Capital Punishment Essays - Penology, Criminology, Criminal Law

Capital Punishment The Debate over the merits of capital punishment has enduredfor years, and continues to be an extremely indecisive and complicated issue. Adversaries of capital punishment point to the Marshalls and the Millgards, while proponents point to the Dahmers and Gacys. Society must be kept safe from the monstrous barbaric acts of these individuals and other killers, by taking away their lives to function and perform in our society. At the same time, we must insure that innocent people such as Marshall and Millgard are never convicted or sentenced to death for a crime that they did not commit. Many contend that the use of capital punishment as a form of deterrence does not work, as there are no fewer murders on a per- capita basis in countries or states that do have it, then those that do not. In order for capital punishment to work as a deterrence, certain events must be present in the criminal's mind prior to committing the offence. The criminal must be aware that others have been punished in the past for the offence that he or she is planning, and that what happened to another individual who committed this offence, can also happen to me. But individuals who commit any types of crime ranging from auto theft to 1st-Degree Murder, never take into account the consequences of their actions. Deterrence to crime, is rooted in the individuals themselves. Every human has a personal set of conduct. How much they will and will not tolerate. How far they will and will not go. This personal set of conduct can be made or be broken by friends, influences, family, home, life, etc. An individual who is never taught some sort of restraint as a child, will probably never understand any limit as to what they can do, until they have learned it themselves. Therefore, capital punishment will never truly work as a deterrent, because of human nature to ignore practised advice and to self learn. There are those who claim that capital punishment is in itself a form of vengeance on the killer. But isn't locking up a human being behind steel bars for many years, vengeance itself? And is it "humane" that an individual who took the life of another, should receive heating, clothing, indoor plumbing, 3 meals a day, while a homeless person who has harmed no one receives nothing? Adversaries of capital punishment claim that it is far more humane then having the state take away the life of the individual. In February 1963, Gary McCorkell, a 19 year old sex offender, was scheduled to hang. But just days before his execution, the then Liberal cabinet of Lester Person commuted McCorkell to life in prison. Less than 20 years later, McCorkell was arrested, tried, and convicted for the kidnapping and rape of a 10-year old Tenessee boy. He was sentanced to 63 years in prison. Prior to leaving Canada, he was sought by Metro Police in the attempted murder of an 11-year old boy. What has been gained by this? Had McCorkell been executed in 1963, two boys would never have had to have gone through the horror of being sexually abused. These individuals may themselves become sex offenders, as many sex offenders were sexually abused as children. McCorkell may have been a victim of sexually assualt in the past, but that does not justify what he did. He did not do this once, he killed two boys, and assaulted two others, leaving one for dead. He knew exactly what he was doing. What right does this man have to live? He has ruined the lives of 4 children, what will he do in life that will compensate for that? What kind of a life would the state have been taking away in this case? An innocent life? A forgiving life? No, a life that was beyond the realm of reform, and did not care to be. We must be careful. We must be very careful to never, even when suspicion may cause considerable doubt, send an innocent person to be executed. It could have happened to David Millgard, it could have happened to Donald Marshall. It probably has even occured numerous times in the history of the earth. But with proper police investigations, and where the evidence shows that the individual is a threat to the peace of society as long as he or she is alive, capital punishment must be used. Capital Punishment Essays - Penology, Criminology, Criminal Law Capital Punishment The Debate over the merits of capital punishment has enduredfor years, and continues to be an extremely indecisive and complicated issue. Adversaries of capital punishment point to the Marshalls and the Millgards, while proponents point to the Dahmers and Gacys. Society must be kept safe from the monstrous barbaric acts of these individuals and other killers, by taking away their lives to function and perform in our society. At the same time, we must insure that innocent people such as Marshall and Millgard are never convicted or sentenced to death for a crime that they did not commit. Many contend that the use of capital punishment as a form of deterrence does not work, as there are no fewer murders on a per- capita basis in countries or states that do have it, then those that do not. In order for capital punishment to work as a deterrence, certain events must be present in the criminal's mind prior to committing the offence. The criminal must be aware that others have been punished in the past for the offence that he or she is planning, and that what happened to another individual who committed this offence, can also happen to me. But individuals who commit any types of crime ranging from auto theft to 1st-Degree Murder, never take into account the consequences of their actions. Deterrence to crime, is rooted in the individuals themselves. Every human has a personal set of conduct. How much they will and will not tolerate. How far they will and will not go. This personal set of conduct can be made or be broken by friends, influences, family, home, life, etc. An individual who is never taught some sort of restraint as a child, will probably never understand any limit as to what they can do, until they have learned it themselves. Therefore, capital punishment will never truly work as a deterrent, because of human nature to ignore practised advice and to self learn. There are those who claim that capital punishment is in itself a form of vengeance on the killer. But isn't locking up a human being behind steel bars for many years, vengeance itself? And is it "humane" that an individual who took the life of another, should receive heating, clothing, indoor plumbing, 3 meals a day, while a homeless person who has harmed no one receives nothing? Adversaries of capital punishment claim that it is far more humane then having the state take away the life of the individual. In February 1963, Gary McCorkell, a 19 year old sex offender, was scheduled to hang. But just days before his execution, the then Liberal cabinet of Lester Person commuted McCorkell to life in prison. Less than 20 years later, McCorkell was arrested, tried, and convicted for the kidnapping and rape of a 10-year old Tenessee boy. He was sentanced to 63 years in prison. Prior to leaving Canada, he was sought by Metro Police in the attempted murder of an 11-year old boy. What has been gained by this? Had McCorkell been executed in 1963, two boys would never have had to have gone through the horror of being sexually abused. These individuals may themselves become sex offenders, as many sex offenders were sexually abused as children. McCorkell may have been a victim of sexually assualt in the past, but that does not justify what he did. He did not do this once, he killed two boys, and assaulted two others, leaving one for dead. He knew exactly what he was doing. What right does this man have to live? He has ruined the lives of 4 children, what will he do in life that will compensate for that? What kind of a life would the state have been taking away in this case? An innocent life? A forgiving life? No, a life that was beyond the realm of reform, and did not care to be. We must be careful. We must be very careful to never, even when suspicion may cause considerable doubt, send an innocent person to be executed. It could have happened to David Millgard, it could have happened to Donald Marshall. It probably has even occured numerous times in the history of the earth. But with proper police investigations, and where the evidence shows that the individual is a threat to the peace of society as long as he or she is alive, capital punishment must be used.

Free Essays on Petronius Satyricon

There are many parallels between Rome in the time of Petronius’ Satyricon and modern day USA, with many of the same contradictions between what is promoted by the existing political and social powers that be (the elites – or elitists as the case may be) and what is actually taking place. In the days of the Roman Empire Nero and Caligula set an example somewhat similar to modern day politicians Clinton and Nixon. Rome’s Princep Augustus promoted marriage and children. He warned against promiscuity and adultery. Today we have the Moral Majority and other self-appointed arbiters of morality. The preceding was the official edict of Augustus; the surviving fragments of Petronius’ Satyricon indicate the push for the end of debauchery was largely ignored. In fact, Augustus’ only daughter Julia flouted his edict (and was widely gossiped about) to the degree that he ended up making an example of her and banishing her to a ‘barren islet’. The tone and language in Satyricon is surprising, but not as intriguing as the numerous social improprieties, love affairs and general debauchery recounted. The first chapters of the text deal with the rivalry between two men (Encolpius, the narrator and Ascyltos, his sometime lover) in a rivalry for the affections of Giton (slave and shrewd attendant of them both). Although the male-male lovemaking might wrinkle the noses of some modern day moralists, ‘manly love’ was accepted in Roman times. The moral issue seems to be the casual way the two men pass Giton (sixteen years of age) back and forth between them, while finding time to make love to a woman or two during the same general period. Encolpius apparently sees nothing amiss in his bawdy actions, â€Å"†¦having claimed the kisses that were mine good faith, I encircled the boy in the closest of embraces and enjoyed the effect of our happy vows to a point that might be envied.† Shortly thereafter, the three visit a friend Lycu... Free Essays on Petronius' Satyricon Free Essays on Petronius' Satyricon There are many parallels between Rome in the time of Petronius’ Satyricon and modern day USA, with many of the same contradictions between what is promoted by the existing political and social powers that be (the elites – or elitists as the case may be) and what is actually taking place. In the days of the Roman Empire Nero and Caligula set an example somewhat similar to modern day politicians Clinton and Nixon. Rome’s Princep Augustus promoted marriage and children. He warned against promiscuity and adultery. Today we have the Moral Majority and other self-appointed arbiters of morality. The preceding was the official edict of Augustus; the surviving fragments of Petronius’ Satyricon indicate the push for the end of debauchery was largely ignored. In fact, Augustus’ only daughter Julia flouted his edict (and was widely gossiped about) to the degree that he ended up making an example of her and banishing her to a ‘barren islet’. The tone and language in Satyricon is surprising, but not as intriguing as the numerous social improprieties, love affairs and general debauchery recounted. The first chapters of the text deal with the rivalry between two men (Encolpius, the narrator and Ascyltos, his sometime lover) in a rivalry for the affections of Giton (slave and shrewd attendant of them both). Although the male-male lovemaking might wrinkle the noses of some modern day moralists, ‘manly love’ was accepted in Roman times. The moral issue seems to be the casual way the two men pass Giton (sixteen years of age) back and forth between them, while finding time to make love to a woman or two during the same general period. Encolpius apparently sees nothing amiss in his bawdy actions, â€Å"†¦having claimed the kisses that were mine good faith, I encircled the boy in the closest of embraces and enjoyed the effect of our happy vows to a point that might be envied.† Shortly thereafter, the three visit a friend Lycu...

This is a take home exam, there are 4 different questions that have to Essay

This is a take home exam, there are 4 different questions that have to be researched and answered - Essay Example Adorno has redefined enlightenment and extended its meaning to a universal principle that guided the development of human civilization. In so doing, he realized that enlightenment also led the people to dominate and use nature for themselves. In the process, enlightenment brought about transformation and suppression of other elements that existed in nature that consequently led to self-destruction as shown by the totalitarianism examples during the madness of Nazism and Stalin. Totalitarian here is taken as an abstract word that I define as restriction, and imposed power that is critical of the system of the form of government of a totalitarian power. I believe that what Adorno exemplifies in his theory as â€Å"a process of categorical thought in modern society, by which everything becomes an example of an abstract, and thus nothing individual in its actual uniqueness is allowed to exist†. Adorno believes that reason has been entangled with domination and suffering. I take th is to mean that it is likened to a totalitarian system wherein, people although living in modern society have no control of its environment and everything has to conform to the outside world. Under this context, let me describe totalitarianism as a form of society largely responsible for influencing its citizens with a self-centered ideology. Man, according to Adorno has been liberated from myth, and enlightenment and understanding today comes from scientific reasoning which he thinks is the same as from myth. I believe this should not be the case because myth has no foundations of truth, and belief has only been passed by traditions so much so that it is accepted as near truth; but scientific researches are based on truth that is more reliable than myths. On this basis, Adorno created a view point that morality is being stuck within its powerless objective, in a world that values only recognizable facts, and morality becomes a mere prejudice of individual subjectivity. It is hard t o discern what morality signifies to Adorno and why it has become powerless. But my understanding of morality is the codes of conduct put forward by a society or by a religion. In a sense, there is some truth to his assumptions because codes of conduct, particularly in a religion is based on tradition and culture that limits free expression of people and does really free the people. Talking about culture of the people, Adorno has been known for being critique of the entertainment industry of modern society because to him â€Å"it is just a mechanical, formulaic, and dominating as the workplace. His arguments show that the humans in modern society have been programmed between work and leisure, and they are merely changing to another piece of the machine – from producer to consumer. His rationalization is under this mantle of ideology, man is not free to create his own desires and they cannot really become free individuals that can create its own society. 2. Does God Matter in the present world, especially since God has been associated with oppressive ideas such as sexual repression, racism, and androcentrism/anthropocentrism? This question is taken in the context of sociological perspectives that encourages us to examine aspects of social environment