50 punkti
Autor soovib selle materjali allalaadimise eest saada 50 punkti.
~ 1 leht
Lehekülgede arv dokumendis
2009-10-06
Kuupäev, millal dokument üles laeti
42 laadimist
Kokku alla laetud
0 arvamust
Teiste kasutajate poolt lisatud kommentaarid
kikuuuuuuu
Õppematerjali autor
Law-makers breaking the law: torture as a justified interrogation technique? 1 Introduction It was Jeremy Bentham who thought of a famous method to give ethics a rational basis. He was fed up with the penal laws where offenders met corporate punishment and together with Cesario Beccaria he stood up to torture, corporal punishment, and the death penalty. He resisted against irrational moral emotions as the instigation for ethical conduct, saying only reasonable grounds could justify the moral decisions of individuals and legislators. And now his theory of is the one that is known for justifying torture (Verplaetse, 2008). Since 9/11 and the following fight against terrorism it became clear that the Bush administration thought of torture as something justifiable while it goes against all
When I answer home reading start with the name and nr of the case. And then the parties. (preferably ,,Full court"). Then the relevant problems and events. Let the details be. The next one is what was the question that was asked from court. (Normally very concrete question). Then the decision of the court with my own words. (5 things all together!): 1. Name and nr of the case 2. The parties (there is a trick queen v Smith might mean state v Smith (in UK) a not criminal case; people v Smith it is a criminal case; Brown v Smith means that it's a civil case.) 3. Relevant problems and events (no details!) 4. What is the question asked from the court? (concrete) 5. The decision of the court (in my own words) (Read the Miranda rights / case, Microsoft case, they are landmarks.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft )
criminal behaviour. The misguided nature of these assertions has a serious impact upon crime control strategies. The classical approach holds people to choose freely among alternatives in behaviour. In this view, the perpetrator plans his or her actions before carrying them out. The social environment in which the person is amidst of, is a key factor in causes of criminal behaviour, with weak or broken bonds to family, school, and religion being the catalyst of criminal behaviour. They may not see the benefits of adhering to conventional social values and believe crime is a way to improve their social conditions. Personal choice weighs over and dominates the reasons of individual actions. Through rational conscious thoughts one may select the temptations of preference. One may think of the consequences of one's actions or think that one is too smart to get caught. Regardless of what is coming into us from external sources, we choose what we want and what seems most appealing
Pros and Cons of the Capital Punishment. The death penalty is a controversial issue in most countries, but it is completely abolished in our country. Arguments for and against it are based on moral, practical, religious and emotional groups. On the one hand, there are advocates of the death penalty, who argue that it deters crime, improves community by making them sure, that convicted criminals would never find their way out onto the streets to offend again and it is cheaper than keeping convicted criminals in high security prison for the rest of their natural lives.
Capital Punishment Should (not) Be Abolished Capital punishment or the death penalty is the killing of the person as the punishment for offence. To get the capital punishment, you need to do a very serious crime, like homicide, or even more serious than that. The pros of a capital punishment are that if the person gets that punishment, he or she will never get a chance to do something that cruel again. Sometimes the criminals, who get a prison sentence, do something illegal again, after that punishment. Second pro is that it's cheaper for the country to kill the person, than to pay for his/her food and clothes for the rest of his/her life in the prison. Although the killing of the person also needs money, it's still way cheaper than to pay for at least 40 years for all the life needs in prison.
Capital punishment should be abolished Capital punishment is a form of punishment where a person's life is taken. Capital punishment has been abolished in Estonia since the year 1998, but the last man was executed in 1991. One of the reasons for not abolishing capital punishment are that a life long sentence is not as effective as execution, and that the death penalty affirms the right to life by punishing those who violate it in the most serious form. For example: death penalty should exist for serial killers. Another reason is that the criminals who would have been executed are now the country's responsibility and they use taxpayers' money. On the other hand, capital punishment is very inhumane. After the execution new
Capital punishment Capital punishment is the killing of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an great offence. It has been used in almost every part of the globe. There is an international organisation called Amnesty International who are fighting for human rights. Thanks for them there are many countries who abolished it. But is it right or should capital punishment exist? Firstly I belive capital punishment should exist because if you gonna take somebody's life it is only fair when you pay for this with your own life. Many people are thinking how cruel it is for a criminal but we should also think of the families that are broken apart because of the merciless acts of these criminals. Secondly it is too expensive to hold prisoners who have lifelong punishment. Especially it affects countries who are financially disadvantaged. It is not fair that taxpayers have to maintain the murders.
Capital punishments should not be abolished There is a big argument in society should capital punishment be abolished or not? Some people think that some criminals should just spend their whole life in prison and suffer there instead of capital punishment. I think that they deserve capital punishment. Why? If they spend their whole life in prison, it means, they will have three free meals in a day and they can also watch tv, study, work, don't have to pay taxes and some of the prisons look more nicer than someone's ordinary home and who pays for their free living? We do. I also think that some of the criminal are kind of mentally ill and they will never feel guilty of what they did and some are even proud of it if they have murdered or tortured somebody's daughter or
annaabi.ee 
Sisene Facebook'ga
Sisene Google'ga
Sisene LinkedIn'ga
Kõik kommentaarid