Clarus Vs Woyzeck

“Who so sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” (Genesis 9:6) There is an ancient tradition going back to biblical times that a fitting punishment for murder is the execution of the murderer. In this paper I will critically explain Pojman 's “Defense of the Death Penalty”. I will go over what his opinion on the death penalty and the deontologists and consequentialists point of views.

However, this cannot be said for all victims of guilt as the author makes sure to heed the consequences of

In Ian McEwan’s Atonement, Michael Chabon’s Wonder Boys and Louise Erdrich’s The Round House the legal system fails to produce just outcomes. In Atonement one of the main characters, Robbie is convicted of raping a young girl, when in fact he is innocent. Despite only unsubstantiated evidence from a 13-year-old girl, he is convicted. Only after the judicial system had failed did the girl wish to recant her former account, but by then it was too late. “ If you were lying then, why should a court believe you now? There are no new facts, and you’re an unreliable witness” (McEwan 82). In this unjust sentencing of an innocent man, Atonement shows that not only does the legal system sometimes err, but that these errors are often particularly difficult to ameliorate. Unfortunately this is not an anomaly. One in nine people sentenced to death row were later exonerated showing that sometimes instead of being the solvency for wrongdoings, the legal system can be the source (Stevenson).

The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

Crake’s lack of emotions makes him vulnerable to the moral neutrality of scientific knowledge, as he cannot understand the nuances of human nature. When Jimmy and Crake

Have you ever acted out in retribution for something done to you? Some examples could be if you punched someone for intentionally kicking you, or if someone deliberately hurt the feelings of someone you love and you retaliated in kind. You probably thought the punishment you received for your actions was too harsh or lenient. Many factors went into the decision of what discipline you received for this act and some were fair while others probably were not. This is true for the actions of many people in Aeschylus’s Oresteia. In each of the three plays, someone is seeking vengeance for a wrong done unto them, someone they know/love, or both. For this paper, I will be focusing on the vengeance enacted by Clytemnestra, Orestes, and the Fates. The vengeance that each person enacted was deemed just or unjust depending on many factors including the people who were doing the judging. Vengeance in Aeschylus’s Oresteia is viewed through the social lens of the society that it was enacted in. This lens is made up of the popular values, beliefs, and social conventions of the period as well as the judge’s personal views and/or experiences. These factors (such as gender and relation to the victim, as well as the presence or absence of transgressions on the characters part) lead to different opinions about the guilt of the accused individual and the individual themselves. The view of vengeance in Aeschylus’s Oresteia is very subjective.

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

The establishment of the courts provides a place for the citizens to decide about what is moral and to debate the details of specific cases. The emergence of the jury trial also suggests that justice is not “just” unless it involves deliberation. In the earlier plays Orestes and Clytemnestra took justice into their own hands by acting impulsively and Aeschylus implies in his tragedy that When a person seeks justice they must be careful not to pursue it in a vindictive way because revenge will inevitably transgress into suffering for the person seeking reprisal. the law needs to be concerned with definitions justice itself. In other words, justice without judgment is too rash and impulsive. A jury is necessary so that questions can be deliberated. Was Orestes matricide justified? Circumstances, motives and consequences must be taken into account at trial.These are complicated moral

Although the act that person may have committed was unlawful does it truly give us a right to evoke the “an eye for an eye” mentality? Another part to Kant’s categorical system is ensuring that everyone follows their moral compass in a way that the greatest maxim, or a universal rule that applies to everyone (Wells-Quash, 2010). Quite frankly if implementing “an eye for an eye” as a universal law was picked up for every situation people thought of, then figuratively speaking everyone would essentially go blind, in the sense that they have closed themselves off on one of the most difficult challenges humans can do to another human being: forgiveness.

There are many ways to decide what makes a man guilty. In an ethical sense, there is more to guilt than just committing the crime. In Charles Brockden Browns’ Wieland, the reader is presented with a moral dilemma: is Theodore Wieland guilty of murdering his wife and children, even though he claims that the command came from God, or is Carwin guilty because of his history of using persuasive voices, even though his role in the Wieland family’s murder is questionable? To answer these questions, one must consider what determines guilt, such as responsibility, motives, consequences, and the act itself. No matter which view is taken on what determines a man’s guilt, it can be concluded that

In the following paper I am going to defend my personal position on whether or not justice is objective. I am going to explain the argument between Socrates and Thrasymachus and define the terms used. Next I will give supporting evidence to support my position. I agree with Socrates, which is that justice is an objective truth.

The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.

III. The inevitability of factual, legal, and moral errors results in a system that must wrongly kill some innocent defendants.

The concept of justice is manifested through the three plays of Aeschylus' Oresteia. The old tradition of justice, the private blood feud, caused an ungoverned succession of violent acts that spiralled uncontrollably. Aegisthus, Clytemnestra's lover, is introduced in Agamemnon; he desires vengeance for the plot contrived by Agamemnon's father (Ag: 1605-1611).1 Neither Agamemnon nor Aegisthus took part in this "plot" and yet as the chorus explains (Ag: 755-6)

This paper is on the Classical School theory that emerged in the eighteenth century; two writes of this period were Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Among the major ideas that descend from this theory are the concepts of humans as free-willed, rational beings, utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number), civil rights and due process of law, rules of evidence and testimony, determinate sentencing, and deterrence. The writes during this period examined not only human nature but also social conditions as well. The Classical School, gave us a humanistic conception of how law and criminal justice system should be constructed. Law was to protect the rights of both society and individual, and its chief purpose was to deter criminal behavior, the law emphasized moral responsibility and the duty of citizens to consider full the consequences of behavior before they acted. This thinking required humans possessing free will and a rations nature.