Only A Rationalization

The article “Revenge: will you feel better,” author Karyn Hall (2013) claims that while the temptation of revenge may be convincing, acting upon these urges is not always worth the consequences after. Hall contemplates the idea of revenge being “self destructive” and being harmful to both those giving and receiving revenge. Furthermore the article states People who have been hurt seem to believe that if the other party suffers, then they will feel better and that their emotional pain will lessen. This idea is later touch on towards the end of the article when author explains the idea of the “understanding hypothesis”, which is when the offender knows the connection between the original insult and the retaliation. In contrast, the author also

In chapter 9 of Adam Benforado Unfair, our author is endeavoring to understand what drives society to punish criminals. Thought-out the chapter Benforado offers us examples of ways our need to retaliate drives how and who we punish. In order to try and validate his conclusion, Benforado offers us results from experiments conducted on animals due to their lack of knowledge to be deterred by a human killing another animal. For example, Benforado writes “when we hunt down and kill a shark that has attacked a swimmer, we can’t fool ourselves into thinking that the other sharks are somehow able to learn of the death, comprehend that it is punishment for killing a beachgoer, then alter their behavior in the future to avoid similar punishment “. There for he believes that we can affectively disregard the notion that the public punishes in order to deter.

According to Mahatma Ghandi, “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind”. Revenge is a double-edge sword as it one is placed in a lose-lose situation. In Ed Vega’s short story “Spanish Roulette”, the central character poet Sixto struggles with enacting revenge against his sister’s rapist. In Francis Bacon’s essay, “On Revenge”, he discusses how taking justice into an individual’s hand shouldn’t be tolerated as it goes against the confides of the law of the land. Even though both Vega and Bacon implore the topic of vengeance, and how its integration has played a role in our society, the two offer contrasting views as to the moral ambiguity of revenge, its theoretical versus practical use, and the effectiveness it instills

“We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.” C.S. Lewis

William Andrew Myers, in his essay “Ethical Aliens: The Challenge of Extreme Perpetrators to Humanism” originally published in Colette Balmain and Lois Drawmer’s volume edition of Something Wicked This Way Comes: Essays on Evil and Human Wickedness (2009), examines “extreme perpetrators” and our need to recognize the human in them. Myers supports his idea of “extreme perpetrators” by defining these people through a few expert opinions, categorizing the three central culprits (murderous dictators, serial killers, and ideological killers), and reasons why we distance ourselves from them but should take the time to understand their differences from humane people. The purpose of Myers’ essay is not necessarily to defend dangerous murders’ actions

It is common knowledge that crime exists all over the world and that justice and punishment may vary in different countries and societies. However, how justice and punishment is enforced in a society and globally is not common knowledge. Global justice refers to the belief that the world is unjust; while social justice, in a manner of speaking, refers to the fair treatment of everyone in a society.(“Social Justice”). Both social and global justice value human rights, remove inequality, and holds people accountable for fair practices.(“Social Justice”). If someone commits the same crime as another person, for example, they should receive the same punishment. That is what most people would be inclined to believe, but in the reading “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman, crime and justice is reviewed and defined in an uncommon way. Reiman discusses justice in a society where a crime was committed against him and his wife.

The atrocity of acts committed by mankind throughout history demonstrates the dangerous results when society is unable to restrain the natural evil present in human beings. The words ‘humane’, and ‘civilized’, both come from roots that describe society. Their positive connotations associate humankind with an inherent morality. But it is hard to have faith in our race when throughout history; we have brutalized each other in such barbaric ways. How can independently thinking, emotionally compassionate beings take part in massacres like the killings at Columbine or in the terrorist attacks in 2001? The September 11th bombings took thousands of innocent lives, and struck fear into the hearts of millions. What shocked the observing world though, was not the number of dead. It was the senselessness of the cause, the raw savagery of the attacks, the utter lack of humanity. It begged the question: what happens when the moderating hand of society fails to restrain a group of radicals? The answer was simple. We saw the innate evil present in each one of us, in its undistilled, uncensored form. The Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were disillusioned bullies- torn away from society’s expectations through a combination of violence tendencies and psychosis. Their horrific acts were a result of their innate evil nature breaking through the wall of societal structure. Golding’s contention was that in most cases, rules were forced

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

The justice system should be changed before we convict another innocent person. In the Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, written by Bryan, Stevenson points out that the United States is a country that serves an injustice to its people. Just Mercy is a nonfiction book

The justice system should be change before we convict another innocent people. In the Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, written by Bryan, Stevenson points out that the United States is a country that serves an injustice to its people. Just Mercy is a nonfiction book

Administrative law in Canada is a form of public law, and no supreme legislation defines the principle of administrative law (Boyd 269). One important point to note that the applicability of judicial review of an administrative decision is the key issue for an administrative law (Boyd 271). Consider the case of Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, in which, the committee of the college had established that the doctor was guilty of taking emotional and physical advantage of Ms. T, one of his patients. Ultimately, after investigation, the committee sanctioned Dr. Q. for 18 months. Dr. Q then appealed the decision under the Medical Practitioners Act. Upon her review of the case, British Columbia Supreme Court judge,

Family: George Washington married Martha Washington. He had 8 siblings, 2 sisters and 6 brothers.

Would it be true that capital punishment saves lives? Edward Koch, in his article “Death and Justice” believes it does. Koch, using common techniques to influence his audience, suggests that killers should be handled within this tried and avenged form of punishment. Koch opens his article by quoting convicted murderers Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw, both in the last moments of their lives pleading for the justice system to put a stop to the endless cycle of killing. Using simple logic, Koch argues that the sudden changing of the killers’ moral character is not a result of remorse for the victims, but rather an attempt to save their own lives from the killing hands of the justice system. Koch effectively uses these quotes to suggest to the reader that a killer might have thought twice about his/her own actions if the death sentence were a belief.

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

Throughout history, there have been many human beings whom have been seen as either a hero or a villain. In their childhood, these people must had obstacles that were in their way, causing each individual to either work harder or give up. People, however; must understand that each individual has a potential in achieving their goals, but if one is mistreated or deceived due to jealousy, resentment, hatred, or ambition, it can lead to many catastrophic events. People who have pride and arrogance do not want to have equals, rather they want to see their victims suffer. These people have no difficulty in achieving their goals due to the fact that their victims have too innocent a nature to suspect the nefarious motives of their enemies. In