Unformatted Attachment Preview
Respond to Douglas R. Carlile response should be a "minimum" of 300 words each
(does not count references and or restating what a classmate said) and include "at
least" one properly referenced source each (in accordance with APA 6th edition).
Some of the most significant arguments for and against capital punishment are as follows:
1. When someone commits such a heinous crime to where it would be a privilege to allow
them to spend the rest of their life in prison at the expense of the American taxpayer, and
the people want justice served. In these instances, many feel that death by execution of
any kind would be the only means of serving justice.
2. The argument against the death penalty that I will take is from a more religious
standpoint. That argument being that God gives us all life, therefore it should be God and
not any living human being to decide when a person’s life ends; thus making murder and
suicide among the greatest of sins in most any religion.
One of the philosophies behind capital punishment as it is usually carried out in
response to an individual committing a murder is the old “An eye for an eye” method of
serving justice, which has been in existence prior to the birth of Christ. Is this always the
right way to look at the situation? No. Although our nation’s judicial system is
considered to be among the best in the world, it is by no means perfect. It is always
possible for errors in the judicial system, which is why there are no exceptions in a death
sentence automatically going up to the appellate court; simply for the purpose of seeing
that the trial and sentencing phase was carried out with complete accuracy.
I would like to point out one such case in Italy where the judicial system was wrong in
sentencing parties to prison for a murder conviction. In 2007, Amanda Knox an
American college student, was sentenced for the murder of then roommate Meredith
Kercher. She would serve four years of a 25 year sentence before the conviction was
overturned, due to weak evidence presented by the prosecution, after the case was
appealed to the Supreme Court in Italy. Suppose she were sentenced to death for this?
This would have been another incident where an innocent person’s life were taken. That
would be another argument against the death penalty, that if new evidence were to turn
up that would prove their innocence, how could you pardon/exonerate them? Once
capital punishment is implemented it’s as the old saying goes; “What’s done is done.”
There would be no way to compensate the murdered person or his/her family.
Now on the other hand, some arguments for the death penalty would be as such. I am
sure many of you remember the Oklahoma City bombing executed by Timothy McVeigh
and Terry Nichols in April of 1995. This attack caused by a home grown terrorist to
whom had served honorably in the military previously, killed 168 people and injured
some 680 others. In such a case with so many people killed, wouldn’t their families be
screaming for justice? With that many lives taken, society in general would see no other
form of justice suitable than the death penalty. McVeigh was sentenced to death in 2001.
Reference:
http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/5-arguments-for-and-against-the-death-penalty/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
Between classical and positivist criminology, I would be more closely prescribed to the
classical approach to criminology. As it was defined to me, the classical approach is more
geared towards people using their own judgment skills in making the conscientious decisions
of deciding to do what is right or wrong, after careful consideration and weighing out the
potential benefits vs. the consequences of getting caught. The positivist approach takes a
different standpoint that I am not as favorable to. In the positivist approach, they take the
viewpoint that social atmospheres and the environment that one is surrounded by regardless
of the circumstances, will dictate whether or not the person becomes a good or bad citizen.
In other words, a person could be born with a good conscience or good moral values, but
they are influenced by those around them into criminal behavior and as a result of this, they
too turn criminal.
Between the two, I am more in favor of the classical approach, because everyone should
be able through their own sense of judgment be able to make the right conscientious
decisions as to not committing criminal behavior. Now I can easily see the positivist
approach and why we have it. Unfortunately, many children grow up in broken homes or
don’t have the proper parental support that they should have. In such cases, it is easy to see
how a young person can be influenced by those around them, if they aren’t getting the right
example set before them by their parents. This would be why state foster homes exist, as
children in this capacity would need a firm hand guiding them, and they aren’t getting it from
their parents. This is what I feel roots the growth of criminals from the very beginning; not
having the right support at home.
The classical approach is rooted in the philosophy that all people should know the
difference between right and wrong, and not be swayed by peer pressure or the pressures of
the society or atmosphere that surrounds them. This once again shows where the parent can
come in as helpful as they do; by swaying younger children from such negative influences
before it becomes too late. I also see teachers and other educators as a good influence here as
well, seeing as a child spends as much of their time in school, and the teacher is considered
as the latin phrase goes; “In loco de parentis” or “in the place of the parent.”
If kids aren’t raised properly by their parents, they would easily feel a need for belonging,
which is why many would feel compelled to join a gang. Parents to whom raise their kids
properly or those kids who are “saved by the state before it would be too late”, would be able
to learn the proper morals and therefore be much less prone to the positivist approach to
criminal behavior. When people grow up with the right morals, they are much less likely to
become criminals as adults. In summary, the positivist method although holding truth,
wouldn’t exist if not for some of the failures of society. I favor the classical approach
because we all grow up with a conscience inside, and should have the knowledge to know the
difference between right and wrong.
Reference:
http://criminology-articles.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-comparison-and-contrast-ofclassical.html
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/criminology/the-difference-between-classical-andpositivist-understanding-criminology-essay.php