Shylock Vs Portia

Would you send an innocent man to prison? Two Judges were faced with this decision.

I think a Natural Law School follower would have found the men not guilty of murder. Again this is based upon the reading, back story,

“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.

He is tried for the crime of murder, but is not judged solely on his actions during the aforementioned crime. He is judged on his specific actions that society regards as absurd

Portia, wife of Brutus has he her first appearance in act 2 scene 1, when she awakens to find Brutus very stressed out. She asked why and he said he is sick, she tells him that being outside will only make it worse. She tells him how concerned she is with his ways and kneels and

Without money, Bassanio believes himself an unfit suitor for Portia, unable to match any of her other, richer suitors in sexual appeal. It is doubly significant that though he speaks of love and sexual

Ever since the dawn of man’s search for justice, the death penalty, has been a consequence for particularly heinous crimes. Over the years society has debated whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. People who oppose of the death penalty view supporters as gun-slinging "rednecks" who live in the backwoods of America. Likewise, supporters view those who oppose the death penalty as uptight "suits" who live in mansions and believes that every person, no matter their crime, deserves to live. Those who oppose the death penalty argue that life in prison is a preferable solution to the death penalty. The supporters of the death penalty argue that Hammurabi’s code, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, is an

Capital punishment is a sentence that is given to someone that has committed a capital crime. This is a subject of great debate; some people agree and some do not. There are times when a crime is so heinous that the majority would seek capital punishment. Susan Gissendaner received this sentence for plotting to kill her husband, although her boyfriend actually killed her husband. Since being in prison, Susan has undergone a conversion and transformation. She is now a model prisoner. Due to Susan’s transformation, they are trying to have her sentence changed. Should Susan’s sentence be commuted to life in prison is the question being asked? This paper will answer the question by providing a moral judgment viewed by two non-consequentialist theories. The strengths and weaknesses of these positions will be assessed. Whether I agree or disagree will be answered and explained.

In State of Oregon v. Kipland Kinkel, Judge Haselton summarizes the decision to deny Kinkel’s appeal of his sentencing. Kinkel was sentenced by the Lower Court to 111 years and 8 months for the confession of 4 murders and 25 accounts of attempted murder. Several medical personal and parents testified against Kinkel at the hearing stating that, “he is and remains dangerous,” (para. 15). The defense’s grounds for appeal consist of the sentencing being cruel and unusual and that the protection of society was considered more than reformation. The higher court denied it was cruel and unusual because it did not shock the conscience. The presiding judge also denied that reformation was of higher significance than the protection of society because there were multiple victims affected in a public setting.

This trial was ethical by legal terms; however, I find it hard to say that morally this was the ethical case to take to trail. I understand taking hostages in a college campus is very wrong and it appears that he had some clear thought of binding the doors and

“His testimony was responsible for the execution of some 35 persons, but, as the frenzy subsided, inconsistencies were discovered in his story.”

In view of these safeguards, proponents of capital punishment believe that state executions are justified sentences for those convicted of willful first-degree murder. They do not think sentencing murderers to prison is a harsh enough sentence, especially if there is the possibility of parole for the perpetrator. A final argument posed by proponents of the death penalty is that execution is an effective deterrence. They are convinced that potential murderers will likely think twice before they commit murder. Despite the rhetoric of politicians for the increased use of the death penalty, a number of prominent individuals and organizations have emerged to express their opposition to capital punishment. Along with families of death row prisoners, the International Court of The Hague, the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Texas Conference of Churches, Pope John Paul II, Nobel Peace recipient, Bishop Tutu, numerous judges and former prosecutors, former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, actors, and writers are waging a determined struggle against the death penalty. They invariably argue that capital punishment is wrong and inhumane. Religious folk generally evoke the nature of an “ideal spiritual community” (Cauthen, 1). Within this perspective, a moral and ethical community does not insist on a life for a life. While a community must act to protect law- abiding citizens, an ethical response would be to

Using the example of the case of Damon Thibodaux, he was taken for questioning after a girl who they were last seen with went missing. She was found strangled and naked (Leo, 2008). A homicide officer took over the case, and Thibodaux was interrogated for several hours. Although Thibodaux repeatedly said he knew nothing about the murder, the interrogation kept going, eventually the officer was able to record a statement from Thibodaux pleading guilty of consensual and non-consensual sex with the victim, beating, and assassinating her. Thibodaux was condemned to death, and was to spend fifteen years on death row and sixteen years in jail before DNA examination confirmed that he was not guilty (Kassin, 2013). Thibodauxs exoneration proceeding concluded that fatigue and exhaustion from the overnight search for the girl, the long interrogation, psychological vulnerability, and fear of the death penalty led to the false confession by Thibodaux (Leo, 2008). This case is a great example of

As a result, some academics and legal commentators believe that the defence of loss of control should be abolished, including Professor Jeremy Horder. He argued that killing in anger is no more worthy of a defence than killing as a result of greed or envy. (Jeremy Horder Provocation and Responsibility (1992, OUP). But we must not allow our emotions to over-ride our legal reasoning. Taking into consideration the mandatory life sentencing for murder, defendants with mitigating circumstances to kill will be unfairly locked away for life if defence for loss of control is abolished.

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.