As learned and reiterated throughout the semester, a paradox is a statement or number or statements which consist of apparently true premises with an apparently valid argument, yet lead to an obviously false conclusion. An exploration of these types of statements often leads one to search for an error in one of the premises through various factors such as vagueness or semantic wording to rid of the false conclusion altogether. An example of this sort of situation is shown in Forrester’s Paradox, a revision of the Good Samaritan Paradox, written by James William Forrester. This paradox has several premises that appear to be true with seemingly valid reasoning. However, its premises lead to a false conclusion, making this a paradox. In the essay “Gentle Murderer, or the Adverbial Samaritan” James William Forrester attempts to solve the contradictory statements of the Forrester’s Paradox. According to Forrester, readers ought to imagine a “... legal system which forbids all kinds of murder, but which considers murdering violently to be a worse crime than murdering gently” (Forrester, 194). This imagined legal system has two rules to which its citizens must abide. First, it is obligatory that one does not commit an act of murder. The second rules states that if …show more content…
This second rule is the second premise of this paradox, stating that: “it is obligatory that if Smith murders Jones, Smith murders Jones gently”. This second rule gives Smith the chance to murder Jones if he so wishes. This rule also allows Smith to be looked upon as acting within good character by societal standards. If Smith murders Jones gently, his behavior would be within the rules of their legal
Believers of the Old and New Testaments claim that violence is a sin and can only lead to more brutality and death; poet Tony Barnstone firmly agrees. In his poem “Parable in Praise of Violence” Barnstone lambastes the American obsession with violence-- that it is often triggered by inevitable events which could be handled in different manners. The speaker in “Parable in Praise of Violence” reflects on all parts of his “sinful” culture and comes to the realization that people often use violence as a way to deal with emotions of grief and anger caused by events and concepts they cannot explain.
According to the notes from class, true paradox is defined as two ideas or principles that seem irreconcilable with each other, but prove on closer scrutiny, simultaneously valid. The theory of paradox is recommended to address and remove the ineffectiveness of opposing viewpoints. The benefit of the theory of paradox is that it seeks to recognize and value all perspectives. It also encourages using the effective aspects of all perspectives.
Robinson trial; (2) prejustice and its effects on the processes of the law and society; (3)
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
This examination will look at the short story “Killings” by Andre Dubus and the main characters in the story. The story begins on a warm August day with the burial of Matt and Ruth Fowler’s youngest son Frank. Frank’s age: “twenty-one years, eight months, and four days” (Dubus 107). Attending the funeral were Matt, his wife Ruth, their adult children and spouses. Matt’s family is extremely distraught over the murder of their youngest son/brother, in their own way. There are implications of wanting to kill Richard Strout, the guy accused of being the murderer: “I should kill him” (107), as stated after the service. This comment is considered a fore-shadowing of what is to come in the thought progression of Matt and Ruth.
The one thing about this argument, though, if it were valid, it would not show that capital punishment is never proportionate and just, but only that it is very rarely so. The implication of this argument is not that we ought to do away with capital punishment altogether, nor that we ought to restrict it to those cases of murder where the murderer had warned the victim weeks or months in advance of what he was going to do, but we ought to reexamine the procedure of carrying out this kind of
In conclusion we can say that consequentialism is flawed in the fact that the borders of a wrongdoing, to bring about a better good, are limitless. We can conclude that evil wrong doing can be construed as bringing about a better happiness for what the evil doer contrives to be for the better good of the people. For the most part we have seen that deontology’s view of good will in the individuals act can lead to moral justification. The captain and his men must make this moral decision to kill or not, if they do kill the Indians, their actions must be left to higher authority to deal with.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
The ‘Trolley Car Problem’ has sparked heated debates amongst numerous philosophical and jurisprudential minds for centuries. The ‘Trolley Car’ debate challenges one’s pre-conceived conceptions about morals, ethics and the intertwined relationship between law and morality. Many jurisprudential thinkers have thoroughly engaged with this debate and have consequentially put forward various ideologies in an attempt to answer the aforementioned problem. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate why the act of saving the young, innocent girl and resultantly killing the five prisoners is morally permissible. In justifying this choice, this paper will, first, broadly delve into the doctrine of utilitarianism, and more specifically focus on a branch
In “Mistakes, Misunderstandings, and Misalignments” Jules L. Coleman argues, “there is an inconsistency in how the standard of care is set versus how damages are awarded [in the criminal justice system]” (). Meaning, the law does not abide by the same verdict when punishing as when protecting. When penalizing, the law usually targets the financially unfortunate in this case Hector. Conversely, when protecting, the criminal justice system seeks to defend the affluent, Emily. This creates a double standard in which fear is instilled in the poor while a sense of security is granted to the
It is no surprise as to why the case Riggs v Palmer is such a renowned case, for this case tests the importance of many of the philosophers’ theories, especially on the validity of certain laws and the conflict between law and morality. This hard case has been used as a reference for many court decisions over the years and will be most likely used in the future as well. An inference can be made based on this case and the legal conflicts and issues that the judges faced when reaching their verdict. Those who commit the crime should not be rewarded by attaining what motivated them in the first place as the fruit of their crime, and in the event that such a crime occurs, judges must interpret the law in the same manner that the law makers intended
Since the 1700’s forms of the death penalty have been used for one reason or another, but today some disagree with this judicial practice. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment imposed for murder or other capital offenses, and in Alabama a capital offense is murder with eighteen aggravating factors. In 1972 the Supreme Court moved away from abolition, holding that “the punishment of death does not invariably violate the constitution” (Bedau, Case against 2). Since 1900, in this country, there have been on the average more than four cases each year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder (Bedau 7) and because of these startling numbers people are against capital punishment. It is a horrible reality to convict an innocent person of a crime and even worse to put this person on death row. There are even more horrific stories, like the one of Roger Keith Coleman, who was executed in Virginia despite widely pu...
8.) "Innocence and the Death Penalty." Death Penalty Information Center [Online]. November 9, 1999. Available: http://www.essential.org/dpic/innoc.html
The death penalty should be legalized in all fifty states, to deter from crime, keep repeat offenders off the streets, and alleviate prison costs from the taxpayers. On the other hand, there have been some men and women that have been wrongfully accused and executed for murder. Since the 1900’s at least 416 people have been wrongfully executed causing great concern for the accuracy of the death penalty (“Death” 4). According to an examination of the “Death Penalty and Legislature,” Henry Schwarzchild calculated that if the courts were to “carry out the death penalty for every murder, then we would be executing 400 persons per week (Bedau 366). At the same time this small number of mistakes is nothing compared to the problems society would face without the death penalty.
The use of capital punishment greatly deters citizens from committing nefarious crimes, such as murder (“Justice Is Served with the Death Penalty”). In general, one of the things people fear the most is death; therefore they are less likely to perform heinous actions if they know that death is a punishment for it. Ernest van den Haag, professor at Fordham University, stated, “ …capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most, death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts….Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence.” Ernest’s argument is that capital punishment is the strongest deterrent society has against murder. Isaac Ehrlich cond...