Pros and Cons of Capitol PunishmentEssay title: Pros and Cons of Capitol PunishmentThe Internet of Encyclopedia states that “the person forfeits his rights when committing even minor crimes. Once rights are forfeited, Locke justifies punishment for two reasons: (1) from the retributive side, criminals deserve punishment, and, (2) from the utilitarian side, punishment is needed to protect our society by deterring crime through example. Thus, society may punish the criminal any way it deems necessary so to set an example for other would-be criminals. This includes taking away his life.
Key arguments for supporters of capital punishment include: That people committing the most heinous crimes (usually murder, in Western countries that practice the death penalty) have forfeited the right to life so executing them is not murder. Government is not an individual and is given far more powers; therefore, executions are not “murder.” Since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, a murderer is likely to murder again, so execution prevents future murders. That it provides peace of minds for victims of crime and their families. A belief in reciprocity,- “an eye for an eye” – is part of the concept of justice for many people. That it is in fact less cruel than prolonged sentences of imprisonment, especially under the conditions that would be popularly demanded for heinous criminals. That it is explicitly allowed in constitutions and other documents of basic law.
Sovereignity
„) Sovereignty and power are tied to laws
“) Most legal and political laws are written by and for the people
”) Sovereignty of the states is given with the people
„) When states have a common goal, they can make laws. That it is one of the fundamental tenets of democracy that it is an effective tool to influence government as a whole to achieve political and ideological equality. That it is an effective tool for the states with little or no real democratic need for power but that the people’s right to self rule under their own rule are not infringed by the state. That it is a legitimate tool for the people to carry on democratic life and that no one but the people and their rights cannot be infringed. That it is, for all practical purposes, a tool used for the protection of the people, with no real threat that anyone in power or even the people’s representatives could, or would, infringe on their fundamental right to the future free from threats of violence and intimidation and that it is based on a democratic democratic model that is in a constitutional sense. That it is not a tool if used on an individual by a specific governmental entity or through individual citizens. That the purpose of state intervention in matters of national security and social concerns is limited to a specific purpose and in the case of the international community, to the benefit of the countries affected. The states possess an incentive to do that which their own state is incapable of doing and that the people’s power to do so is not infringed by the state. that the goal of state intervention should be to enhance democracy and to keep the common good under the control of all who are citizens of the United States or of the European Union. That the states are not being forced to infringe on civil liberties or human rights, such as freedom of expression or association, and to do anything they think is necessary to protect society and to fulfill the national, international, and territorial interests of the people and for the benefit of the nation. That if the purpose is more beneficial to both nations and to the state, then it is in the interest of both states. that the purpose of state intervention should be to enhance democracy and to keep the common good under the control of all who are citizens of the United States or of the European Union. That the states are not being forced to infringe on civil liberties or human rights, such as freedom of expression or association, and to do anything they think is necessary to protect society and to fulfill the national, international, and territorial interests of the people and for the benefit of the nation. That if the purpose is less beneficial to both nations and to the state, then it is in the interests of both states.
Justice
‟) In a society characterized by the rule of law with respect to justice, what should be done to enforce and implement law? That it is in the interest of the people to ensure that justice must take precedence over corruption, that the rule of law should follow through with the right to practice due diligence, that justice ought not to be a matter of personal personal choice, and that the right to a fair trial ought to be upheld in all courts and in the executive branch of government. That due process does not, necessarily, depend on arbitrary force or arbitrary compulsion, that it should be based upon a set of procedures by which the justice system is designed. That the courts are to the community be based on objective standards of review and that
pg. 2Cons of Capital PunishmentCapital punishment is the legal infliction of death as a penalty for violating criminal law. Most arguments against capital punishment are based on exposing flaws in defenses of capital punishment. However, some are more direct attacks, such as that capital punishment should be abolished since it is undignified, inhumane, or contrary to love. Defenders of capital punishment argue that retributive justice is one such conflicting duty. For, even though we are duty bound to acknowledge a criminals dignity, the duty of retribution is also present and is in fact outweighs the other duties. The Internet of Encyclopedia states that it “is virtually impossible to apply death sentences fairly. People on death row are typically poor and thus could not afford the best defense at their initial trial. They are also predominately Afro-American or Hispanic, which raises larger issues of racial inequality in the US. As ethnic minorities, they are also likely to receive more strict judgments from juries than their white counterparts who commit the same crime. These considerations recently prompted a US Supreme Court Justice to change his own views on capital punishment and reject the practice. In addition to problems of class bias, the practice of capital punishment is further tainted by the tragic fact that innocent people are sometimes executed. Eliminating capital punishment not