The Death Penalty is a Necessary Deterrent to Crime
Murder and rape are serious crimes, although they aren't the only crimes that could be considered serious. Others that might be considered are stealing, which has numerous categories under it such as grand theft auto, etc… The following story is the true account of a young female named Donna. This story tells of Donna's rape and then her murder by a man named McCorquodale and his friend Leroy. The author is telling this story in order to create the mental picture of what murder and rape really are.
"…The appellant, after telling Donna how pretty she was, raised his fist and hit her across the face. When she stood up, he grabbed her by her blouse, ripping it off and tied her hands behind her back with a nylon stocking. Then he bound her mouth with tape and a washcloth. Leroy then kicked Donna and she fell to the floor.
McCorquodale then had [forced] intercourse with her. . . Then Leroy had [forced] intercourse with the victim. . . The victim was then permitted to go to the bathroom to 'get cleaned up.'
While she was in the bathroom, McCorquodale secured a piece of nylon rope and told Bonnie, her roommate, that he was going 'to kill the girl.' He hid in a closet across the hall from the bathroom and when Donna came out of the bathroom he wrapped the nylon cord around her neck. Donna screamed, 'My God, you're killing me.' As McCorquodale tried to strangle her, the cord cut into his hands and Donna fell to the floor. He fell on top of her and began to strangle her with his bare hands. He removed his hands and the victim began to have convulsions. He again strangled her and then pulled her head up and forward to break her neck.
[After killing her] he covered her life...
... middle of paper ...
...rred by the death
penalty. In Schonebaum, S.E. (Ed.), Does capital punishment deter crime? (pp. 45-46) San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Sowell, T. & DiIulio, J. Jr. (1997) The death penalty is a
deterrent. In Winters, P.A.(Ed.), The death penalty opposing view points (pp. 103-107). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Specter, A. (1997) A swifter death penalty would be an
effective deterrent. In Winters, P.A. (Ed.), The death penalty opposing view points (pp. 114-119). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Specter, A. (1998) A swifter death penalty would be an
effective deterrent. In Schonebaum, S.E. (Ed.), Does capital punishment deter crime? (pp. 87-96) San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
The death penalty will discourage crime (1701). In
Winters, P.A. (Ed.), The death penalty opposing view points (pp. 17-20). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Randa, Laura E. “Society’s Final Solution: A History and Discussion of the Death Penalty.” (1997). Rpt.in History of the Death Penalty. Ed. Michael H. Reggio. University Press of America, Inc., 1997. 1-6 Print.
...ontroversial Issues in Crime and Criminology. New York: Dushkin Publishing Group Inc. Schonebaum, Stephen E., ed. 1998. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: Greenhaven Press Inc.
Descartes overall objective in The Meditations is to question knowledge. To explore such metaphysical issues as the existence of God and the separation of mind and body, it was important for him to distinguish what we can know as truth. He believed that reason as opposed to experience was the source for discovering what is of absolute certainty. In my explication, I will examine meditation two in order to discover why knowledge was so important to Descartes.
The purpose of my essay will be to examine Descartes' argument for the existence of God. First, I will discuss Descartes’ proof for the existence of God then I will critique the argument of his existence. Lastly, I will point to some complications and problems that exist within the proof. Descartes’ proof of the existence of God is presented in the Third Meditation. He shapes his argument on the proof in the Second Meditation that in order for Descartes to think he must exist. From this specific examination he realizes his existence is very clear and distinct in his mind because of the fact he had just discovered his own existence. He then creates a rule that whatever things he sees are clear and distinct, are all true. Descartes begins his proof by splitting his thoughts into four categories, which consist of ideas, judgments, volitions, and emotions. He then further analyzes these categories to decide which thoughts might consist of error.
In the Third Meditation, Descartes forms a proof for the existence of God. He begins by laying down a foundation for what he claims to know and then offers an explanation for why he previously accepted various ideas but is no longer certain of them. Before he arrives at the concept of God, Descartes categorizes ideas and the possible sources that they originate from. He then distinguishes between the varying degrees of reality that an idea can possess, as well as the cause of an idea. Descartes proceeds to investigate the idea of an infinite being, or God, and how he came to acquire such an idea with more objective reality than he himself has. By ruling out the possibility of this idea being invented or adventitious, Descartes concludes that the idea must be innate. Therefore, God necessarily exists and is responsible for his perception of a thing beyond a finite being.
He begins his first meditation with a reflection on the nature of his knowledge as a young child, when he had a “large number of falsehoods”
Murder, killing, fatality, and mortality: all words that are associated with the disgrace that is the death penalty. Debated for decades, the death penalty continues to be a prominent topic for discussion across the United States. In 1977, the Death Penalty was reinstated by the use of lethal injection. Now, each state has their own take on the death penalty and on how its rules should apply to the criminal, of whatever crime they have committed, in said state. Have you ever thought about what a death sentence is? If you sentence a man to death for committing a murder aren’t you just a murderer yourself? These questions are frequently argued over, and there is always going to be two sides arguing: pro or anti-death penalty. Although many American’s believe that the death penalty is necessary for people who have done terrible things, the pros of not having the death penalty surpass the cons with factors such as money, mental issues, cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the possibility of wrongful convictions.
During the 1970s, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence. This argument suggests that we must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses; we punish past offenders to send a message to potential offenders. In a broad sense, the deterrent effect of punishment is thought to b...
For centuries, the death penalty has been used by nations throughout the world. Practices such as stoning, the guillotine, firing squads, electrocution, and lethal injections have all been common practices to condemn criminals who had enacted heinous crimes. In concurrent society, however, capital punishment has begun to be viewed as a barbaric and inhumane. From these judgments, arguments and controversies have erupted over whether or not the United States should continue to practice the death penalty. With advocates and critics arguing over the morality of the death penalty, the reason to why the death penalty exists has been blurred. Because of the death penalty’s ability to thwart future criminals through fear and its practical purposes, the practice of capital punishment should continue in the United States.
A review of the available evidence recently led a National Research Council committee to conclude—again—that we still do not know whether the legal status or use of capital punishment has any influence on homicide (Siennick, 2012). Research methods have shown that a short-term deterrent effect holds true only for non-felony homicides. Felony homicides actually increase slightly after an execution (Siennick, 2012). According to research done in Texas, felony homicides are the only type of homicides that are eligible for the Death Penalty. This does pose a problem for determining whether or not the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent or not. Land et al. suggests that their findings point to subtypes of potential murderers who might respond differently to the threat of execution (Sien...
All these ideas have another sort of reality, unique and only for them. When they are considered in their relation to the objects they represent, those ideas can be told to have objective reality. There are three grades of objective reality that mirroring the grades of formal
One of Descartes’ main goals for writing his Meditations is to establish a foundation for knowledge. He calls everything he knows into doubt, in order to find this foundation. The mechanism he uses to establish universal doubt is the assumption of the existence of an evil demon that deceives him of everything. In order to know anything, he must create a foundation based on something he can know for certain. For his foundation, he provides an argument for his own existence. I will argue that Descartes does not provide a good argument because he commits an informal fallacy in the form of begging the question.
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.
electronic media" (xi) for the invention of new methods of academic research and the production of new kinds of texts.
Schonebaum, Stephen E. "A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be An Effective Deterrent." Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: David L. Bender; Greenhaven Press Inc. 1998. 18.