Assess The Difference Between Justifications And Excuses

* Justification- God’s act of declaring and accepting a person as righteous in His sight. God pardons sinners who accept Christ and treats them as not guilty – just as if they had never sinned.

Justification defenses are used when the defendant claims that his/her crime was justified because the other person was threatening or displaying violent actions towards

Throughout Sissela Bok writing, she continues to focus more emphasis on justification. According to Bok, justification is the means by which a liar’s distorted perspective can be revealed. (Bok, 1999, p. 75) Bok suggests that “reasonable person” in general be considered the audience in ethical matters. (Bok, 1999, p. 91) She mention early in her writing that justification requires one to exercise the golden rule, sharing the perspective of those lied to as well as the one benefiting from the lie. The last eight chapters she discuss justification in great detail and clarification. In other words, often times in most situations a lie will backfire and cause harm to an individual as well as the person who is telling the lie. She give example of kinds of lies that are justified, such as lies in wartime and other crises, lies protecting

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.

Sometimes when we hear the word justification we find it accompanied by other “ation” words: sanctification, glorification, propitiation, regeneration and imputation. These words are from time to time used interchangeably. This can be confusing and needs to be clarified before continuing. Imputation is where credit has been given. It can also mean to lay responsibility on someone. With God, imputation is where He accounts righteousness to the believer. Sanctification is separate from justification. Justification is about one’s position with God; sanctification is about one’s spiritual condition. Propitiation is defined in “Reformation tradition as the satisfaction of divine wrath upon sin”. Regeneration is the creation of a new heart and new spirit. This change of heart and spirit is what allows us to live righteous lives. Glorification comes once we receive our heavenly reward. It is the completion of our salvation.

Throughout history, philosophers have been trying to come up with a clear way to provide the justification of our beliefs and knowledge. Noah Lemos offers readers explanations of both foundationalism and coherentism for theories of justification. These two different theories offer very different ways to explain the basis of our beliefs. For a foundationalist, they believe that all of our beliefs can be broken down until we reach a basic belief. This belief would be largely independent of other beliefs and not derived from other beliefs. A coherentist feels that a belief can be reasonably justified if it is coheres with our other beliefs.

The society generally has established customs and moral imperative to guide the conduct of each member of that particular society. These norms designating certain ways in which people ought to live in the society exist in societal laws and moral prescription. The justifications for the ideal practices in the society have been found in the desire to maintain peaceful coexistence in the society. The extent of freedom of an individual is therefore often curtailed for the greater good of the society. These utilitarian considerations have been discussed amidst the concept and rationale of punishment. John Stuart Mill, Michel Foucault and Kantian ethics have been used to justify or refute the notion and rationale of punishment in our society. These ethical perspectives provide useful insight into understanding punishment and its justifications or otherwise. Punishment is necessary as a social control tool and must be exerted with reasonableness and with due regard for the aim for which it is exerted.

Let’s look at the Trayvon Martin tragedy as an example of unnecessary use of force. George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin after a dispatcher told him not to which lead to a confrontation between the two. Under Florida stand your ground act a person can protect themselves if they fear their well-being is at harm even using deadly force. Zimmerman clearly outweighed Trayvon but claims that his use of deadly force was justified on a minor who also had a justified right to protect himself from Zimmerman advances.

• Rationalization is the reason provided to justify an inappropriate act by a perpetrator rather than considering themselves as a

Childs, W. G. (1999). The Intersection of Peremptory Challenges, Challenges for Cause, and Harmless Error. American Journal of Criminal Law, 27(1), 49-80. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://bethelu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.bethelu.idm.oclc.org/docview/206253551?accountid=56725

Though the offender still believes that crime in general is wrong, they will justify or excuse their crime as necessary, morally correct or otherwise acceptable. Offenders might suggest that their crime was acceptable because they are not responsible (“Denial of Responsibility”), no harm occurred (Denial of Injury), the victim deserved to be victimized (“Denial of Victim”), the authorities have it out for them (Condemnation of the Condemners) or there is a higher good served by their actions (“Appeal to Higher Loyalties”). The offender in all of these cases recognizes that their actions were deviant, but argue that it was justified (Sykes and Matza , 2011). Under these theories, humans are considered to naturally want to commit crime, but generally believe that crime is wrong. When they do offend, they consider their offense to be justified exceptions to their belief in the wrongness of crime, the result of a lack of self-control or social bond.

Diesel was 12 and he was suffering from a lot of pain. Diesel couldn't walk around in pain. It got to hard to watch. My dad and i had to help him walk everywhere. Diesel wouldn't eat and he got so skinny you could see his rib cage. Finally one day my dad came home and told me we need to put him down. It was hard but it was the right choice. Killing another may not be a justifiable all the time, but it is when its most needed, in situations such as capital punishment, euthanasia, george and lennie. In case of capital punishment “it is the sort of crime that leaves a black hole of fear and horror in everyone, and it demands a response that goes beyond a jumpsuit and a prison cell”(Kay). This evidence is important because it states why its okay to do it to criminals because they killed an innocent human. Also “we want to return moral order to a horror-struck society by re- paying blood with blood”(kay). This evidence is important because it tells us when someone murders someone they make

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).

In this essay I argue if we maintain that agents can be justified in action, reasons must be mental states, rather than facts as suggested by Alvarez and Hornsby . Reasons of fact would leave us with agents that are no more or less justified than any other agent in their decision making. I claim justification would be a pointless and arbitrary concept if reasons were not mental states.

· “Rationalization: Creating a reason to excuse ourselves. “I wouldn’t have yelled at you if you hadn’t treated me so unfairly,” thereby justifying my yelling. Example: “I know that smoking isn’t good for my health, but it helps me relax,” thereby justifying my smoking.”