Pre Crime Is Used For Criminals Based On Foreknowledge Provided By Precogs

Once the person has been arrested he/she appears in court in order to determined by the court if the person is guilty or not. The defendant is made aware of their legal rights and if they are found not guilty during the initial appearance no further action is needed. However, if the defendant is found guilty then he/she either is released on a bail bond or kept in detention depending on the seriousness of the crime till the trail takes place.

In “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, written and published by David B. Mulhausen on September 29, 2014, Mulhausen speaks of the reasons why the death penalty is a proper way to bring murderers to justice. He believes that “some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties” (Mulhausen). Not only does he believe that the death penalty is useful to set criminals to justice, but he also believes that the enforcement of the death penalty deters crime rates.

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. This nation, the United States of America, is currently one of fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder as of 2012. People that believe in the death penalty also believe that it will deter murders. In this paper I will argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that this nation should outlaw the practice.

Some of the arguments in support of death penalty are it decreases the chance of crime rate. In absence of death penalty there is higher chance of increase in crime rate. According to the time magazine, an estimated two hundred thousand people in United States have been victims of some kind of crimes. With not proper law criminals will feel more free to commit heinous crimes. To secure the community and create a sense of fear in criminals to commit horrible crimes, there is a need for death penalty.

The world that we live in today have people who commit unforgivable crime by hurting others and making society feel unsafe. Individuals who perform serial crimes towards our society must face some kind of punishment, determine by the court justice and the people. Unfortunately, the capital punishment made by people and those with authority take justice on their own hands intensively. It is surprising how preventing others to commit the same crimes or worse have been taken so far. Everything is making that person feel unsafe and without hope of any kind. We must be considerate and realized that we make mistake, but we need to learn from it and have another chance to make things right. Prison it is a way to punish and give a second chance to a person even if it is for the rest of their life. We must never take a life for another life, because we will be becoming a criminal as well. The wrongful acts of punishment in this society is to create deterrence, torture, and self satisfaction; instead of just putting criminals in jail without deciding if they should stay alive.

Today's society is filled with many different people from different backgrounds. Some of these people can be unpredictable from doing things such as murdering, raping, or kidnapping. These people are criminals and should not be able to see the light of day for their violent acts. Violent criminals found guilty should face the death penalty.

The death penalty is a necessary punishment in the age of terrorism and serial killers, as society has a right to protect itself from the most violent of criminals. The death penalty is appropriate for the worst of the worst, people who have committed crimes so atrocious that they are no longer fit to be among us. Capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting them to death, then the system appears more of a threat to them. Therefor they are less inclined to break and enter. They may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if they know they will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that they will not break and enter in the first place "Immanuel Kant said it best. He said a society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else 's life is simply immoral. So the question really... when the system works and when you manage to identify somebody who has done such heinous evil, do we as a society have a right to take his life? I think the answer 's plainly yes. And I would go with Kant and I would say it is immoral for us not to. “This supports my main point by stating by taking the life of the person who kills someone is a fit crime and the system works by doing just this When someone murders someone there is no

First of all, the death penalty lessens the chance of people committing crimes. According to Tom Streissguth, author of The Death Penalty: Debating Capital Punishment, "The more issues of crime and the death penalty went through changes

In my opinion, the precrime system of permanently jailing would-have-been murderers is not morally better than the alternative systems. A person should be given a chance to change their fate before being detained. If the murderer is warned about their precogs’ visions of their future crimes, it would be more morally justified. According to Act Utilitarianism, this action will minimize pain for both sides. However, because crime can be motivated by many factors such as emotion instability, financial hardship, etc, it could happen unpredictably. Therefore, the alternative of detaining the crime temporarily would be better than permanent detained. The pain of being detained is less than the potential pain of the victims and their family; so it is morally permissible. This helps to prevent potential crime in the Minority Report.

The death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crime. Most criminals who commit crimes do not have intentions of being caught and believe that they are invincible from the repercussions of their actions. Because of this, the death penalty really does not deter criminals from committing a crime. In fact, the death penalty could be considered an “easy way out” because the criminal does not have to spend several months, years, or even the rest of his or her life behind bars with little contact with the outside world. The criminal can just die and no longer have to suffer with knowing what he or she did, how it has affected others, and how it will continue to affect his or her life. Also, many criminals end up committing suicide in prison because they do not want to have to spend every day locked in a jail cell for extended periods of time.

My assumption is that the death penalty does not deter people from crime. I do not believe that the fear of receiving punishment or justice will deter murder. When people commit crimes, they do not think or care about the consequences at that time. If that were true, people would not speed on highways or do drugs in fear that they would be prosecuted. I believe that with or without capital punishment people will still commit crimes. I believe that the death penalty does not have conclusive evidence to be a tool in the criminal justice system to deter people.

Last but not least, from a sociologic perspective, capital punishment does not work as intended, to deter crime rate, rather, it might brutalize individuals, at the same time does nothing good to the victim’s family other than brutal vengeance. The origin of death penalty is served as a vehicle to put a warning for those potential future criminals that such kind of behavior will lead to death. However, so far, no clear evidence can be seen that capital punishment, as a mechanism of deterrent, actually cut down the local crime rate. Ironically, a reversal trend was found by Death Penalty Information Center (2010) in the USA that the death penalty leads to an increase in local murder rate. To die might be too easy for the mindless murderers. Also, for the relatives or friends of criminals put into death through capital punishment, they are more likely to be

Groups that support the death penalty often say that it deters criminals from committing future crimes like murders or other heinous crimes. On the contrary, many criminals do not think of the consequences of their actions when they are committing a crime, nor do they care what happens

Allowing people who have committed mass murder to live in prison is not just. It does not seem correct to force the families who have lost loved ones to the murderer, pay for his stay in prison. Although, if the murderers are sentenced to death, it will give some a sense of security, knowing the government is protecting the citizens. Martin Perlmutter has a good article on capital punishment and explains the utilitarian view. Perlmutter argues that although the utilitarian view is not perfect, since it focuses on the future without looking at the past, it does contain some valid points. The focus will be on how Utilitarians believes punishment should be based, which is on the future. Capital punishment usually creates positive outcomes for the future. The following paragraph will cover deterrence in depth, but Utilitarianism believes this is when capital punishment is beneficial to the society. If capital punishment did not have any benefits over a life sentence to prison, Utilitarianism would not support it. Criticism of Utilitarianism is made by Perlmutter here, and it is agreeable to look back as well as forward. Citizens need to understand what and why the criminal committed in the past. Perlmutter believes our moral concepts look backwards, explaining why focusing on the future is harmful.

To do this, the punishment for crime must be harsh enough to deter potential criminals. Under this mindset, the death penalty makes perfect sense. Here is a punishment that truly makes a criminal pay for his crime, stops the criminal from committing it again, and deters other criminals from committing the same crime.