not unique. Their case is only an example of one of a million crimes that are committed daily in which the death penalty could be applicable to punish the perpetrators and therefore stop them before they attack, kill, rape, or rob another victim. However, not all of the murderers or serial killers are captured; and most of the time, it takes many years to get enough evidence to give closure to their innocent victims and their families.
Throughout history, there has been an inescapable struggle between instilling ancestral customs and following the path of progress through adaptation. Author Yukio Mishima experienced this struggle during the time he wrote the novel The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With the Sea as his political ideology leaned towards conservatism and preserving traditional Japanese beliefs such as the samurai lifestyle. Post World War II was a transitional period for Japan as it started embracing the Western mannerisms of the Allied countries. Mishima’s internal conflict between this dichotomy -- westernization and traditionality -- is represented in the novel through the character of Noboru. Noboru struggles between his immersion in traditional
A thirty five year old white male kidnaps and rapes two sisters, one eight years old and the other eleven. The man then brutally murders the two helpless children; letting one watch as the other one was killed. He then leaves the bloody and beaten bodies, of the innocent sisters, in the neighborhood playground. Does this man deserve to die? The death penalty is a necessary evil that has a positive effect on society today. The death penalty should be sought in cases that carry the death penalty as a form of punishment because retribution should be taken for the heinous crimes that are committed, people that commit crime or kill will do it again, and the death penalty deters crime.
I awoke, there was a crash on the upper deck. I heard a thunderous crackling from my head above. I ran up the stairs and what I saw devastated me. The small wooden boat was completely coated in billowy flames."Help, help, somebody please!"I slowly moved towards the sound being careful to dodge flames as much as possible.