Criminal Justice Assessment
Topic: Murder
By: Rachael Campbell
Murder is 'the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.'
According to the W.H.O. Scottish people are more than three times more likely to be murdered than those who live in England and Wales. This is blamed on our excessive use of drugs and alcohol. It has been found that around half of the murders in Scotland are committed by people under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Most of the violence is caused by gangs making an attempt to control the city's drug trade, but a culture of young men carrying knives also plays a huge part. Recently there has been a study into what causes people to commit murder; Scientists have found that a combination
…show more content…
I recently found a newspaper article with the headline:
'Victims' families say 'lenient' sentence left quadruple murderer free to kill'
A man named Mark Hobson stabbed William Brace in a busy street in March 2002 he managed to get away with a 2 year probation order and 100 hours community service. A year later, within a matter of days he bludgeoned his girlfriend, sexually assaulted and strangled her twin and murdered an elderly couple. "It was an excessively lenient sentence," said the daughter of the elderly couple.
I and many others believe that murder should definitely be a crime. I believe that everybody is equal and we all deserve the same chances in life. Why should it be acceptable for people to wrongfully take another beings life. There have been so many murders because of differences in beliefs and people standing up for their rights. Despite this some people do believe that murder should be legalized because of the importance of natural selection and 'survival of the fittest'. They believe because animals do it we can do it, they say it helps cut down population. One individual even said 'some people deserve to die'. I believe that the way we deal with murder cases is adequate. I do not believe we should be any more lenient but i also do not believe we should bring back certain punishments such as the death
Murder at the Margin is a murder mystery involving various economic concepts. The story takes place in Cinnamon Bay Plantation on the Virgin Island of St. John. It is about Professor Henry Spearman, an economist from Harvard. Spearman organizes an investigation of his own using economic laws to solve the case.
In 2012, there were an estimated 14,827 murders and non-negligent manslaughter crimes reported by all agencies in the United States according to the Uniform Crime Report at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter are defined “as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.” A 1.1 percent increase occurred from 2011 to 2012. But it should be noted, this is a 9.9 percent drop from the figure for 2008 and a 10.3 percent decrease from the number of murders recorded in 2003. Of the murders that occurred in 2012, it is estimated that 43.6 percent were reported in the south, 21.0 percent were from the Midwest, 21.0 percent were accounted from the west, and 14.2 percent were from the northeast
Many others agree to the right to take the life of one 's life because of the harm and suffering they put others into. Not only does it save one’s life, but many others. Many people think that doing this is a great way to stop the atrocities that has been happening. Based off of what you just read, all those people agree strongly on the death penalty and hope for it to remain in
The death penalty is something that many people do not have a clear decision on. Many people support the death penalty, while others wish for the death penalty to be abolished, and there are some that support the death penalty, but only in certain cases. My personal opinion on the death penalty is it should be administered only in cases of particularly
Homicide is wrong. We have been taught this unquestionable truth since childhood. One might wonder what Capital punishment is. It is when somebody who is blamed for perpetrating a wrongdoing is killed as a discipline for his or her crime. Capital Punishment has been a questionable theme for a long while. It was utilized as a part of the past as a strategy to make fear, so that potential wrongdoings could be avoided. Capital punishment may have been abolished in Canada, but it is still utilized as a part of numerous different nations till this day. Furthermore the reason this is a dubious point is that is frequently considered as an unethical approach to punish the suspect. The death penalty is ethically wrong and is not the right way to manage
Many who disagree with the death penalty believe it is immoral, discriminates, is very expensive, increases crime, and is only a way to carry out revenge. This, however, is not true. Capital punishment should be legal because it is moral, by not allowing criminals to roam the streets once again. It does not discriminate against those of color or the poor, and is actually less expensive than life imprisonment. The most important reason why the death penalty should be legal is because it deters crime.
There is nothing more final than death, and being so we should be cautious that our desire for justice does not lead us to commit the very crime we wish to punish - murder. In the last decade technology and DNA testing has proven that many convicted of murder were in fact not guilty of the crime. Some were alive and released after decades in jail others unfortunately died in jail. Can we in fact be 100% sure they were guilty? Was the crime justifiable or what were the circumstance leading to the crime? Was the person in their right mind, and are they ever when they murder? Is it an act that that person would repeat? All states should have the death penalty so that they have the option, they don’t necessarily have
If you kill someone who has committed murder it only continues the cycle of murder and violence. By giving the death penalty to the worst offenders the criminal justice system violates human rights. It can be counted as premeditated murder if a human being by the state. There is also no evidence that the death penalty deters murder. “Multiple scientific studies have actually shown the death penalty doesn't deter murder. “ (Hyden- The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished). States that do have the death penalty don't show lower crime rates than states that do not allow the death penalty. The death penalty does not have a deterrent effect. Studies in several states conclude that capital punishment is more expensive than life without parole. The cost of the death penalty has to be covered by the state and taxpayers. Taxpayers have to fund it and it has no public safety benefits. After a criminal is locked behind bars they no longer posed a threat to citizens. Execution does not heal or end the pain that the families of the victims have to face. The families would benefit more if the funds being put toward the costly death penalty was being used for counseling and other assistance for
I believe that under certain circumstances that capital punishment should be allowed because if someone is going to commit mass murder they should pay with the ultimate human right which is of their life. This topic has been widely thought of in the world with a few philosophers really encompassing my views. Those are the views of Ernest Van Den Haag and Bruce Fein. Philosophers who oppose our views are such like Justice William Brennan and Hugo Adam Bedau. I will prove my point using the ideas of deterrence and morality of the issue of capital punishment. If the government would show that if you kill someone there will be a consequence for their actions and that the consequence would be equal to what they have done. The population will see that it isn’t worth taking another humans life. If we were to kill people that are committing these mass killings of innocent people there would not be as many criminals around. Therefore the streets would be a place people wouldn’t be afraid of anymore.
...al punishment. I believe that if you are willing to take the life of an innocent person, your life should be taken away. Giving someone a life-sentence in prison could be a luxury compared to what they have before committing the crime. If a criminal was homeless and without food, going to jail would be a nice upgrade because he ends up getting a roof over his head, three meals a day, and a place to sleep-all things he did not have before committing a crime. Although most argue that be sentenced to life in prison is an adequate punishment for murder, due to the fact that you lose all of your freedoms, I disagree. I mainly disagree because I think the only proper punishment for a murderer is to take away their life, just like they took away their victim’s life. This type of punishment can only come from capital punishment and it is a necessity to our society.
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.
Have you ever thought about if the person next to you is a killer or a rapist? If he is, what would you want from the government if he had killed someone you know? He should receive the death penalty! Murderers and rapists should be punished for the crimes they have committed and should pay the price for their wrongdoing. Having the death penalty in our society is humane; it helps the overcrowding problem and gives relief to the families of the victims, who had to go through an event such as murder. Without the death penalty, criminals would be more inclined to commit additional violent crimes. Fear of death discourages people from committing crimes. If capital punishment were carried out more it would prove to be the crime preventative it was partly intended to be. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives were at stake. Use of the death penalty as intended by law could actually reduce the number of violent murders by eliminating some of the repeat offenders. The death penalty has always been and continues to be a very controversial issue. People on both sides of the issue argue endlessly to gain further support for their movements. While opponents of capital punishment are quick to point out that the United States remains one of the few Western countries that continue to support the death penalty. The deterrent effect of any punishment depends on how quickly the punishment is applied.
Growing up Catholic and pro life I don't believe anyone has the right to take another's life away. God gave life and only he can take it away. As I learn more and more about these possible solutions or needs for the death penalty I'm indecisive. I have heard of cases where the criminal escapes high security and gets out to the public causing even more harm. I believe that if a criminal escapes jail once then, the death penalty can be taken as an option. The whole purpose of jail or the capital punishment is to keep the society free from harm and when one person violates that, jail time should always be applied. Once the criminal has a chance to do it again, they need a higher form of punishment. It is a difficult decision to make since it is a person's life and even after reading texts and stories of individuals affected in one way or another I don't have a clear cut perspective on the death penalty. I believe that each case is unique and should be viewed in a specific
Crime is everywhere. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. 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. I support death penalty because of several reasons.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.