Throughout the course of history, human beings have seemed to have a yearning for their fair organization in their communities. However, as communities evolved into societies there seemed to be a clear division amongst citizens: the law abiders and the criminals. Different societies and cultures eventually assigned punishments to crimes committed that seemed fit to the circumstances, ranging from theft to murder. Many would agree progressive countries in today’s modern world have modified different punishments in correlation to various crimes because of unjust sentencing or the punishment being too harsh altogether. The question is, “Why have heinous crimes today received lighter punishment than in the past?” In medieval times, the punishments
…show more content…
Many people have condemned capital punishment, as well as praised it. Beccaria (2010), a classical philosopher on the death penalty, heavily critiqued the entire process entailing capital punishment. His key argument is that capital punishment does not prevent the offenders, but in its place, the long-term detention makes a long lasting impression on the attention of the audience. In addition, the death penalty has injurious impacts on the society by minimizing the sensitivity to human suffering. The proponents argue that if the law was just left to be open and allow the criminals to be treated equal then, it will be very dangerous to the public (Masur,1989). The main aim of the death penalty and capital punishment is to detain dangerous criminals so we could deter them from joining the public again and prevent them from spreading criminal offense again. While Beccaria’s stance could be said true, how do we explain criminals’ behavior after they are released? We could even go as far as saying when a person is incarcerated, they often worsen in their psychological condition. Often times those who have a record of imprisonment are praised for “serving time” and continue on in their dysfunctional behavior that in turn has a detrimental effect on society. Also, in regards to minimizing the sensitivity to human suffering, the person who committed a crime worthy of the death penalty obviously has no sensitivity …show more content…
They claim it to be a justification for capital punishment, and as a justification it could later down the road cause absurd rulings to be acceptable For example, this ruling from Law of Hammurabi: “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death.” (Fieser, 2008). People who are against capital punishment use an extreme perspective to try and prove how horrible capital punishment can be. However, in a civilized society where a jury and judge could come together as a part of democracy it is safe to say this ruling would be viewed as utterly absurd. When a question of how to go about serving justice with capital punishment arises we look at it from a logical standpoint. We do not go ahead with an extreme and irrational approach and say, Jeffery Dahmer had serval victims thus meaning Dahmer and some of his family members must be executed several times. It is a childish way of trying to serve justice. Being a serial killer and taking sole responsibility, only Jeffery Dahmer deserve to be executed for his
Many people have condemned capital punishment, as well as praised it. Beccaria (2010), a classical philosopher on the death penalty, heavily critiqued the entire process entailing capital punishment. His key argument is that capital punishment does not prevent the offenders, but in its place, the long-term detention makes a long lasting impression on the attention of the audience. In addition, the death penalty has injurious impacts on the society by minimizing the sensitivity to human suffering. The proponents argue that if the law was just left to be open and allow the criminals to be treated equal then, it will be very dangerous to the public (Masur,1989). The main aim of the death penalty and capital punishment is to detain dangerous criminals so we could deter them from joining the public again and prevent them from spreading criminal offense again. While Beccaria’s stance could be said true, how do we explain criminals’ behavior after they are released? We could even go as far as saying when a person is incarcerated, they often worsen in their psychological condition. Often times those who have a record of imprisonment are praised for “serving time” and continue on in their dysfunctional behavior that in turn has a detrimental effect on society. Also, in regards to minimizing the sensitivity to human suffering, the person who committed a crime worthy of the death penalty obviously has no sensitivity …show more content…
They claim it to be a justification for capital punishment, and as a justification it could later down the road cause absurd rulings to be acceptable For example, this ruling from Law of Hammurabi: “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death.” (Fieser, 2008). People who are against capital punishment use an extreme perspective to try and prove how horrible capital punishment can be. However, in a civilized society where a jury and judge could come together as a part of democracy it is safe to say this ruling would be viewed as utterly absurd. When a question of how to go about serving justice with capital punishment arises we look at it from a logical standpoint. We do not go ahead with an extreme and irrational approach and say, Jeffery Dahmer had serval victims thus meaning Dahmer and some of his family members must be executed several times. It is a childish way of trying to serve justice. Being a serial killer and taking sole responsibility, only Jeffery Dahmer deserve to be executed for his