Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aspects of criminal law
Concepts of criminal law
Criminal law and civil law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible. The second …show more content…
He presents a few hypothetical stories and one real one to get the students to think this question through. In one of the illustrations used the professor asks how many in the audience would actually push a “fat man” over a bridge onto the tracks below to stop a runaway trolley from killing five workers who were on the tracks in the way of the unstoppable trolley. I was surprised to see that a few hands actually went up. The argument of a student that had raised their hand in hypothetical agreement to pushing the man over the bridge, for the greater good, was that five other lives would be saved for the life of this one. Opposing views, of which whom I agreed with, were that by pushing the “fat man” over the bridge you were actually choosing and making a conscious decision to take a life; who are we to decide whose life is more valuable than …show more content…
It does not matter if the greatest, or the least "good" would result from such an act. I hold to the belief that all human beings are intrinsically valuable. This is due to the fact that I, as a Christian, believe that all humans are created in the image of God. But before we go too far we must first accurately define our terms. Murder is always wrong, but it is not always wrong to kill. These two concepts are different. Part of the problem I had with the professor and his hypothetical stories was that he never even discussed the possibility that murder and killing were two different things. The fact is that even our judicial system makes such distinctions when they decide between, what is called murder and manslaughter. "Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn’t involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life. The absence of malice aforethought means that manslaughter involves less moral blame than either first or second degree murder.” (Berman) Murder on the other hand is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” (Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.).,
Is it justifiable to inflict the death penalty on individuals who have committed murder? As majority would have it, yes. There are many arguments in favor of capital punishment. Some of these include taking a murderer out of this world once and for all, and saving money that would be spent on them if they were given a life sentence, as well as the majority rule of citizens of the United States wishing it to stay. In Truman Capote’s nonfiction novel, In Cold Blood, Dick and Perry were assigned the death penalty for the cruel murders of four members of the Clutter family in a small town in Kansas. Not only did this pair of men deserve what they got, but it is also better for the state that they were executed.
A death penalty is the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes. Capital punishment can also be applied for treason, espionage, and other crimes. The death penalty, or capital punishment, may be prescribed by Congress or any state legislature for murder and other capital crimes. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment 's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
begins to write on the wall in front of him with the freshly spilled blood
"Capital punishment is a term which indicates muddled thinking." George Bernard Shaw The "muddled thinking" that Shaw speaks of is the thinking that perpetuates the controversy over capital punishment in the United States today. The impractical concurrence of a theoretical, moral argument and definite, legal application has left all sides in this controversy dissatisfied with the ultimate handling of the issue. There are legitimate ethical and empirical considerations that stand on both the side that favors and on the side that opposes the death penalty. The general incompatibility of these considerations renders them irreconcilable. It is within this condition of irreconcilability that the government must initiate and implement its policies regarding capital punishment. This fixed condition has led to the necessity for and creation of comprises between both sites of this debate, attempting to synthesize the considerations of the two. The contentious issue of the capital punishment was rekindled in the 1970s when, in 1976, the Supreme reinstated the practice after a four-year hiatus. The arguments that comprise much of the legal debate on the issue stem from the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. The eighth reads, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." 1
Punishment/Capital Punishment and the Christian attitude towards it has been a topic that has been and still is being debated today. Punishment, but in particular, Capital Punishment, is a complicated topic to discuss, especially when it comes to Christian attitudes and the ethics towards it. The purpose of this report is for people to have a better understanding of what this Christian attitude is or what these Christian attitudes are towards Punishment/Capital Punishment in relation to Christian ethics. In this report, you will learn about the history of capital punishment, the different Christian groups against Capital Punishment and what the Bible says about it as well, all in relation to Christian ethics.
What drives a person past insanity? What drives an individual to feel no remorse, but rather a psychological relief in murderous acts? Consider all the different types of people on Earth as well as the lifestyles and situations these people are raised up in. As much as it’s desired to think the world is filled with people who carry no such thing as a bad bone in their bodies, that thought process is simple deception. The fact is that psychopaths and sociopaths hide among others in everyday environments - neighbors, teachers, family members, doctors, friends, or even the local mailman. Psychopaths are declared as people who suffer from a mental disorder causing aggression and abnormal behaviors such as their “lack of
Offenders given mandatory life in prison on charges of murder, on average only serve 16 years before being released back into society. One in three of these killers carries out a second murder even under the supervision of the probation officer.1 If we allow murderers to spend life in prison we run the chance of them getting out and killing again. Capital punishment can also deter future perpetrators from committing such a heinous crime, and it will end the prisoner’s suffering by giving them a humane death and give closure to the victim’s family. Without a concrete meaning of “life in prison” we need the death penalty to put an end to the most evil of people.
The people in support of the death penalty say that if murderers are sentenced to death, future committers will think about the consequences before they actually proceed with the crime. However, most murderers don’t expect or plan to be caught and weigh their fate. Because, murders are committed when the murderer is angry or passionate, or by drug abusers and people under the influence of drugs or alcohol ("Deterrence (In Opposition to the Death Penalty)”). Therefore, it will not deter future crimes and will actually increase the amount of murders because of society. As previously stated, the death penalty isn’t proven to prevent future murders and/or crimes because it actually increases the likelihood of committing murder. It doesn’t prevent future murders because it would upset the family and friends of the person who was executed. For example, if someone was executed by the death penalty and it was someones family member, then the person who lost their loved one by the execution would most likely commit murder in anger. If that person was executed the next family member would get angry and so on. The cycle would never end and would have more murders. There is no final proof that the death penalty is a better deterrent than other options. Not having the death penalty would be better because it could save many lives. For example, United States a country that uses the death penalty has a higher murder rate than Europe or Canada which are countries that do not use the death penalty. To get a little specific, the states in the United States that do not use the death penalty have a lower murder rate than the states that do.
Throughout the United States violent crime has been a persistent problem that state governments are constantly trying to contain, if not eliminate. When a crime arises to the severity of the death penalty many times people instantly jump to the support of pro capital punishment , thinking that the accused should be put to death for killing another person. Currently updated as of 2011, there are 34 death penalty states and 16 states that have abolished the death penalty. In deed, very few issues are as polarizing as that of capital punishment. Support for the death penalty crosses all lines of race, socio-economic status, and religion. Given the right climate and circumstances, anybody can be quick to judge, convict, and condemn. Aside from the vengeful feeling of ‘an eye for an eye’, people are in favor of the death penalty because they feel it deters criminals and its less taxing on our penal system. However, what they fail to realize is that the death penalty has not been found to do either of those things, in fact, states without the death penalty have had consistently lower crime rates. Likewise, people are not correctly aware of what the results of the death penalty have really produced, or that life in prison without parole has been proven to be the more effective and economical path to go. The death penalty has proven to be more costly and a failure as a deterrent to crime.
How would you feel if you were claimed guilty for a crime you did not do? This is a situation that many people undergo in their respective judicial system. The death penalty is a legal procedure where a person is killed by the government as a punishment for a serious crime they committed. Currently, there are 32 states that practice death penalty and 18 states that have abolished it. In 1846, Michigan became the first US state to eradicate the death penalty for all crimes except for treason. In 1852, Rhode Island became the first US state to abolish the death penalty for all crimes including treason. Even though the death row may contain many malicious murderers, there is a large probability that there are innocent victims among them. Many nations see the death penalty as a violation of human rights and believe that it should be eradicated. The number of executions is decreasing and the public is beginning to fight against this criminal justice process. Although the death penalty has resulted in the death of many criminals, capital punishment must be eradicated because many innocent people are murdered, it is used in a racist manner, and many millions of dollars are spent on this practice.
Between 1977 and 2010, an estimated 8,000 people were on Death Row in the US and out of those 8,000, more than 1,200 were actually executed (Siennick, 2012). Policy makers and scholars have been especially interested in whether the death penalty serves a crime-control function by deterring prospective murderers (Siennick, 2012). This debate on whether or not the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent is important to our society because we need to understand the impact of this ultimate and final punishment. Expectations of deterrence follow from the basic idea that potential murderers decide whether to kill after considering the benefits and costs of killing (Siennick, 2012). The Death Penalty as punishment can be a deciding factor to a potential murderer when they make the decision whether to kill someone or not. There is assorted evidence on whether or not this happens and there isn’t a chosen method to gather data that fully supports this idea.
Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human
A few times each year, our ears perk up when the news is turned on. On occasions there will be news about a murder of a young child or all the way to an old being. Murder is seen as a disgusting happening. Murder is seen as a disgusting hobby. Murder is pure disgust. Eyes fill with hatred when the picture of the serial killer is viewed. They are not human beings, they lack emotion and their eyes are filled with the desire to kill. With quick judgment, people don’t see what’s in the inside. All they see is an emotionless, cold blooded killer. What makes them do what they do? In no way is murder acceptable but there’s always a reason for it and the typical person fails to see what’s through the fog standing between him or herself and the killer. Humans are all born the same, and are shaped to be what they become. There’s always a past that is forgotten but in many cases it isn’t. Serial killers are in the wrong for taking lives from innocent people. Their actions are certainly not justified but they are misunderstood as people do not know what triggers their killing spree.
Serial murder is slowly decreasing in the United States. Looking at statistics most serial murderers are white males aged from twenty to forty years old. However, most serial murderers plan their crime in advance; it is rare they just randomly murder. In the most recent years the characteristics of the offenders have become more diverse. As the characteristics of the victims are not as much; it is almost half females and half males. I believe that serial murder is important to study so we understand the offenders motivation and behaviors for their criminal act. Also self-control theory is a concept used by sociologists which explains differences among people in the amount of engaging in a broad variety of acts that cause harm
not only to inflict pain but to provide a gruesome spectacle for the public. It