What Type Of Conduct Should Be Legal

To punish based on intent only would infringe on the personal freedom of thought and feeling, and would invade a citizen’s right to private thought. However, if inchoate crimes are not adequately dealt with, then a significant deterrent and failsafe for the more innocent attempts would lose a heavy amount of significance and the general populace might be in greater danger. Criminal attempts should be punished to protect the general public’s well-being and corral the potential offender’s willingness to harm another’s civil liberties, but the severity of the attempt and the reason for its failure should have weight when considering the level and severity of the attempt’s corresponding punishment, though they should not match a completed crime’s

Many people from the United States hold the belief that being gay is something that has always been considered to be okay. They believe that it is just a given. Despite people’s current beliefs on the subject, for a very long time, it was something that was widely believed to be taboo. In the past, people were imprisoned due to their sexuality. Regardless, throughout the decades, people have pushed for the widespread acceptance of people who are part of the LGBT community. Today, homophobia still exists in some parts of the United States, but we have come a long way since the early 1900s.

It was not until the twelfth century that homosexuality started to be condemned. This condemnation proved to live through then until now. Due to the fact that America incorporated these early views into its early laws, even the most bland of today's sex acts were seen as unlawful (“Homosexuality and Mental Health”). Since then, these laws have changed, however, there is still a primarily negative connotation on homosexuals when coming from a church or legal standpoint concerning the masses of America.

Joel Feinberg, defines the Offense Principle as “ it is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it is probably necessary to prevent serious offense [as opposed to injury or harm] to persons other than the actor, and would probably be an effect means to that end if enacted.” (Feinberg, 1984). I believe that this principle serves as the best way to analyze R. V. Keegstra. There are many factors that fall under the Offense Principle, such as extent, duration, social value of speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, and the general interests of the community at large, however, I will only touch a few. Based off of these factors, Keegstra and Zundel should be prosecuted, but not those from “Go Yankee, go”. Zundel and “Go Yankee, go” are to be discussed in a later section of this essay.

In our day-to-day life, it is inevitable that someone will do or say things that will hurt or upset us. In the same way, laws were created to guide people, curb crime, and restore law and order in the society but still people happen to break laws despite the existence of law. However, someone may ask what is the best way of dealing with criminal behavior? Should the society embrace the concept of “an eye for an eye” or “get to the root” of the problem, or just simply to focus on and assist the victim (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012 pg. 12)? Many studies conducted by criminal justice scholars in line with this debate point towards punishment to crimes committed as the most acceptable means of dealing with an injustice for most societies. However, still the moral basis for punishment is a conflicting issue that has given rise to numerous competing views. This paper will address reasons why an eye for an eye is the best means of dealing with criminal behavior and not focusing on the victim nor getting to the root cause of criminal behavior (Akers, 2013).

There is a history that dates back with the LGBTQ community as far as the 1800s and earlier. In 1885 the Criminal Law Act was passed in the United Kingdom, which made all homosexual behaviors illegal. Similar laws were put in place throughout Europe and in the States as well during this period. When homosexuality was made illegal, those suspected of it could face imprisonment and hard labor for up to two years. People who cross-dressed became easy targets of the law because they were associated, in the public mind, with homosexual

Hate Crimes care awful and yet they happen every day. The thought that a hate crimes can happen anytime anywhere is not something that crosses everyone’s mind daily. Within this essay we will cover the typical individual who commits hate crimes, who the targets or victims of hate crimes are, what the causes and effects of hate crimes are, and what actions can be taken to minimize the amount and occurrence of hate crimes. Unfortunately hate crimes have been a part of the United States, prior to the United States being named. They are a part of our history as Americans, though it is not good history, it is still there. “A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment,

Another factor is social changes in our society. Society constantly changes and therefore has to adapt to new developments and norms. Pre 1967 homosexually was illegal in England and Wales and any adults to have homosexual intercourses would of been punished as it was considere and unlawful conduct. Although

Based upon my preliminary research, outlined in this section, I predict that the theoretical angle I will pursue in my research essay will be that the Australian vilification laws are too lax and the ‘line’ needs to be redrawn in order to protect peoples Freedom of Expression as defamation laws, in their current form, are somewhat suitable at protecting individuals from any form of discrimination. However, despite this, as I undergo more vigorous research prior to the completion of the essay my stance might change and I consequently might argue for a different theoretical angle in my final essay.

In American society a particularly offensive crime such as rape, kidnapping, cold-blooded murder calls out a wave of popular indignation and resentment. Even in the Indian Society we often hear of pick-pockets who are caught red handed and are beaten black and blue. Immanuel Kant notices that punishment inflicted, neither benefits the criminal or the society, but the sole and sufficient reason for inflicting punishment is the evil doer facing the evil: he did the evil, he suffered the evil. In the evolution of punishment more stress was laid on social revenge. Society is outraged at an act of voluntary perversity and indignantly retaliated. It is plain that, however, futile it may be, social revenge is the only honest, straightforward and logical

Victimless crimes, the illegal act(s) that involves consenting adults and lacks a complaining participant, have been the topic of heated debate for some time now (Kendall, 2014). This debate centers primarily on the question as to whether these acts should be crimes at all. The arguments take several forms. One of the controversies involves the importance of personal freedom versus society’s idea to uphold moral standards. A second issue addresses the problem of the conception of harm. People who stand on this side on this side of the argument raise questions as to whether victimless crimes are harmful not only to the participants but to others in society as well. More importantly, they ask whether such acts result in negative

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the modern 2-sex model of exclusive heterosexuality had come to define conditions of “normality” and “abnormality” in both sexual desire and gender expression. In today’s society we are still focusing on what is normal or what is abnormal. In early times being deemed abnormal was a fatal punishable crime. Luckily today citizens such as homosexuals and women who abort babies are not getting punish such as death or jail time for making a personal lifestyle “choice”. Why are we still focusing on prochoice and gay rights?

This being an age when people are supposedly more open-minded, why is it that gays are treated this way just because of their sexual orientation? Many Americans are still

Culturally, this type of behavior had no definite wrong or abnormal connotation strapped to it. As Neil Miller describes, "In the 1870s, a concept of homosexual identity--or of gay and lesbian community--was barely articulated" (Miller xvii). In America, the idea of homosexual love was beyond societal understanding. Prior to the introduction of homosexuality people were free to care about each other on levels without the constraints of any insecurity base on a the possibility of getting a label.

Consequently, we can infer that we were not supposed destinguish one universal concept of normality out of those that were presented to us by the author, but to understand why and how different ideas of normality got to become the reality of different characters. Although each case involved breaking different social norms, not all the violations were evaluated the same. Since the severity with which a crime gets judged depends on the level of the conventional formality of the norm that was broken, a more rigorous panishment is reserved for the norms which the society find more important. Obviously, if a violation of a norm involves harming other people, in terms of causing physical and psychical pain, then the repercussions and the stigma will be