Capital punishment for and against сочинение
Обновлено: 30.06.2024
Although truth and justice may be the most powerful impulses to show moral courage, there are others. Compassion is one of these. Tentatively it can be suggested that this is the main influence upon those who urge the abolition of capital punishment. It is recognition of compassion's part that leads the upholders of capital punishment to accuse the abolitionists of sentimentality in being more sorry for the murderer than for his victim. This is nonsense but with it some organs of the popular Press played upon the emotions of their readers so successfully that many candidates for Parliament were afraid to support abolition for fear of losing votes and the result was the muddle-headed Homicide Act of 1957 which made murder with robbery a capital crime and allowed the poisoner to escape the gallows. That illogical qualification shows how flimsy is the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. The poisoner always works on a calculated plan of action and therefore is able to consider whether or not his taking another's life is worth the risk of his own; the violent thief is usually at the mercy of an instant emotion. The only arguable plea for capital punishment is the right of society to retribution in this world with the prospect of life in another, but since what used to seem to the great majority of civilized humanity the assurance of another life beyond the grave has come to seem to more and more people less certain, a feeling for the value of human life has become deeper and more widespread. This may seem a paradoxical claim to make at a time when mankind is so much preoccupied with weapons of destruction. Nevertheless, it is a claim that can be sustained and if compassion animates those who urge the abolition of the death penalty it is not a sentimental compassion for the mental agony inflicted upon a condemned man but a dread of destroying the miracle of life.
When in the eighteenth century offences against the law that today would not earn a month in prison were punished with the death penalty, the severity of the penal code had no serious effect on the prevalence of crime. When it made no difference to the fate of a highwayman whether he had killed his victim or merely robbed him of a few pieces of silver, there were no more murders then than there were when men like Sir Francis Burdett succeeded in lightening the excessive severity of the penal laws. In those days the sacredness of life on earth was not greatly regarded because a life in the world to come was taken for granted except by a comparatively small minority of philosophers.
Nor was the long‑drawn ordeal of the condemned cell inflicted either upon the condemned man or his gaolers once upon a time. Those who believe in capital punishment may have arguments for its retention, but surely no reasonable argument can be found for retention of the sickening mumbo-jumbo that accompanies it from the moment that the judge dons the black cap with what looks like a pen-wiper balanced on the top of his wig, to the reading of the burial service over the condemned man before he is dead. Moreover, it was more merciful to launch the condemned man into eternity twenty-four hours after he was sentenced than to keep him shivering on the brink of that dread gulf for nearly three weeks. Hanging is an atrociously archaic way of killing a human being and the self‑satisfied modernity of the electric chair is just as atrocious. The administration of a strong sleeping draught to the condemned man every night from which one night he does not awake, seems a more civilized alternative to our present barbarous procedure, if capital punishment through the influence of backward minds be retained.
convicted of a crime.? This has been a topic of debate for many years.
People who are for:
People who are against:
?Why do we kill people to prove killing people is wrong??
The 1st argument I have against capital punishment is that it?s
unconstitutional. Every person has an equal right to ?life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.? This is a quote from American Civil Liberty Union
National Office, ?Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of an uncivilized
society. It is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice.?
Does the government have the right to kill? Maybe in self defense, like a
policeman firing on a armed and dangerous criminal. Suppose we apply the
same standards to the government that we have for civilians. A civilian has
the right to shoot at an intruder as he is entering his home but if the civilian
catches the intruder and has him under his control, the shooting him would
be considered murder. That?s what capital punishment is…simple murder.
Against: I agree that capital punishment is a relic of barbarism but as murder
itself is barbaric, death is a fitting punishment for it. It goes along with the
?eye for an eye? principle. For example, someone steals $10 from you and
then the person who stole your money has the same thing happen to them?
Doesn?t that satisfy you? Many feel the same about murders who are
sentence to die. The criminal has brought the punishment upon himself, they
deserve what they get.
Cruel and unusual
The 8th amendment of the us constitution, condemn gruel and unusual
punishment is used to protest capital punishment.
For:: When the constitution was drafted, capital punishment was
practiced widely in this country, yet it was not specified as wrong or as cruel
and unusual. John Locke went as far to say that murder is not intrinsically
wrong. How can the constitution be brought into this argument, since it
makes no mention of capital punishment?
The methods by which executions are carried out can involve physical
torture. ?Electrocution has on occasion caused extensive burns and needed
more than one application of electric current to kill the condemned. It often
takes 10 minutes or more to die in the electric chair. It is also torture to keep
someone locked up when they know they are waiting to be killed.
Officials often defend this and say it?s not cruel and unusual, but how can
they defend this opinion in the case of John Evans who was executed by
electrocution in 1983? According to witnesses at the scene Mr. Evans was
given three charges of electrocution over a period of fourteen minutes. After
the first and second charges Mr. Evans was still conscious and smoke was
coming from oall over his body as a result of his flesh burning. An official
there even tried to stop the execution on account of it being cruel and unusual
punishment, but was unsuccessful. Witnesses later called th whole incident a
The death penalty costs more than life in prison. It costs 5 to 6 times more
than lifetime imprisonment, according to studies in a number of states. Most
costs occur at trial level. Indiana, with smaller death row than Virginia?s
estimates it could save $5 million per year by abolishing capital punishment.
Murder rates are lower in states that have abolished the death penalty. The
Supreme court, United Nations, and numerous independent studies have
concluded that the death penalty has no effect on the crime rate, on average
the murder rate in U. S. which execute is almost double the rate in states
without the death penalty.
possible death of innocent
?In case of a mistake, the executed prisoner cannot be given another chance.
Justice can miscarry. In the last hundred years there have been more than 75
documented cases of wrongful conviction of criminal homicide. The death
sentence was carried out in eight of these cases? Undoubtedly many other
cases of mistaken conviction and execution occurred and remain
undocumented. A prisoner discovered to be blameless can be freed; but
neither releases nor compensation is possible for a corpse.
DOESN?T DETER CRIME
Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to
crime. ?Expert after expert and study after study have emphasized and
emphasized the lack of correction between the threat of the death penalty and
the occurrence of violent crime? Ehrlich?s study on the deterrent effect of
capital punishment in America reveals this. It spans twenty-five years, and
show that in the first year the study was conducted there were 8,060 murders
in 1957 and 65 executions. However in the last year of the study, there were
22,520 murders committed and 1 execution performed. The absence of
deterrence is clearly shown.
What is the difference between the state killing and an individual killing?
The end result is the same…one more dead body, one more set of grieving
parents, one more cemetery slot. Every time we execute someone, we are
sending the most profound message of the value of human life. Every time
we execute someone, we as a society sink to the same level as the common
killer. The American people have blood on their hands, and it will stay there
until we finally remove this barbaric practice from our nation.
Why do we kill people to prove that killing people is wrong? It is easy to
argue the practical points of opposition to the death penalty. It is obviously
not problem to be a deterrent unless my understanding of the word is
completely false. It costs more to prosecute capital crimes and ultimately life
in prison is more cast effective. The death penalty prolong the cycle of
violence and extends the pain of violence to the executed person?s family.
The punishment is irreversible, and one error in the realm of punishment is
unthinkable. The death penalty blatantly is an issue of elitism in society. It
is logical that those who can afford the best lawyers will fare the best in court
while those who simply cannot afford the best legal advice ride the winds of
chance. Capital punishment degrades society. .. . Why do we kill people to
Criminal law, sometimes, involves the prosecutionby the state of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime. These contrasts with civil law, which involves private individuals and organizations seeking to resolve legal disputes. Prosecutions are initiated by the state through a prosecutor, while in a civil case the victimbrings the suit.
An important difference between the law of tort and criminal law is that the main purpose of the law of tort is to compensate people who suffer harm and not to punish people who caused this harm.
Различие между правонарушениями и преступлениями.
Уголовное право, иногда, включает в себя обвинение со стороны государства за деяние, которое было квалифицировано как преступление. Это противоречит гражданскому праву, в котором участвуют частные лица и организации, стремящиеся разрешить юридические споры. Преследование инициируется государством через прокурора, а в гражданском случае жертва подает иск.
Важное различие между законом деликта и уголовного права является то, что основной целью закона является деликта, чтобы компенсировать людям, которые страдают вред, а не наказывать людей, которые вызвали этот вред.
The longest case in either criminal or civil history. The claimant in the McLibel case was McDonald’s, the chain of fast food restaurants.
The defendants in this case, Helen Steel and David Moris, belonged to a group of people who were worried about the environment and about the way that certain large corporations were behaving in relation to the environment. The group decided that the best way to tell public about this was to give out leaflets containing information about the problem.
They gave leaflets to people who were in the area. The problem was that the leaflets contained some very controversial claims. For example, the leaflet said that McDonald’s was partly to blame for the destruction of rainforests. It also claimed that McDonald’s food was unhealthy and eating too much of this food could give people health problems later in life.
The court awarded Helen and David damages of nearly $47,000.
Дело МакЛайбела
Cамый длинный случай в криминальной или гражданской истории. Заявителем в деле McLibel был McDonald's, сеть ресторанов быстрого питания.
Подсудимые в этом случае, Хелен Стил и Дэвид Морис, принадлежали к группе людей, которые беспокоились об окружающей среде и о том, как некоторые крупные корпорации ведут себя по отношению к окружающей среде. Группа решила, что лучший способ рассказать об этом - это раздавать листовки, содержащие информацию о проблеме.
Они дали листовки людям, которые были в этом районе. Проблема заключалась в том, что в листовках содержались весьма противоречивые утверждения. Например, в листовке говорилось, что McDonald's частично виноват в уничтожении тропических лесов. Оно также востребовало что еда McDonald's была нездоровой и ел слишком много этой еды может дать людям проблемы здоровья более поздно в жизни.
Суд присудил Хелену и Дэвиду убытки в размере почти 47 000 долларов.
What is the law of tort?
The law of tort deals with civil wrongs. A wrong is something that causes harm or damage to another person. The word ‘harm’ and ‘damage’ have the same meaning. A person who suffers harm or damage is hurt in some way. This hurt might be physical in nature, but it might be some other type of hurt, such as causing someone to lose money. This area of law is based on the following principle. In situations where I cause harm to another person, I may be liable to compensate him or her that harm, even in situations when: I do not have a contract with that person and I did not commit a criminal act against that person.
The law of tort says that I must not harm another person either because I choose to harm him or her, or because I was not careful enough. In other words, I am liable for any harm that I cause to another person either from having intention to cause him, or from negligence.
Что такое закон деликта?
Закон деликта говорит, что я не должен причинить вред другому лицу либо потому, что я хочу причинить ему вред или ее, или потому, что я не был достаточно осторожен. Другими словами, я ответственность за любой вред, который я причинить другому человеку, либо от того, намерения причинить ему или небрежности.
Capital punishment: for and against.
Supporters of capital punishment believe that death is a just punishment for certain serious crimes. Many also believe that it deters others from committing such crimes. Opponents argue that execution is cruel and uncivilized. Capital punishment involves not only the pain of dying but also the sentence will be carried out. Opponents also argue that there is no evidence that it deters people from committing murder any more than imprisonment does. A further argument is that, should a mistake be made, it is too late to rectify it once the execution has taken place.
Смертная казнь: за и против
Different types of tort.
A tort is a civil wrong that can be remedied by awarding damages (other remedies may also be available). These civil wrongs result in harm to a person or property that forms the basis of a claim by the injured party. The harm can be physical, emotional or financial. Examples of torts include medical negligence, negligent damage to private property and negligent misstatements causing financial loss.
There are many specific torts, such as trespass, assault and negligence. Business torts include fraudulent misrepresentation, interference in contractual relations and unfair business practices.
Torts fall into three general categories: intentional torts (e.g. unfair competition), negligent torts (e.g. causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules) and strict liability torts (e.g. liability for making and selling defective products).
Различные виды деликта
Деликт является гражданским правонарушением, которое может быть исправлено путем присуждения убытков (другие средства правовой защиты также могут быть доступны). Эти гражданские правонарушения приводят к нанесению вреда человеку или имуществу, которая лежит в основе иска потерпевшей стороной. Вред может быть физическим, эмоциональным или финансовым. Примеры деликтов включают медицинскую халатность, небрежное ущерб частной собственности и небрежной неточности вызывают финансовые потери.
Есть много конкретных правонарушений, например проступок, нападение и халатности. Бизнес правонарушения включают в себя намеренное введение в заблуждение, вмешательства в договорные отношения и недобросовестную деловую практику.
Правонарушение делится на три основные категории: преднамеренные деликты (например недобросовестная конкуренция), небрежные деликты (например , в результате чего в аварию, будучи не подчиняться правилами дорожного движения) и нарушения строгой ответственности (например, ответственность за изготовление и продажи некачественной продукции).
It’s a fundamental debate in democratic countries: how should society punish murderers? Or terrorists? Or kidnappers?
In some countries capital punishment has been abolished. But it is still used in others. In the US, 39 states have the death penalty and 11 don’t. Different states use different methods of execution: the electric chair, gas chamber, injection of poison. In Russia, capital punishment still exists, but the parliament has started discussions about abolishing it.
At one time capital punishment was used for many crimes (offences). The Bible, for example, prescribed death for at least 30 crimes.
During the Middle Ages capital punishment was especially popular. Burning alive, hanging, beheading, stoning to death, drawing and quartering were quite common in those dark years.
Today, capital punishment is used (in those countries where it hasn’t been abolished) for only a few crimes, most commonly treason, murder, armed robbery and kidnapping. People disagree about whether capital punishment is moral or effective in preventing crime. Here are the most frequently used arguments for and against the death penalty:
FOR
• People who take human life deserve to lose their own lives.
• Capital punishment prevents crime because people are afraid of the consequences. The fear of death is more effective than the fear of prison.
• Capital punishment is a necessity because there are so many crimes, and prisons cost too much money.
• Many murderers are mentally ill. If we put them in prison, they can escape and commit another crime.
AGAINST
• Capital punishment lessens respect for human life. It is cruel and inhumane.
• There are other ways of punishing criminals. The fear of the penalty doesn’t help to prevent crime.
• We can’t always be sure that someone is guilty. People have been sentenced to death and later it was discovered that they were completely innocent.
• Capital punishment isn’t used fairly. The poor and defenceless are more likely to be executed than the rich and powerful.
And what do you think about it?
From Speak Out 4, 1998
Смертная казнь
В демократических странах существуют споры: как общество должно наказывать убийц? Или террористов? Или похитителей?
В некоторых странах смертная казнь была отменена. Но она все еще используется в других. В США, 39 штатов имеют смертную казнь, а 11 нет. Различные государства используют различные методы исполнения приговоров: электрический стул, газовая камера, инъекции яда. В России смертная казнь по-прежнему существует, но парламент начал дискуссии о ее отмене.
В свое время смертная казнь была использована для многих преступлений (правонарушений). В Библии, например, по крайней мере, 30 преступлений заслуживают смерти.
В Средневековье смертные казни были особенно популярны. Сжигание заживо, повешение, отсечение головы, избиение камнями до смерти, волочение (когда человека привязывали к лошади) и четвертование были весьма распространены в те темные годы.
Сегодня, смертная казнь применяется (в тех странах, где она не отменена) для только нескольких преступлений, это государственная измена, убийство, вооруженное ограбление и похищение. Люди расходятся во мнениях относительно того, является ли смертная казнь моральной или эффективной в предупреждении преступности. Вот наиболее часто используемые аргументы за и против смертной казни:
ЗА
• Люди, которые отнимают человеческую жизнь, заслуживают того, чтобы потерять свою жизнь.
• Смертная казнь предотвращает преступления, потому что люди боятся последствий. Страх смерти является более эффективным, чем страх тюрьмы.
• Смертная казнь является необходимостью, потому что существует очень много преступлений, а тюрьмы стоят слишком много денег.
• Многие убийцы являются психически больными. Если посадить их в тюрьму, они смогут убежать и совершить еще одно преступление.
ПРОТИВ
• Смертная казнь уменьшает уважение к человеческой жизни. Это жестоко и бесчеловечно.
• Есть и другие способы наказать преступников. Страх наказания не помогают предотвратить преступление.
• Мы не всегда можем быть уверены, что кто-то виноват. Люди были приговорены к смертной казни, а позднее было обнаружено, что они абсолютно невиновны.
• Смертная казнь применяется несправедливо. Бедные и беззащитные, скорее будут казнены, чем богатые и могущественные.
А что вы думаете об этом?
Читайте также: