For And Against Capital Punishment Philosophy Essay

For And Against Capital Punishment Philosophy Essay A variety of justifications for and against capital punishment has been advanced. Often the debates over these justifications become as heated as the debates over the death penalty itself. One common source of disagreement between those supporting and those opposing the death penalty is whether the death penalty really acts as a deterrent to crime. The basic idea here is that society has always lived by a system of negative reinforcement. Punish criminals, even if means applying the death penalty and potential criminals will be discouraged from crime. Although anti-death penalty crusaders often talk in terms of the Eighth Amendment and the constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual punishment that argument is often tempered by some more critical factors. Arguments for Amongst the most powerful arguments made by death penalty supporters postulates that it is a unique and effective deterrent against murder. Although killing is generally immoral, certain kinds of murders are justifiable. These include killing in self-defense and in defense of other members of the society. Those who assert this dimension of executions see the death penalty as a social exercise of value reinforcement rather than as the isolated activity of a distant legal system. Proponents of capital punishment also often claim that it deters potential murderers from crime in general and homicide in particular. In some public opinion polls, deterrence appears as the most often cited reason for supporting capital punishment. More than once on the campaign trail President Bush reiterated his support for capital punishment because it saves lives. Most people believe that criminal justice systems exist, in good part, to deter others from committing crime. Through imposing just punishment, a civilized society experiences its sense of revulsion toward those who, by violating its laws, have not only harmed individuals but also weakened the bonds that hold communities together. Some professionals laud the American death penalty for its inspiring ability to strengthen the communitys retributive and deterrent messages. They further exalt our capital justice system as a humane mechanism for expressing and strengthening community moral bonds. To them the death penalty serves as an awesome promoter of community union. Statistical evidence further proves that severe and punishment acts as a reliable deterrent to future criminal activities. For instance between the years 1995 and 2000, there were 71 executions on average every year. This led to a 44% in the rate of reported murders. Moreover, life sentences cost between $1.2 million $3.6 million dollars more compared with carrying out the death penalty. Moreover, the benefit of a justice system is fully appreciated when it addresses the problem in the most efficient financial manner. The cost of death penalty cases average $2 million in taxpayersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ money. However, this figure is significantly lower compared to the costs of housing and caring for prisoners serving life sentences. Prisoners serving life sentences spend 30-40 years in prison creating an unnecessary burden on existing resources. Therefore, the economic benefit of the death penalty also forms a strong basis for promoting its acceptance. The death penalty largely serves and upholds the best interests of society. For instance, the biggest benefit of the justice system is ridding the society of killers, rapists, and other heinous criminals. Approximately 71% of American citizens support the death penalty. It would therefore be prudent to abolish executing hardcore criminals against this popular support. Moreover, are frequent, their direct effect on murder rates and other violent crimes rate is clearly evident. It is therefore worth appreciating that criminals are essentially incapacitated through execution thereby reducing the chances of repeat offenders. Moreover, the public takes comfort in believing such prisoners are ultimately executed. Instances of prisoners serving life escaping, killing or stirring violence have further raised concern for upholding the death penalty. Continuous executions in China have significantly led to lower crime rates. Globally, China and Iran are adequately addressing crime through effe ctive application of the death penalty. Arguments against Largely, citizen myths about the death penalty appear in public opinion polls. Our nations capital supporters include within their ranks a committed, ideologically driven core of citizens and politicians. This group comprises of people whose devotion to the death penalty exists independently of changes in the legal culture, public opinion, or social science research. Some Americans in this core group support the death sentence punishment in their gut. They assert ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s supposedly retributive, deterrent, therapeutic, or economic advantages without the need for recourse to any social science confirmatory data. Some advocates express support for it even while acknowledging that it can be unfairly applied, be ineffective, or even entail the conviction and sentencing of innocent people. The support for capital punishment must therefore consider such reservations about its shortcomings. Occasionally, this pro death penalty segment of the community finds its concepts of justice well served by deep-seated, perhaps unconscious, beliefs in myths about justice that override the shortcomings of our penal system. Proponents of capital punishment tell us that an executing government acts in the best interests of the entire community. An act of execution in this perspective appears as a way to re-assert, even re-invigorate, easily overlooked basic community values, like differences between right and wrong, responsibility for ones behavior, respecting other lives and learning consequences. The criminal justice system should always reflect the moral views of the society. Consequently, inflicting the penalty of death on its citizenry entirely violates religious teachings on the sanctity of life. Nationally, prosecutors charge death in less than one in every fifty-homicide prosecutions, meaning that even before trial begins the odds in 98 percent of homicides favor a sentence less than death. At the sentencing end of the system, of the nationwide cohort of murderers actually sentenced to death, only about one in eight of this group eventually suffers execution. Thus, nearly 90 percent of convicted murderers receiving a death sentence escape execution, which means that even an imposed execution is unlikely to occur. If the death penalty is to appear certain to a potential murderer performing the premeditated cost-benefit calculus, these statistics would need to be reversed. The deterrent role of the death penalty is just not working. However, re-arranging the justice system to achieve such a reversal in these trends appears impossible given todays legal complexities. Our penal system suffers from a spiral of declining expectations of executions because of subjective prosecutorial discretion at its front end and appellate complexity at its back end. In the front end, most homicides do not qualify statutorily for a death sentence. When one does qualify, such a sentence is unlikely to be sought by the prosecution. At the back end of the system, when it is imposed it is highly unlikely to be carried out. Therefore, rather than proclaiming execution certainty, our capital liturgy today sends a message proclaiming the exact opposite. There is high improbability of the death sentence being meted out on the accused. Proportional severity deterrent and economic theories of human nature both imply, that penalties must appear severe enough to a calculating criminal to outweigh the supposed benefits of crime. Ideally, in making an economic calculation of costs and benefits in a rational manner the would-be murderer consequently revert from committing the offence. Through the realization that the pain of execution out-weighs the expected psychological pleasures from the contemplated crime, homicides would be nonexistent. The founders of modern utilitarianism adopted this calculus to suggest to legislators that they could ensure that costs outweigh the pleasures of crime by the simple expedient of increasing the degree of pain inflicted. However, the growing statistics of homicide dispute this argument that the severity of a painful punishment acts as a deterrent simply because the murderers anticipation of this brutal pain trumps any expected pleasure front the murder. Fairness in execution As U.S. jurisprudence in the twentieth century has shown, the wealthy with their phalanx of high-priced lawyers get better justice than the poor. In addition, besides the question of class, race is a huge factor. Black men in the South receive the death penalty in disproportionate numbers to whites. To make it worse, opponents cite statistics that show that black men who kill whites are executed at a higher rate than either blacks or whites who kill blacks. This racial impropriety alone should strike down the death penalty. Finally, the same crime calls for the death penalty in one place but not in others. This has consequently undermined the equal application of the death penalty. Prosecutor discretion is often put in question as to indiscriminate application as regards the death penalty. However, proponents say the death penalty is fair. The fact that the administration of the death penalty varies from place to place reflects the diversity of the nation. Moreover, every crime is unique, and every jurisdiction has the right to administer justice within the demands of its own community. Since the Supreme Court demands individual attention to each case and rejects the idea of a mandatory death penalty, the differences among jurisdictions indicate the independence of the justice system rather than compromise it. Supporters further argue that the racial statistics are false. They claim that more crimes are committed by blacks than by whites, therefore more blacks get executed. However, the fact that not everyone who deserves to be executed is executed does not make the penalty unfair. The goal therefore should be to make sure, in most cases that those folks who deserve to be executed are. Supporters of the death penalty also argue that this is a cost-effective way to deal with the most sordid elements of society. However, as opponents argue, it can cost more to execute an individual than to incarcerate him for life. Justice requires the elimination of the unfair advantage. The criminal must repay their perceived debt to society. They must not be punished in the same way as his or her offense, but the punishment must fit the crime. The death penalty is modeled on the act getting an unfair advantage over others. The criminal may obtain an unfair advantage over others by evading taxes, by killing a rival for a job, or by stealing anothers purse. However, this model of unfair advantage does not work as well with sadistic crimes that may leave the criminal psychologically worse off. The rapist may be worse off, not better off, than before his crime. The terrorist who detonates a bomb on the crowded bus he is riding does not gain any advantage over others, for he no longer exists If the death penalty deters possible murderers, the society should support some of its applications. For instance, it should apply to perpetrators who commit murder in the first degree. Alternatively, other heinous crimes such as burglary or rape also justify application of the death penalty. Argument for It is justified to punish criminals for raking unfair to discourage potential criminals from repeating such acts. Traditionally, deterrence has been given as a utilitarian rationale for punishment, in which suffering imposed on actual criminals is justified by its tendency to dissuade others from com-mining crimes, thereby reducing suffering overall. Far from being deserved by the criminal because of the evil she has done, punishment can work as deterrence even if the one punished is innocent and only publicly believed to be guilty. For the utilitarian, the relationship between guilt and punishment is a pragmatic one. We get a deterrent effect only if we punish individuals who are believed to be guilty. If individuals believed innocent were also punished, then citizens would not be able to avoid punishment by avoiding crime, and thus there would be no incentive to do so. As a practical matter, the safest way to punish people who are believed guilty is to punish those who are guilty. However, they are not punished because they deserve it rather they are punished because it is the best way to get other people to refrain front committing crimes. Conclusions Most people strongly believe that the death penalty will deter murders more effectively than long-term imprisonment. However, there are many reasons for disputing this argument it. At the basic level of psychology, reflections on peoples behavior suggest that the fear of death is less powerful a motive than one might think. Statistical studies further fail to state conclusively that executions prevent homicides. Another significant finding is that executions simply do not deter crime more than other severe punishments. Finally, one might conclude that we just do not know and cannot know whether the death penalty saves lives. However, the death penalty can be justified as analogous to defensive killing only if it can be shown that it does save lives. Since that has not been shown, one cannot appeal to this protective function as providing a moral ground for its long term adoption. Punishment must he perceived as highly or absolutely certain to follow crime. Such punishment must therefore appear roughly proportionate in view of the original crime. Moreover, it must always be applied to uphold societal principles and values. Most critically, the threat of punishment must always yield effective results of deterring crime as the actual punishment itself.

Communication and the internet Essay

Many people would say that the internet is the most important invention ever. The internet has changed the way many people live. Decades ago, no one would know that the internet even existed whereas nowadays every home has access to it. One of the main reasons internet was introduced was for communicating. There are many different forms of communication online today that people in the past wouldn’t have thought possible. Many people will say advancement in communications is a blessing because it allows for us to connect with families and friends from afar, enables us to express ourselves in many ways, provides a medium for meeting new people with similar interests, and increases our productivity. The internet has transformed all forms of communication since the beginning of its existence.. The internet was first used by the U.S military for communications purposes. The internet, from the communication point of view, has brought on new developments and techniques to keep in touch not only for individuals, but for businesses as well. An example of how the internet has impacted communication would be an example of doctors now communicating through live video feeds via the internet with patients or other doctors to diagnose patients or to even guide and advise surgeons through complicated procedures. Email (electronic mail) was one of the biggest breakthroughs in communication when the internet was introduced. With email, it became possible to send messages and letters across the world in a matter of seconds to the recipients address. As technology improved, it became possible to ‘attach documents, photographs and even sound clips or songs to emails which made mail by post redundant.

The Cambodian Genocide Essay - 971 Words

The Cambodian Genocide took place from 1975 to 1979 in the Southeastern Asian country of Cambodia. The genocide was a brutal massacre that killed 1.4 to 2.2 million people, about 21% of Cambodia’s population. This essay, will discuss the history of the Cambodian genocide, specifically, what happened, the victims and the perpetrators and the world’s response to the genocide. The Cambodian Genocide has the historical context of the Vietnam War and the country’s own civil war. During the Vietnam War, leading up to the conflicts that would contribute to the genocide, Cambodia was used as a U.S. battleground for the Vietnam War. Cambodia would become a battle ground for American troops fighting in Vietnam for four years; the war would kill up†¦show more content†¦Also, religious leaders like monks, and Christian missionaries would be killed. These victims would be persecuted, because they went against the ideals of communism, like the professionals and intellectuals being educated, the monks and missionaries being religious, and minorities going against Pol Pot’s idea of a â€Å"pure† Cambodian society. The genocide’s process and method of killing was through prisons and killing fields. The urban city dweller population was evacuated to the countryside, those who were elderly, frail, disabled, basically incapable of making the journey, and those who seemed to be against the new regime were killed on the spot. When the rest of the people reached the countryside they were forced to do farm work in an effort to put society back to an agrarian society starting at year zero. Many people would also die of starvation, malnutrition, and disease or for committing supposed crimes. Prison were also used, such as the now infamous prison S-21, that was once a high school that was used for some of the most brutal and gruesome killings. It was used to interrogate people and force people into admitting to having committed crimes. It was used from mid1975 to 1979. Approximately 17,000 people were killed here. People were forced into admitting to crimes through torture techniques, such as hang ing, drowning, electric shock, and other methods. The prisoners were well documented,Show MoreRelatedThe Genocide Of The Cambodian Genocide1564 Words   |  7 PagesMerriam-Webster Dictionary, genocide is defined as â€Å" the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political or cultural group.† When most people think of the word genocide, often the Holocaust comes to mind. What the world seems to fail to realize is that many genocides, just as tragic have and continue to occur. The Cambodian Genocide is an important event to understand and research because it is one of the lesser-known genocides and can be analyzed for future genocide prevention. BackgroundRead MoreThe Cambodian Genocide And The Armenian Genocide2391 Words   |  10 PagesThe Cambodian Genocide and the Armenian Genocide have similar methods of how the victims were killed. They similarly murdered their victims, starved their victims and targeted government officials. They were different in that the Armenians were deported but the Khmer Rouge targeted Cambodians based of their class and had re-education camps. The Cambodian Genocide happened between 1975 and 1979 in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge, a guerrilla group, over threw the government and started a regime toRead MoreThe Armenian and Cambodian Genocides707 Words   |  3 PagesGenocide Paper The definition of genocide, according to the United Nations, was the attempt to destroy â€Å"a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group† by killing members, causing mental or bodily harm, harsh living conditions, prevention of births, and separating children from their families. There are four patterns of genocide, which do not always occur in every genocide since they’re not all the same. The four patterns include persecution, which is hostility and ill-treatment, especially towardRead MoreHistory Of The Cambodian Genocide1320 Words   |  6 PagesYEAR 10 ELECTIVE HISTORY: GENOCIDE PART A The Cambodian Genocide refers to Khmer Rouge Party Leader, Pol Pot’s, attempt to nationalize and centralize the peasant farming society of Cambodia, in accordance with the principles of Maoism, Stalinism, and the Chinese Communist agricultural model. All those who refused to conform, along with any traditional aspects of Cambodian society, were eliminated. The genocide rampaged from 1975 to 1979, claiming the lives of 25% of the country’s population throughRead MoreCambodian Genocide Essay1327 Words   |  6 PagesCambodian Genocide Dead bodies everywhere you turn. The smell of gunpowder, filth, and death choke your lungs. You wonder everyday whether it will be your last. All your body feels is pain; all your heart feels is emptiness. One might think this is how life was for Jews during the Jewish Holocaust. In reality, this is how life was for many Cambodians during the reign of Pol Pot between 1975 and 1979. This event, known to many as the Cambodian genocide, left a profound mark on the world around usRead MoreThe Cambodian Genocide And The Khmer Rouge1951 Words   |  8 Pages The Cambodian genocide happened between 1975 and 1979 in the country of Cambodia. Almost 2 million Cambodians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Buddhist, Cham, intellectuals, anyone with above a 7th grade education, and western influenced-people were systematically killed during the genocide. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge started the genocide on April 17th, 1975 when they evacuated the city of Phnom Penh along with other major cities and forced people into the countryside where their work camps were. Even thoughRead MoreThe Khmer Rouge And The Cambodian Genocide1155 Words   |  5 PagesSisowath Doung Chanto was born in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and lost his life to the Cambodian Genocide, an unfortunate event that caused the death of around one and a half million people (Leslie 6). In Cambodia, a population of around seven million dropped down to around five million from the genocide as well as the accompanying famine, rebellion, and war. In 1975-1979, an infamous communist regime, called the Khmer Rouge, headed by Pol Pot, brutally killed twenty five percent of Cambodia’s originalRead MoreEssay about The Holocaust and the Cambodian Genocide 1201 Words   |  5 Pagesdefinition of genocide is killing a large group of people of a certain origin. The Holocaust was in Germany and started in 1933. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were in charge of the Holocaust. The Cambodian Genocide took place in Cambodia. Cambodia is in Southeast Asia (â€Å"Cambodian†). Pol Pot was the leader of Khmer Rouge and the group was in charge of the Cambodian Genocide (â€Å"Cambodian†). The Cambodian Genocide started in 1975 and ended in 1978 because Khmer Rouge was ended by Vietnam (â€Å"Cambodian†). The HolocaustRead MoreRwanda and Cambodian Genocide Essay2251 Words   |  10 Pagesout of control. It’s amazing how ignorant and stubborn the human race can be. This is exactly the response of many nations when it comes to genocide. Genocide is the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group. Two of the most recent genocides in history are the genocide of Rwanda and the genocide of Cambodia. The genocide of Cambodia started on the year of 1975 and ended on 1979. This is considered the Khmer Pogue period, where Pol Pot ,  Nuon Chea,  Ieng SaryRead MoreTwo Similar but Different Genocides: The Holocaust and Cambodian Genocide1092 Words   |  5 Pagesbeings. The Holocaust and Cambodian genocide were two of the most horrific genocides in the history of civilization. The Holocaust and Cambodian genocide has not only similarities but also differences. How they treated their victims, USA involvement, and that they both killed millions of people are some things they share. Differences they include are the people they targeted, how the two leaders took office and lastly where these to genocides took place. Of these two genocides, the Holocaust is more

The Health and Pollution Risks of Charcoal Grilling

Cooking with grills can be problematic for two reasons. First, both charcoal and wood burn â€Å"dirty,† producing not only hydrocarbons but also tiny soot particles that pollute the air and can aggravate heart and lung problems. Secondly, the grilling of meat can form two kinds of potentially carcinogenic compounds in the cooked meat: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic amines (HCAs). Charcoal Grilling May Pose Cancer Risks According to the American Cancer Society, PAHs form when fat from meat drips onto the charcoal. They then rise with the smoke and can get deposited on the food. They can also form directly on the food as it is charred. The hotter the temperature and the longer the meat cooks, the more HCAs are formed. HCAs can also form on broiled and pan-fried beef, pork, fowl, and fish. In fact, National Cancer Institute researchers have identified 17 different HCAs that result from cooking â€Å"muscle meats,† HCAs that may pose human cancer risks. Studies have also shown an increased risk of colorectal, pancreatic, and breast cancers associated with high intakes of well done, fried, or barbequed meats. Cooking With Charcoal Grills Adds to Air Pollution According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Air Quality, Texans who like to say that they â€Å"live and breathe barbecue† may be doing just that to the detriment of their health. A 2003 study by scientists from Rice University found that microscopic bits of polyunsaturated fatty acids released into the atmosphere from cooking meat on backyard barbecues were helping to pollute the air in Houston. The city at times registers air quality levels that rank it one of the more polluted urban areas in the United State. Emissions from barbecues, however, are certainly dwarfed by those generated by motor vehicles and industry. Both briquettes and lump charcoal create air pollution. The production of lump charcoal, made from charred wood to add flavor, creates other environmental hazards. Their production contributes to deforestation and adds to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Charcoal briquettes do have the benefit of being made partly from sawdust, which is a good use of waste wood. Popular brands, however, may also contain coal dust, starch, sodium nitrate, limestone, and borax. Canada Considers Charcoal Hazardous In Canada, charcoal is now a restricted product under the Hazardous Products Act. According to the Canadian Department of Justice, charcoal briquettes in bags that are advertised, imported to, or sold in Canada must display a label warning of the potential hazards of the product. No such requirements presently exist in the United States. Avoid Health Risks by Using Natural Charcoal Consumers can avoid exposure to these potentially harmful additives by sticking with so-called natural charcoal brands. Look for charcoal made of 100 percent hardwood and containing no coal, oil, limestone, or petroleum products. Third-party certification programs, like the Forest Stewardship Council, can help choose products that are harvested in a sustainable fashion. Edited by Frederic Beaudry.