Abstract
Like all species of animal creature on our planet, humans – each and every one – are entirely capable of committing the most heinous acts imaginable. What draws the distinction for the criminal elements among us is merely a missing level of restraint in the face of conflict, duress, pressure, disappointment, perceived threats, and our own immutable passions. When responding to criminal acts through a system of jurisprudence we are each forced to confront the morass of distinct philosophies underscoring the particular issues. The American system of justice is fundamentally flawed in that it simply cannot determine the most effective bases for our responses to crime and the reduction thereof. Some believe strongly that the response to crime should be based in simply meting out fit punishment for mere retribution’s sake. Other arguments assert a utilitarian approach for protecting society from future crimes and that the most valid basis for sentencing is the mere removal of criminal elements from our midst entirely with neither reservation nor any particularly moral platitudes. Another approach to sentencing and reducing crime is founded on the principle of deterring future crime by punishing severely those who break our laws as an unambiguous warning to others. Still others argue that sentencing ideals should be fundamentally based upon the model of rehabilitating criminals and their potential re-assimilation to society. There just doesn’t seem to be footing firm enough for any one of these distinct principles to prevail over the others. However, in terms of capital punishment, a rather unique characteristic emerges requiring distinct consideration from a whole new order of deliberation.
Faculty Sponsors
Dr. Charles Zelden
Project Type
Event
Location
Alvin Sherman Library
Start Date
4-4-2014 1:00 PM
End Date
4-4-2014 5:30 PM
Philosophically Speaking, Capital Punishment Is Not The Answer
Alvin Sherman Library
Like all species of animal creature on our planet, humans – each and every one – are entirely capable of committing the most heinous acts imaginable. What draws the distinction for the criminal elements among us is merely a missing level of restraint in the face of conflict, duress, pressure, disappointment, perceived threats, and our own immutable passions. When responding to criminal acts through a system of jurisprudence we are each forced to confront the morass of distinct philosophies underscoring the particular issues. The American system of justice is fundamentally flawed in that it simply cannot determine the most effective bases for our responses to crime and the reduction thereof. Some believe strongly that the response to crime should be based in simply meting out fit punishment for mere retribution’s sake. Other arguments assert a utilitarian approach for protecting society from future crimes and that the most valid basis for sentencing is the mere removal of criminal elements from our midst entirely with neither reservation nor any particularly moral platitudes. Another approach to sentencing and reducing crime is founded on the principle of deterring future crime by punishing severely those who break our laws as an unambiguous warning to others. Still others argue that sentencing ideals should be fundamentally based upon the model of rehabilitating criminals and their potential re-assimilation to society. There just doesn’t seem to be footing firm enough for any one of these distinct principles to prevail over the others. However, in terms of capital punishment, a rather unique characteristic emerges requiring distinct consideration from a whole new order of deliberation.
