Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice role in society
Arguments for and against the death penalty
Argument against the death penalty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justice role in society
After reading “Plato Republic” in relation to “Don’t give Tsarnaev death penalty”, it makes sense to believe that everybody has their own sense of what justice really is. The Republic and “Don’t give Tsarnaev death penalty”, both talk about how justice needs to be within a nation because without it society will go into chaos. Both Socrates and “Don’t give Tsarnaev death penalty” argue that justice needs to be in a society because without it then a society will not function and people will turn against each other and the government. Socrates argues against injustice and explains that “Its power is such that whenever it comes to exist in something-whether in a city, a family, an army, or anything else whatsoever-it makes that thing, first of …show more content…
While many people consider the death penalty as a form of justice because it kills a person involved with the death of others but it actually is a form of injustice because it involves the creation of more death. Both “The Republic” and “Don’t give Tsarnaev death penalty" share the idea that injustice does not create peace within us but rather creates torture and guilt. One thing that can either help us be in peace or take us down is our soul. One thing that our soul requires is the belief that justice has prevailed. One thing that many people believe is that a “just man with a just soul will live well and an unjust one badly” (Reeve 34). Even though many people believe that justice is carried out when someone who has hurt many people is killed, the fact is that it is creating even more injustice because it involves taking another life. The truth is that the death penalty is not a form of justice but rather a form of revenge (Don’t give Tsarnaev death penalty). The fact is that the right form of justice is when people who have committed the crime are put in jail and are prevented from killing anyone ever again. The problem is that many people believe that sometimes the criminal is let off easy by being allowed to live but really it is the one thing keeping us from becoming criminals ourselves. If we start to kill everybody that was involved in the death of others then we
Many people are led to believe that the death penalty doesn’t occur very often and that very few people are actually killed, but in reality, it’s quite the opposite. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1,359 people have been executed as a result of being on death row since 1977 to 2013. Even though this form of punishment is extremely controversial, due to the fact that someone’s life is at stake, it somehow still stands to this very day as our ultimate form of punishment. Although capital punishment puts murderers to death, it should be abolished because killing someone who murdered another, does not and will not make the situation any better in addition to costing tax payers millions of dollars.
In Plato’s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. Plato did not believe in democracy, because it was democracy that killed Socrates, his beloved teacher who was a just man and a philosopher. He believed in Guardians, or philosophers/rulers that ruled the state. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice. According to Socrates, “…if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city…(Plato 96).” It is evident, therefore, that the state and the ruler described in The Republic by Plato are clearly parallel to one another.
Capital punishment is not an effective punishment or deterrent for murder or any crime for various reasons. To many prisoners, being detained in a prison is much more of a punishment than death as is it a constant, conscious deprivation of liberty and rights. This idea is represented though US Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh who claimed after dropping his appeals against his death sentence that he would rather die than...
What is justice? In Plato’s, The Republic this is the main point and the whole novel is centered around this question. We see in this novel that Socrates talks about what is justice with multiple characters.In the first part of Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates questions conventional morality and attempts to define justice as a way for the just man to harm the unjust man (335d) ; however, Thrasymachus fully rejects this claim, and remarks that man will only do what is in his best interest, since human nature is, and should be ruled by self-interest, and he furthers this argument by implying that morality, and thus justice, is not what Socrates had suggested, but rather that it is simply a code of behavior exacted on man by his ruler. Thrasymachus begins his argument by giving his definition of justice. He says that justice, or right is simply what is in the best interest of the stronger (338c). When questioned by Socrates on this point, he explains that each type of government (the stronger party) enacts types of justice that are in its own best interest, and expect
Mr. Edward Koch wrote the essay “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms life”. Mr. Koch makes the argument that the death penalty is still the most appropriate punishment for certain egregious criminal acts. He suggest that in most murder cases, execution is the only justified punishment in order to atone for the taking of an innocent person’s life. His contention is that only by putting the murderer to death do we as a society assert our intolerance for such heinous acts. Koch mentions his thesis, “Life is precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm that fact.” (Koch -Intro) He states this to say if a convicted murderer is sentence to death they will experience the consternation, like his victim before he killed. Mr. Koch asked a question, “Did their newfound reverence for life stem from the realization that they were about to lose their own?” (Koch -Intro) Edward Koch used this when he mentioned the convicted killer, as he was about to be executed, he made statements to some affect like “Killing was wrong when I did it. Killing is wrong when you do it.” (K...
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all.
Crimes are committed everyday. Many people are caught, while many are not. In the United States of America, when a person kills another person s/he is considered a murderer. The instant that murder takes place all rights should automatically be revoked. Murderers should not be allowed to walk the streets. Once a person has killed there is a good change that it could happen again. Convicted murderers should be given the death penalty and have it carried out at once. The death penalty is a controversial sentence. Not everyone feels the same way, but I believe that, in America, the death penalty for murderers is beneficial to the economy and it's a punishment that fits the crime.
Eliminating the death penalty as a method of punishment will only allow criminals to wreak havoc and chaotic in our community without the fear of death. When a person commits a crime, they are disrupting the order in the community. Justice help restore the disruption of that order. The Death penalty restore social order and give the states authority to maximized retribution for the victims. When the state does not have the authority to maximum retribution, the public may put the law in their own hands. Although, execution may be cruel and inhumane, it is nothing compared to the fate of many victims in the hand of the murderers. The purpose of the death penalty is to provide retribution for the victims and their families. However, retribution is not revenge. “Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime” (Pojman, 2004).
While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that capital punishment is being used for vengeance or as a deterrent. Capital punishment has been used worldwide, not only by the governments to instill fear, but to show that there are repercussions to ones actions. From the time we are born, we are taught to learn the difference between right and wrong. It is ingrained in our brains, what happens to people that do bad things? Capital punishment is renowned for being the worst thing that could be brought amongst ones life.
Crime has and still is one of the biggest problems our society faces every day. No matter how big or small the city or country may be, let’s face it the reality is we find it every day. Over the centuries the judicial system has tried to find ways to deal with crimes, weather is capital punishment, or serving time in prison let’s face it, for those that commit such monstrous crimes, serving time or even the death penalty is not enough punishment for taking an innocent life. For those that argue about this topic weather is the abolitionist or the retentionists, the ethical debate of weather capital punishment is just and should be carried out is an intense topic that continues to be a debate. “The death penalty undermines the dignity of
Therefore, people do not have to worry too much about whether they will be killed or thieved by those criminals. Also, people especially who are victims want the death penalty because of the retribution for criminals. The Michigan State University (2000) mentioned that “only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind”(p.5). Due to the fact that the civil liberties of all people are fair, there are no valid reasons that people deprive others of lives. The murders must get sternly penalized if they kills other people.
A large part in the justification of the death penalty is based on this same idea. Some crimes are so serious that the only logical solution is to pay the deed back in full, by giving one’s own life. Families of victims may become bitter and angry about the outcome and feel as if the death penalty is a fair and well deserved punishment to the violators of the law. These revengeful desires are nothing short of expected from the average person. Death penalty outcome is decided by a jury and is not handled lightly and is only used under the extreme conditions previously mentioned.
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.
People who commit heinous crimes should not be punished with the death penalty, since it is immoral and unethical considering it contradicts the principles established in every country’s Constitution about not killing. All humans have the right to live no matter what they have committed. The Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that no human has the authorization to kill another living human being. No matter what crime a person commits, authorities should not have the right to execution.