Society 's Moral Stance On Killing And Violence

In “Shame: The emotions and morality of violence,” James Gilligan, a professor of Psychiatry at New York University, argues to make a point that shame can lead to violence in a certain amount of people. After working and interviewing with two convicts in a prison, he learns that there are three preconditions to be met before being considered violent. The first is to not show their feelings of being ashamed due to it threatening their masculinity. The second is that they can’t counteract shame with their social status, achievements, friends and family. The last is not to feel love, guilt, or fear. These preconditions make Gilligan more understanding of the inmates and their lives.

Senator for Utah Orrin Hatch once said, “Capital punishment is our society’s recognition of the sanctity of human life,” (Brainy Quote). While the arguments for both sides of the debate over the morality of the death penalty are vast, the bottom line is that the death penalty does not disregard human life, but rather it reveres it, as Hatch said. Morality is defined as, “The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct,” (The Free Dictionary). One who seeks to protect a person who has committed a heinous crime such as murder is arguably not in accords with what is right and wrong. Therefore, although killing is generally accepted as being wrong, the death penalty is sometimes the only solution to bring justice to a

The death penalty has been a huge part of many political debates for the past few decades. There are two sides, those for and those against its continued use and both have logical arguments. My research question is if it is ethical and or beneficial for the U.S. government to continue using the death penalty? To gain the attention of my audience, I am going to share two stories that my sources have on those with experience in the debate. The Forbes article, “Considering The Death Penalty: Your Tax Dollars At Work,” is an anti-death penalty piece explaining how an innocent man was on death row and his opinion on whether or not it should be used. He said in the piece that living out a life sentence without parole is worse than being executed.

Society has been subjected to many violent acts over the course of its history. Although violence is immoral and wrong, somehow people everyday condone and commit violence for countless reasons. Many Hollywood films glorify mindless violence to their advantage and captivate audiences through its entertaining shock value and rake large box office profits. Car chases, crashes and glorified gladiator sword fights are all familiar scenes in which violence is portrayed in an unrealistic glamorised manner.

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.

¨The taking of even one life is a momentous event.¨ (Bernardin, The Consistent Ethic of Life). The consistent ethic of life is founded on the belief that all life is sacred and worth protecting, while the reasons for capital punishment may seem similar-- retaliation for a life lost-- the death penalty directly goes against everything the consistent ethic of life teaches. As proven through these presentations, capital punishment cases are often inaccurate and biased, while the act of the Death Penalty has proven to be painful with many examples of botched executions. Not only is killing immoral, but how can we go through with these executions when evidence has shown the death penalty can be inefficient and some

What has America come to? Although the articles, “We’re No.1(1)!” written by Thomas Friedman, and the article “Violence is Who We Are,” by Steven Crichley, have different overall subjects, they have a similar arguments. The world isn’t as great as it used to be, we are lacking good leadership, and we happily invite wrong doings into our lives.

On January 17, 2017, “Surge in the Violence” was released by the Crime lab at the University of Chicago, which had combined a report on the statistics of homicides taken place in the year 2015 and 2016. The number of homicides taken place in the year of 2016 has soared by record high of 67 percent than the previous year. Chicago is one of the busiest and advanced cities in the world and getting such high numbers in the field of crime is a shame and leaves a bad impression on the rest of the world. The violence related to guns has also increased enormously and according to “Chicago Tribune”, 2,958 people have been shot dead by now this year. Though the data shows that the homicides by gun has decreased significantly but the number is still a problem. The gun violence now is a serious problem and the current situation demands strict gun laws.

When discussing the death penalty, rarely do we acknowledge the impact executions have on the men and women who facilitate the process. Although this process is solely voluntary, the side effects are not. According to several executioners, the first experience is far from what they had anticipated. To bring to light the stories of these men and women, Jim Willet facilitates an audio recording which covers the process of executing an inmate and the aftermath which is often felt by the executioner.

In conclusion, it has been demonstrated the social construction of the lawful and unlawful homicide by using the actions of the police officers in two different cases. In the Mark Duggan case, the lawfulness of the homicide was demonstrated by police officer complying with the theoretical outlooks of Beccaria and Durkheim (Williams, 2012). Protecting the people and their cultural biases, applying the punishment that straightens the social bonds as well as following laws and legislations despite of unwanted reaction in from of riots portray Mark Duggan’s killing as a lawful homicide (IPCC (a), 2015). However, if laws and legislations were not followed and actions were not aimed to protect people which led to a break in social bonds the reasonable

Today our society is assaulted with a barrage of violent images, whether fictional or not. People no longer think twice when they see a character die in a movie or a bullet riddled high-schooler jump out of a second story window. The concept of human life has completely lost its meaning. Capital punishment contributes to this problem. A convict is not thought of as a person. All humanity associated with them is removed. This rationalization is required in order have a society where capital punishment is legal. If a society removes humanity from convicts, characters in movies, or people on the 6 o'clock news it will begin to remove humanity from people encountered in every day life.

Perhaps most importantly, one must consider the basic ethical question of hypocrisy. We must ask ourselves, "What type of message are we as a nation sending to the rest of the world and to our own citizens when we kill people who kill people to show that it is wrong to kill people?" By executing murderers, we are merely lowering ourselves to their level in order to express our primitive desire for retribution. Our society can never be called moral or democratic if we begin sacrificing individuals, without their consent, to 'the greater good.' Since capital punishment is supposedly intended to protect and avenge innocent lives, it has failed its purpose if, as it undoubtedly has and will, it causes even a few blameless people to be killed. The

Capital Punishment was adopted by America when the state of Virginia carried out the colonies’ first execution in 1608 (“History of the Death Penalty”). Since then, usage of the death penalty has been instituted by 36 states, making execution the ultimate form of punishment. Although in theory the death penalty seems like a viable method of punishment, in practice, it has serious flaws that damage the integrity of the state. Capital Punishment has been falsely idolized as a deterrent, applied unfairly for generations, used as a vehicle for revenge, and made people blind to the fact that life in prison without parole is an equally acceptable form of punishment. The death penalty is an

Two major claims: death penalty serves as a deterrent and death penalty is morally justified because murderers can’t live and you have a right to kill them.

"When and to what extent does the morally good end warrant or justify an ethically, politically, or legally dangerous means for its achievement?" This is the question posed by Carl Klockars about the ever growing Dirty Harry problem in society. This has become a focus of mass media and even a source of profit. The name itself comes from a Hollywood movie staring Clint Eastwood. If you believe the movies then the answer is never, for as long as the bad guy gets what he deserves then the means didn’t matter. But at some point a