Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Capital punishment involves the deliberate killing of a supposed or actual offender for an offense. Throughout history and across different societies, criminals have been executed for a variety of offenses, but much of the literature is devoted to examining whether those convicted of murder ought to be executed, and this discussion will be similarly focused.
A combination of utilitarian and retributive considerations are usually invoked in an effort to justify the execution of murderers. The centerpiece of most arguments in favor of capital punishment is retributive: Murderers deserve to be put to death. This is usually argued for along Kantian lines: By deliberately causing an innocent person’s death, the murderer has rendered himself deserving of death. Utilitarian considerations generally play a large role as well. Proponents argue that the threat of capital punishment can deter potential murderers. Since many human beings’ greatest fear is death, the intuitive plausibility of this claim is clear. In addition, proponents point to the fact that capital punishment is the ultimate incapacitation. Clearly, if a murderer is dead, then he can never harm anyone again.
Opponents of capital punishment challenge proponents on each of these points. Albert Camus denies that murder and capital punishment are equivalent to one another:
But what is capital punishment if not the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal act, no matter how calculated, can be compared? If there were to be a real equivalence, the death penalty would have to be pronounced upon a criminal who had forewarned his victim of the very moment he would put him to a horrible death, and who, from that time on, had kept him confined at his own discretion for a period of months. It is not in private life that one meets such monsters (25).
This argument and others that resemble it are often put forth in an attempt to counter the retributive argument. Also, any criminal justice system that executes convicted criminals runs the risk of executing some individuals who do not deserve to be executed: the wrongfully convicted. Some argue that a fallible criminal justice system ought not to impose a penalty that removes the possibility of mistakes being rectified. The utilitarian arguments have also come under attack. Some argue that the proponents of capital punishment have overstated its deterrent value, and it has been argued that it may even incite some people to commit murder (Bedau, 198-200). Regarding incapacitation, it has been argued that the danger involved in failing to execute murderers has been similarly overstated (196-198).
Capital punishment involves the deliberate killing of a supposed or actual offender for an offense. Throughout history and across different societies, criminals have been executed for a variety of offenses, but much of the literature is devoted to examining whether those convicted of murder ought to be executed, and this discussion will be similarly focused.
A combination of utilitarian and retributive considerations are usually invoked in an effort to justify the execution of murderers. The centerpiece of most arguments in favor of capital punishment is retributive: Murderers deserve to be put to death. This is usually argued for along Kantian lines: By deliberately causing an innocent person’s death, the murderer has rendered himself deserving of death. Utilitarian considerations generally play a large role as well. Proponents argue that the threat of capital punishment can deter potential murderers. Since many human beings’ greatest fear is death, the intuitive plausibility of this claim is clear. In addition, proponents point to the fact that capital punishment is the ultimate incapacitation. Clearly, if a murderer is dead, then he can never harm anyone again.
Opponents of capital punishment challenge proponents on each of these points. Albert Camus denies that murder and capital punishment are equivalent to one another:
But what is capital punishment if not the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal act, no matter how calculated, can be compared? If there were to be a real equivalence, the death penalty would have to be pronounced upon a criminal who had forewarned his victim of the very moment he would put him to a horrible death, and who, from that time on, had kept him confined at his own discretion for a period of months. It is not in private life that one meets such monsters (25).
This argument and others that resemble it are often put forth in an attempt to counter the retributive argument. Also, any criminal justice system that executes convicted criminals runs the risk of executing some individuals who do not deserve to be executed: the wrongfully convicted. Some argue that a fallible criminal justice system ought not to impose a penalty that removes the possibility of mistakes being rectified. The utilitarian arguments have also come under attack. Some argue that the proponents of capital punishment have overstated its deterrent value, and it has been argued that it may even incite some people to commit murder (Bedau, 198-200). Regarding incapacitation, it has been argued that the danger involved in failing to execute murderers has been similarly overstated (196-198).
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
HELLO!
HAHAH NURUL'S SCARED OF SPIDERS. so am i but that's not the point. haha! figured out when there was this creepy crawly that decided to spin a web right in front of kind old norul's face(: she just dodged towards me, pushed everything towards my table and SQUEEKED.
nurul: ahh! spider!
me: no it's not it's a goddamn fly!
nurul: nooo! it's a spider! squeek!
me: but it's flying! spiders can't fly!
nurul: can't you see the web? squeek! (pushes everything onto my table)
spider slides down from the web onto poor norul's table(:
nurul, me: AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sheryl: so childish.
me: where is it where is it?
nurul: under my book! squeek! oh no it's just a piece of paper. in your pencil case! squeek!
mrs chan: SSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH.
5 minutes later:
nurul: squeek!
me: what's your freaking problem?
nurul: OH IT WAS YOUR PINAFORE that touched my leg! thought it was the spider.
poor nurul probably got a heart attack.
oh and melissa MY BIRTHDAY IS ON THE FIRST DAY OF HOLIDAYS. it's bright red so if you didn't see it again you're colour blind.
okay have to sleep now. BYE!
HAHAH NURUL'S SCARED OF SPIDERS. so am i but that's not the point. haha! figured out when there was this creepy crawly that decided to spin a web right in front of kind old norul's face(: she just dodged towards me, pushed everything towards my table and SQUEEKED.
nurul: ahh! spider!
me: no it's not it's a goddamn fly!
nurul: nooo! it's a spider! squeek!
me: but it's flying! spiders can't fly!
nurul: can't you see the web? squeek! (pushes everything onto my table)
spider slides down from the web onto poor norul's table(:
nurul, me: AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sheryl: so childish.
me: where is it where is it?
nurul: under my book! squeek! oh no it's just a piece of paper. in your pencil case! squeek!
mrs chan: SSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH.
5 minutes later:
nurul: squeek!
me: what's your freaking problem?
nurul: OH IT WAS YOUR PINAFORE that touched my leg! thought it was the spider.
poor nurul probably got a heart attack.
oh and melissa MY BIRTHDAY IS ON THE FIRST DAY OF HOLIDAYS. it's bright red so if you didn't see it again you're colour blind.
okay have to sleep now. BYE!
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Difficulties are meant to rouse, not discourage. The human spirit is to grow strong by conflict. -William Ellery Channing
I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward.
Make failure your teacher, not your undertaker. -Zig Ziglar
dang. gonna prove it to you someday man. you just wait and see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)