Citation Exercises(5 sources, 3 quotes per source)

User Generated

nyahanu

Humanities

Description

English 102 Citation Exercises Throughout this course, you will be assembling a list of sources that you have read or consulted. To practice citation, you will complete citation exercises for all assigned readings. Each citation exercise will contain:  MLA-style Works Cited entries for all readings assigned during this period  15 quotations drawn from different places in the reading (at least one from each source)  MLA-style parenthetical citations for each quotation (do NOT write a signal phrase) Please choose quotations that you find interesting, not just sentences that you pick out at random. You will be looking back at these assignments for inspiration and resources when you write your papers, so do yourself a favor and choose the very best quotes! Works Cited entries should be listed all together at the end of the document, in alphabetical order.


 Choose your quotations from varied places throughout the assigned text  Choose the most interesting or useful quotations  Copy the quotations you choose exactly, with no errors  Number each quotation to make sure that you have 15 total  Include an MLA-style parenthetical citation (in-text citation) for each quote  Write MLA-style Works Cited citations for each reading at the end of the document  Alphabetize your list of Works Cited entries  Cite each selection from the Prison Writing anthology separately  Double-check all citations to make sure they are correct and they follow MLA rules


the reading you need for this homework are uploaded . PW Abu-Jamal, Cuevas (CNN), Miller (Fox), “Mumia Abu-Jamal to Give...” (Goddard), “Mumia Abu-Jamal to Deliver...” (RT) (5 sources, 3 quotes per source

Unformatted Attachment Preview

9/4/2015 Decision to let cop killer Abu­Jamal give commencement speech 'despicable,' widow says | Fox News Print Close Decision to let cop killer Abu­Jamal give commencement speech 'despicable,' widow says By Joshua Rhett Miller Published October 04, 2014 | FoxNews.com A Vermont college's selection of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu­Jamal as speaker at its commencement Sunday is a “despicable” decision that should be reversed, his victim's widow told FoxNews.com. Maureen Faulkner, whose husband Daniel was gunned down by Abu­Jamal in 1981, was shocked to learn of the selection by undergraduate students at tiny Goddard College in Plainfield. Abu­Jamal, who will not attend the event and whose speech will be pre­recorded, received a bachelor of arts degree from the 245­student liberal arts college in 1996 through a correspondence program. “It’s not appropriate,” Faulkner said. “His freedom was taken away when he murdered a police officer in the line of duty. It seems like our justice system allows murderers to continue to have a voice over the public airwaves and at college commencement. It’s despicable.” Abu­Jamal, born Wesley Cook, was sentenced to death following a high­profile trial in Philadelphia. His sentence was later reduced to life in prison without parole for killing Faulkner, a 25­year­old patrolman who scuffled with Abu­Jamal’s brother during an early morning traffic stop. Abu­Jamal, a member of the Black Panther Party, was wounded by a round from Faulkner’s gun and a .38­caliber revolver registered to Abu­Jamal was found at the scene with five spent shell casings, according to trial testimony. Sunday's event will mark the third time Abu­Jamal, 60, has given commencement speeches at colleges, including at Evergreen State College in Washington and Antioch College in Ohio. Both of those events prompted widespread protests on behalf of law enforcement officers and Faulkner’s relatives. “How can this go in our country? It’s amazing,” Maureen Faulkner continued. “People need to start realizing that there’s right and wrong in this world. It seems like no one thinks about that.” In a statement, Goddard College Interim President Bob Kenny said the college holds 20 commencement ceremonies annually to provide personalized graduation ceremonies in each degree program. "As a reflection of Goddard’s individualized and transformational educational model, our commencements are intimate affairs where each student serves as her or his own valedictorian, and each class chooses its own speaker," Kenny said in a statement. "Choosing Mumia as their commencement speaker, to me, shows how this newest group of Goddard graduates expresses their freedom to engage and think radically and critically in a world that often sets up barriers to do just that." The head of the Vermont State Police also condemned the school's actions, saying the college's students and leaders are showing "blatant indifference" toward law enforcement. "The scheduled commemoration of convicted cop killer, Mumia Abu­Jamal, demonstrates an appalling disregard for law enforcement officers, and their families, who have lost their lives in the line of duty," Col. Tom L'Esperance said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "Our thoughts go out to Officer Daniel Faulkner's wife and family, who continue to mourn the 1981 death of the 25­year­old Philadelphia police officer. Despite this blatant indifference shown by the students and leaders at Goddard College, law enforcement officers across the country, and in Vermont, continue to serve and protect their communities — everyday — at great risk to themselves. All the while, their loved ones are wishing them safely home." Faulkner, who said he intends to protest the ceremony in some way, acknowledged that Abu­Jamal remains not far from her mind. Earlier this month, the notorious inmate made headlines when an attorney nominated to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division withdrew from consideration due to his involvement in Abu­Jamal’s case while working with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to overturn his death sentence. And in April, a lesson plan posted on the Oakland (Calif.) Unified School District’s website asked students to draw parallels between late civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and Abu­Jamal, an exercise akin to advocating violence to young students, Faulkner said. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/01/despicable­decision­to­allow­abu­jamal­to­give­college­commencement­speech/print 1/2 9/4/2015 Decision to let cop killer Abu­Jamal give commencement speech 'despicable,' widow says | Fox News “It’s a travesty,” Faulkner told FoxNews.com in April. “You’re going to teach children about a man who murdered a police officer? That’s not a good lesson to be teaching children. He was a radical, a militant. My question is: Are our tax dollars paying for this?” Meanwhile, a spokesman for Goddard College said university officials do not condone “any acts” of violence. "Our condolences go out to [Faulkner] as they go out to the many victims and their families who have experienced senseless acts of violence,” spokesman Dustin Bylerly said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “Our aspiration is to make the world a less violent place in which to live by examining carefully those elements of life in this world that lead to such senseless acts. Without equivocation we do not condone any acts of violence." Print Close URL http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/01/despicable­decision­to­allow­abu­jamal­to­give­college­commencement­speech/ Home Video Politics Privacy U.S. Opinion Entertainment Tech Science Health Travel Lifestyle World Sports Weather Terms This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2015 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/01/despicable­decision­to­allow­abu­jamal­to­give­college­commencement­speech/print 2/2 9/4/2015 Mumia Abu­Jamal to Give Commencement Speech at Goddard College ­ Goddard College Mumia Abu-Jamal to Give Commencement Speech at Goddard College SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 • GODDARD COMMUNICATIONS Inmate Journalist and Goddard Graduate to Address Newest Class of Radical Thinkers Plainfield, Vt. — Goddard College announced today that Mumia Abu­Jamal, an American prisoner, author, and journalist who received his Bachelor of Arts from Goddard in 1996, was selected by the students of the Undergraduate Program’s Fall 2014 graduating class to be their commencement speaker on Sunday, October 5, 2014. Abu­Jamal was convicted in the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. His original death sentence handed down at his trial in 1982 was commuted to life imprisonment without parole in 2011. He was then transferred from death row to the Mahanoy State Correctional Institution in Frackville, Pa., where he resides today. Abu­Jamal’s commencement remarks were prerecorded by Director of Prison Radio Noelle Hanrahan and will be played alongside a short slideshow created by director and filmmaker Stephen Vittoria, whose documentary “Long Distance Revolutionary: A Journey with Mumia Abu­Jamal” was released in 2012. Goddard College holds twenty commencement ceremonies each year, allowing for students in each degree program to personalize their graduation experience. “As a reflection of Goddard’s individualized and transformational educational model, our commencements are intimate affairs where each student serves as her or his own valedictorian, and each class chooses its own speaker,” said Goddard College Interim President Bob Kenny. “Choosing Mumia as their commencement speaker, to me, shows how this newest group of Goddard graduates expresses their freedom to engage and think radically and critically in a world that often sets up barriers to do just that,” he said. Twenty out of twenty­three students receiving their Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Fine Arts will graduate in the commencement ceremony featuring Abu­Jamal’s speech at the Haybarn Theatre at Goddard College, located at 123 Pitkin Road in Plainfield, Vt., at 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 5. #### About Goddard College Initially founded in 1863 as the Goddard Seminary in Barre, Vt., Goddard College moved to its current Plainfield campus and was chartered in 1938 by founding President Royce “Tim” Pitkin. In 1963, Goddard became the first U.S. college to offer low­residency adult degree programs, and now offers accredited MA, MFA, BA, and BFA degree programs from the main campus in Plainfield, and sites in Seattle and Port Townsend, Wash. Goddard’s intensive, low­residency model offers the best of on­campus and distance education, with experienced faculty advisors, rigorous campus residencies, and the freedom to study from anywhere. More at goddard.edu. http://www.goddard.edu/2014/09/mumia­abu­jamal­give­commencement­speech­goddard­college/ 1/2 9/4/2015 Mumia Abu­Jamal to Give Commencement Speech at Goddard College ­ Goddard College Contact: Samantha Kolber Communications Manager 802.322.1724 | samantha.kolber@goddard.edu © 2015 Goddard College 123 Pitkin Road Plainfield, Vermont 05667 1­800­468­4888 Responsive Web Design by MATERIELL http://www.goddard.edu/2014/09/mumia­abu­jamal­give­commencement­speech­goddard­college/ 2/2 1/6/2016 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » PunishmentInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » Print Punishment Punishment involves the deliberate infliction of suffering on a supposed or actual offender for an offense such as a moral or legal transgression. Since punishment involves inflicting a pain or deprivation similar to that which the perpetrator of a crime inflicts on his victim, it has generally been agreed that punishment requires moral as well as legal and political justification. While philosophers almost all agree that punishment is at least sometimes justifiable, they offer various accounts of how it is to be justified as well as what the infliction of punishment is designed to protect – rights, personal autonomy and private property, a political constitution, or the democratic process, for instance. Utilitarians attempt to justify punishment in terms of the balance of good over evil produced and thus focus our attention on extrinsic or consequentialist considerations. Retributivists attempt a justification that links punishment to moral wrongdoing, generally justifying the practice on the grounds that it gives to wrongdoers what they deserve; their focus is thus on the intrinsic wrongness of crime that thereby merits punishment. “Compromise” theorists attempt to combine these two types of theories in a way that retains their perceived strengths while overcoming their perceived weaknesses. After discussing the various attempts at justification, utilitarian and retributive approaches to determining the amount of punishment will be examined. Finally, the controversial issue of capital punishment will be briefly discussed. Table of Contents 1. Utilitarianism a. Utilitarian Justification b. Objection and Response 2. Retributivism a. Retributive Justification b. Objection and Response 3. Compromise Theories a. Hart’s Theory b. Objection and Response 4. Amount of Punishment a. Utilitarians on Amount b. Retributivists on Amount 5. Capital Punishment 6. Conclusion 7. References and Further Reading 1. Utilitarianism a. Utilitarian Justification Utilitarianism is the moral theory that holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the balance of good over evil that is produced by that action. Philosophers have argued over exactly how the resulting good and evil may be identified and to whom the greatest good should belong. Jeremy Bentham identified good with pleasure and evil with pain and held that the greatest pleasure should belong to the http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/print 1/9 1/6/2016 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » PunishmentInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » Print greatest number of people. John Stuart Mill, perhaps the most notable utilitarian, identified good with happiness and evil with unhappiness and also held that the greatest happiness should belong to the greatest number. This is how utilitarianism is most often discussed in the literature, so we will follow Mill in our discussion. When attempting to determine whether a punishment is justifiable, utilitarians will attempt to anticipate the likely consequences of carrying out the punishment. If punishing an offender would most likely produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness compared with the other available options (not taking any action, publicly denouncing the offender, etc.), then the punishment is justified. If another available option would produce a greater balance of happiness over unhappiness, then that option should be chosen and punishment is unjustified. Clearly, crimes tend to produce unhappiness, so in seeking to promote a state of affairs in which the balance of happiness over unhappiness is maximized, a utilitarian will be highly concerned with reducing crime. Traditionally, utilitarians have focused on three ways in which punishment can reduce crime. First, the threat of punishment can deter potential offenders. If an individual is tempted to commit a certain crime, but he knows that it is against the law and a punishment is attached to a conviction for breaking that law, then, generally speaking, that potential offender will be less likely to commit the crime. Second, punishment can incapacitate offenders. If an offender is confined for a certain period of time, then that offender will be less able to harm others during that period of time. Third, punishment can rehabilitate offenders. Rehabilitation involves making strides to improve an offender’s character so that he will be less likely to re­offend. Although utilitarians have traditionally focused on these three ways in which punishment can reduce crime, there are other ways in which a punishment can affect the balance of happiness over unhappiness. For example, whether or not a given offender is punished will affect how the society views the governmental institution that is charged with responding to violations of the law. The degree to which they believe this institution is functioning justly will clearly affect their happiness. Utilitarians are committed to taking into account every consequence of a given punishment insofar as it affects the balance of happiness over unhappiness. b. Objection and Response Perhaps the most common objection to the utilitarian justification of punishment is that its proponent is committed to punishing individuals in situations in which punishment would clearly be morally wrong. H.J. McCloskey offers the following example: Suppose a utilitarian were visiting an area in which there was racial strife, and that, during his visit, a Negro rapes a white woman, and that race riots occur as a result of the crime, white mobs, with the connivance of the police, bashing and killing Negroes, etc. Suppose too that our utilitarian is in the area of the crime when it is committed such that his testimony would bring about the conviction of a particular Negro. If he knows that a quick arrest will stop the riots and lynchings, surely, as a utilitarian, he must conclude that he has a duty to bear false witness in order to bring about the punishment of an innocent person (127). A utilitarian is committed to endorsing the act that would be most likely to produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness, and, in this situation, it appears that the act that meets this criterion is bearing false witness against an innocent person. But, so the argument goes, it cannot be morally permissible, let alone morally mandatory, to perform an act that leads directly to the punishment of an innocent person. Therefore, since the utilitarian is committed to performing this clearly wrong act, the utilitarian justification must be incorrect. The standard utilitarian response to this argument demands that we look more closely at the example. Once we do this, it supposedly becomes clear that the utilitarian is not committed to performing this clearly http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/print 2/9 1/6/2016 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » PunishmentInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » Print wrong act. In his reply to McCloskey’s argument, T.L.S. Sprigge states that if faced with the decision presented in the example, a “sensible utilitarian” will attach a great deal of weight to the near­certain fact that framing an innocent man would produce a great deal of misery for that man and his family. This consideration would receive such weight because “the prediction of misery… rests on well confirmed generalizations” (72). Furthermore, the sensible utilitarian will not attach much weight to the possibility that framing the man would stop the riots. This is because this prediction “will be based on a hunch about the character of the riots” (72). Since well confirmed generalizations are more reliable than hunches, happiness is most likely to be maximized when individuals give the vast majority of the weight to such well confirmed generalizations when making moral decisions. Therefore, since the relevant well confirmed generalization tells us that at least a few people (the innocent man and his family) would be made miserable by the false testimony, the utilitarian would give much weight to this consideration and choose not to bear false witness against an innocent man. This type of response can in turn be challenged in various ways, but perhaps the best way to challenge it is to point out that even if it is true that the greatest balance of good over evil would not be promoted by punishing an innocent person in this situation, that is not the reason why punishing an innocent person would be wrong. It would be wrong because it would be unjust. The innocent man did not rape the woman, so he does not deserve to be punished for that crime. Because utilitarianism focuses solely on the balance of happiness over unhappiness that is produced by various actions, it is unable to take into account important factors such as justice and desert. If justice and desert cannot be incorporated into the theory, then the punishment of innocents cannot be ruled out as unjust, so a prohibition against it will have to be dependent upon the likelihood of various consequences. This strikes many theorists as problematic. 2. Retributivism a. Retributive Justification Regarding retributive theories, C.L. Ten states that, “There is no complete agreement about what sorts of theories are retributive except that all such theories try to establish an essential link between punishment and moral wrongdoing” (38). He is surely right about this, so, therefore, it is difficult to give a general account of retributive justification. However, it is possible to state certain features that characterize retributive theories generally. Concepts of desert and justice occupy a central place in most retributive theories: in accordance with the demands of justice, wrongdoers are thought to deserve to suffer, so punishment is justified on the grounds that it gives to wrongdoers what they deserve. It is instructive to look at the form that a particular retributive theory can take, so we will examine the views of Immanuel Kant. Kant invokes what he refers to as the “principle of equality” in his discussion of punishment. If this principle is obeyed, then “the pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to the one side than the other” (104). If a wrongful act is committed, then the person who has committed it has upset the balance of the scale of justice. He has inflicted suffering on another, and therefore rendered himself deserving of suffering. So in order to balance the scale of justice, it is necessary to inflict the deserved suffering on him. But it is not permissible to just inflict any type of suffering. Kant states that the act that the person has performed “is to be regarded as perpetrated on himself” (104). This he refers to as the “principle of retaliation”. Perhaps the most straightforward application of this principle demands that murderers receive the penalty of death. So, for Kant, the justification of punishment is derived from the principle of retaliation, which is grounded in the principle of equality. The concepts of desert and justice play a central role in Kant’s theory, and they are applied in a way that rules out the possibility of justifying the punishment of innocents. Since an innocent person does not deserve to be punished, a Kantian is not committed to punishing an innocent person, and since it seems to some that utilitarians are committed to punishing innocents (or participating in the punishment of innocents) in certain circumstances, Kant’s theory may seem to be superior in this respect. Recall that the http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/print 3/9 1/6/2016 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » PunishmentInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » Print failure to take desert and justice into consideration is thought by many to be a major problem with utilitarian theory. However, while Kantian theory may seem superior because it takes desert and justice into account, an influential criticism of the theory challenges the idea that punishment can be justified on the grounds of justice and desert without requiring that the balance of happiness over unhappiness be taken into account. b. Objection and Response Gertrude Ezorsky argues that we should test the Kantian position and other retributive positions that resemble it “by imagining a world in which punishing criminals has no further effects worth achieving” (xviii). In this world, punishment does not deter or rehabilitate. For whatever reason, incapacitation is impossible. In addition, victims receive no satisfaction from the punishment of those who have harmed them. In this world, a Kantian would be committed to the position that punishments still ought to be inflicted upon wrongdoers. Furthermore, the individuals that populated this world would be morally obligated to punish wrongdoers. If they failed to punish wrongdoers, they would be failing to abide by the dictates of justice. But surely it is quite odd to hold that these individuals would be morally obligated to punish when doing so would not produce any positive effects for anyone. According to Ezorsky, this terribly odd consequence suggests that the Kantian theory is problematic. Kant would not agree that this consequence of his theory is odd. According to Kant, “if justice and righteousness perish, human life would no longer have any value in the world” (104). So, even the inhabitants of our imaginary world are obliged to ensure that “every one may realize the desert of his deeds” (106). If they do not live up to this obligation, then they will be failing to abide by the dictates of justice, and their lives will be of lesser value. Of course, critics of the Kantian theory are unlikely to be persuaded by this response. Indeed, it is appropriate to be highly skeptical of a conception of justice that holds that justice can be promoted without anyone’s welfare being promoted. As stated earlier, many of the theories that are referred to as “retributive” vary significantly from one another. However, as the Kantian theory possesses many central features that other retributive theories possess, criticisms similar to Ezorsky’s have been leveled against many of them. Predictably, the responses to these criticisms vary depending on the particular theory. 3. Compromise Theories Many theorists have attempted to take features of utilitarianism and retributivism and combine them into a theory that retains the strengths of both while overcoming their weaknesses. The impetus for attempting to develop this sort of theory is clear: the idea that punishment should promote good consequences, such as the reduction of crime, surely seems attractive. However, the idea that it would be justified to punish an innocent in any circumstance where such punishment would be likely to promote the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness surely seems wrong. Likewise, the idea that justice and the desert of the offender should play a central role in a justification of punishment is attractive, while being committed to punishing an offender even when nobody’s welfare would be promoted as a result seems to be problematic. So, each type of theory seems to have positive and negative aspects. But how to combine these seemingly opposed theories and produce a better one? Is a compromise between them really possible? In an attempt to explore this possibility, we will examine the theory of H.L.A. Hart. a. Hart’s Theory According to Hart, in order to clarify our thinking on the subject of punishment, What is needed is the realization that different principles… are relevant at different points in any morally acceptable account of punishment. What we should look for are answers to a number of different questions such as: What justifies the general practice of punishment? To whom may http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/print 4/9 1/6/2016 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » PunishmentInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » Print punishment be applied? (3) The failure to separate these questions from one another and consider that they might be answered by appealing to different principles has prevented many previous theorists from generating an acceptable account of punishment. Hart states that the first question (“What justifies the general practice of punishment?”) is a question of “General Justifying Aim” and ought to be answered by citing utilitarian concerns. The second (“To whom may punishment be applied?”) is a question of “Distribution” and ought to be answered by citing retributive concerns. So, the general practice is to be justified by citing the social consequences of punishment, the main social consequence being the reduction of crime, but we ought not be permitted to punish whenever inflicting a punishment is likely to reduce crime. In other words, we may not apply punishment indiscriminately. We may only punish “an offender for an offense” (9). With few exceptions, the individual upon whom punishment is inflicted must have committed an offense, and the punishment must be attached to that offense. Hart’s theory attempts to avoid what may have appeared to be an impasse blocking the construction of an acceptable theory of punishment. Utilitarian concerns play a major role in his theory: the practice of punishment must promote the reduction of crime, or else it is not justifiable. But retributive concerns also play a major role: the range of acceptable practices that can be engaged in by those concerned with reducing crime is to be constrained by a retributive principle allowing only the punishment of an offender for an offense. Hart’s theory, at the very least, represents a plausible attempt at a “compromise” between those inclined towards utilitarianism and those inclined towards retributivism. Hart does admit that on certain occasions the principle stating that we may only punish an offender for an offense (referred to as the principle of “retribution in Distribution”) may be overridden by utilitarian concerns. When the utilitarian case for punishing an innocent person is particularly compelling, it may be good for us to do so, but “we should do so with the sense of sacrificing an important principle” (12). Many people will agree with Hart that it may be necessary to punish an innocent person in extreme cases, and it is thought to be an advantage of his theory that it captures the sense that, in these cases, an important principle is being overridden. b. Objection and Response This overriding process, however, cannot work in the opposite direction. In Hart’s theory, some social good must be promoted or some social evil must be reduced in order for punishment to be justified. Because of this, it is unjustifiable to punish a person who seems to deserve punishment unless some utilitarian aim is being furthered. Imagine the most despicable character you can think of, a mass­murderer perhaps. The justifiability of punishing a person guilty of such crimes is beholden to the social consequences of the punishment. That a depraved character would suffer for his wrongdoing is not enough. So, for Hart, considerations of desert cannot override utilitarian considerations in this way. Some theorists find this consequence of his theory unacceptable. Ten argues that, “it would be unfair to punish an offender for a lesser offense and yet not punish another offender for a more serious offense” (80). If we are behaving in accordance with Hart’s theory, we may, on occasion, have to avoid punishing serious offenders while continuing to punish less serious offenders for utilitarian reasons. Since doing so would be unfair, it seems that Hart’s theory may be seriously flawed. In order to assess Ten’s criticism, it is important to ask the following question: If we were to avoid punishing the more serious offender, to whom would we be being unfair? In an effort to answer this question, we must consider whether the offender who has committed the lesser crime has grounds for complaint if the more serious offender is not punished. By stipulation, the lesser offender committed the crime and cannot thereby claim a violation of justice on those grounds. Is the justification of his punishment contingent upon the punishment of others? Arguably not: The punishment of the lesser offender is justified regardless of whoever else is punished. He may bemoan his bad luck and wish that his punishment were not likely to further any utilitarian aims so that he may avoid it, but he cannot rightly http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/print 5/9 1/6/2016 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » PunishmentInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » Print accuse society of a violation of justice for failing to punish others when he does in fact deserve the punishment that is being inflicted upon him. The attractiveness of Ten’s argument is derived from the fact that its conclusion fits with our intuitions regarding the idea that some people just deserve to suffer no matter what. Perhaps we ought to reexamine that intuition and consider that it may be rooted in an urge to revenge, not a concern for justice. 4. Amount of Punishment The belief that, in most cases, the amount of punishment should vary directly with the seriousness of the offense is widely accepted. However, utilitarians and retributivists have different ways of arriving at this general conclusion. a. Utilitarians on Amount Bentham, a utilitarian, states that, “The greater the mischief of the offence, the greater is the expense, which it may be worth while to be at, in the way of punishment” (181). Crime and punishment both tend to cause unhappiness. Recall that utilitarianism is solely concerned with the balance of happiness over unhappiness produced by an action. When attempting to determine the amount of punishment that ought to be permitted for a given offense, it is necessary to weigh the unhappiness that would be caused by the offense against the unhappiness caused by various punishments. The greater the unhappiness caused by a given offense, the greater the amount of punishment that may be inflicted for that offense in order to reduce its occurrence before the unhappiness caused by the punishment outweighs the unhappiness caused by the offense (Ten, 143). So, utilitarians would often be committed to abiding by the rule that the amount of punishment should vary directly with the seriousness of the offense. However, it seems that there are cases in which they would be committed to violating this rule. Critics argue that utilitarians would sometimes be committed to inflicting a severe punishment for a relatively minor offense. Ten asks us to imagine a society in which there are many petty thefts and thieves are very difficult to catch. Since there are many thefts, the total amount of unhappiness caused by them is great. Imagine that one thief is caught and the authorities are deciding how severely to punish him. If these authorities were utilitarians, they would be committed to giving him a very severe sentence, 10 years perhaps, if this were the only way to deter a significant number of petty thieves. But surely making an example of the one thief who was unlucky or unskilled enough to be caught is unjust. Since utilitarians are sometimes committed to inflicting such harsh punishments for relatively minor offenses, their approach must be inadequate (143­144). b. Retributivists on Amount Retributivists argue that more serious offenses should be punished more severely because offenders who commit more serious crimes deserve harsher punishment than those who commit less serious crimes. Given our previous discussion of retributivism, it should not come as a surprise that the concept of desert plays a central role here. According to many classic versions of retributivism, including Kant’s, the deserved punishment is determined by invoking the lex talionis. The old adage, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” is derived from the lex talionis, which “requires imposing a harm on a criminal identical to the one he imposed on his victim” (Shafer­Landau, 773). Those who argue that murderers ought to be put to death have often invoked this principle, but it is rarely invoked when attempting to determine the proper punishment for other crimes. Its lack of popularity can be explained by noting a couple of objections. First, it is difficult to apply to many offenses, and it seems to be outright inapplicable to some. How should we punish the counterfeiter, the hijacker, or the childless kidnapper? Applying the lex talionis to these crimes is, at the very least, problematic. Second, there are many cases in which it would require that we punish offenders by performing actions that ought not to be carried out by any government (773). Surely we should not rape rapists! For these and other reasons, except when the topic at hand is capital punishment, appeals to the lex talionis in the contemporary literature are rare. http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/print 6/9 1/6/2016 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » PunishmentInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » Print Many contemporary retributivists hold that the principle of proportionality should be used in order to determine the amount of punishment to be meted out in particular cases. This principle states that, “the amount of punishment should be proportionate to the moral seriousness or moral gravity of offenses…” (Ten, 154). Different versions of the proportionality principle call for different ways of establishing how severe a punishment must be in order to meet the demands set by the principle. Must it merely be the case that there be a direct relationship between the amount of punishment and the seriousness of the offense, or must offenders suffer the same amount as their victim(s) in order for the demands of the principle to be met? Retributivists are not in complete agreement on how to answer this question. While retributivists seem to have an easier time ensuring that there be a direct relationship between the amount of punishment and the seriousness of the offense, their position is subject to criticism. Because they are committed to inflicting the deserved punishment, they must do so even when a lesser punishment would produce the same social effects. Clearly, this criticism runs parallel to the objection to retributivism discussed in section 2: if the retributivist is committed to inflicting the deserved punishment regardless of the social effects, then it seems that he is committed to inflicting gratuitous pain on an offender. Of course, some resist the idea that inflicting suffering in such a case would be gratuitous, which is why this debate continues. In any case, the perceived shortcomings of both the utilitarian and retributive approaches have led theorists to attempt to develop approaches that combine elements of both. For reasons similar to those cited in support of the aforementioned “compromise” theories, it seems that these approaches are the most promising. 5. 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 http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/print 7/9 1/6/2016 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » PunishmentInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » Print to commit murder (Bedau, 198­200). Regarding incapacitation, it has been argued that the danger involved in failing to execute murderers has been similarly overstated (196­198). 6. Conclusion These issues introducing punishment have received a great deal of attention in the professional literature, and many philosophers continue to discuss them and offer various answers to the questions that are raised. However, the issues raised here are not the only ones. There are many, including the role of excuses and mitigating circumstances, the usage of insanity as a defense, the imprisonment of offenders, and the cultural and historical context of punishment. 7. References and Further Reading Beccaria, Cesare. On Crimes and Punishments. Trans. David Young. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1986. Bedau, Hugo Adam. “Capital Punishment.” In Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy. Ed. Tom Regan. New York: Random House, 1986. 175­212. Bedau, Hugo Adam, and Paul Cassell, eds. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Bentham, Jeremy. The Principles of Morals and Legislation. New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1948. Camus, Albert. Reflections on the Guillotine. Trans. Richard Howard. Michigan City, IN: Fridtjof­Karla Publications, 1959. Duff, R.A. “Penal Communications: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Punishment.” Crime and Justice 20 (1996): 1­97. Duff, R.A., and David Garland, eds. A Reader on Punishment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Ezorsky, Gertrude. “The Ethics of Punishment.” In Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment. Ed. Gertrude Ezorsky. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972. xi­xxvii. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Random House, 1977. Hart, H.L.A. “Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment.” In Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. 1­27. Kant, Immanuel. “Justice and Punishment.” Trans. W. Hastie. In Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment. Ed. Gertrude Ezorsky. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972. 102­106. McCloskey, H.J. “A Non­Utilitarian Approach to Punishment.” In Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment. Ed. Gertrude Ezorsky. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972. 119­134. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1979. Shafer­Landau, Russ. “The Failure of Retributivism.” In Philosophy of Law. Ed. Joel Feinberg and Jules Coleman. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2000. 769­779. Sprigge, T.L.S. “A Utilitarian Reply to Dr. McCloskey.” In Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment. Ed. Gertrude Ezorsky. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972. 66­79. Ten, C.L. Crime, Guilt, and Punishment. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Author Information Kevin Murtagh Email: KevinJMurtagh@aol.com John Jay College of Criminal Justice U. S. A. Article printed from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/print 8/9 1/6/2016 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » PunishmentInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy » Print Copyright © The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. All rights reserved. http://www.iep.utm.edu/punishme/print 9/9 9/4/2015 ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺒﻴﺔ‬ Mumia Abu­Jamal to deliver commencement speech for Vermont's Goddard College — RT USA ESP РУС ИНОТВ DE RTД FR Applications R RSS RUPTLY QUESTION MORE s LIVE s 17:08 GMT, Sep 04, 2015 Home / USA / Mumia Abu-Jamal to deliver commencement speech for Vermont's Goddard College Published time: 2 Oct, 2014 19:07 Edited time: 2 Oct, 2014 19:48 ARCHIVE PHOTO: A protestor stands next to an image of Mumia Abu‐Jamal outside the US Department of Justice on April 24, 2012 in Washington, DC ﴾AFP Photo / Mandel Ngan﴿ / AFP While many US colleges seek out world leaders, titans of business and celebrities of all stripes to speak at commencement ceremonies, one group of graduates decided to choose a different person to address them: a convicted cop killer. The small group of graduating students at Vermont’s Goddard College chose world‐ http://www.rt.com/usa/192660­mumia­abu­jamal­commencement/ Tags 1/8 9/4/2015 Mumia Abu­Jamal to deliver commencement speech for Vermont's Goddard College — RT USA Vermont’s Goddard College chose world‐ renowned activist and school alum Mumia Abu‐ Jamal, convicted of killing a police officer in 1981, to provide a recorded commencement speech for their ceremony this Sunday. Conflict, Crime, Protest, Human rights, USA, Education, Police Yet the students’ choice of Abu‐Jamal, a former journalist and dedicated social justice activist despite his incarceration, has provoked furious reaction from law enforcement and prison officials from Vermont and Pennsylvania, where he is serving his life sentence without parole. “I cannot express my disdain enough about Goddard College’s decision to allow this individual to be a commencement speaker,” Department of Corrections Secretary John Wetzel said,accordingto The Washington Post. “We have a college allowing an individual convicted of murdering a police officer to share his opinions with impressionable students. This fact is very troubling.” Abu‐Jamal and advocates have long maintained his innocence in the killing of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, claiming the conviction was a product of an unfair trial. Since his incarceration, Abu‐Jamal, once heavily involved with the Black Panther Party, has gained a dedicated following for his writings on, among other topics, racial biases of the US justice system. Mumia on U.S. political parties http://www.rt.com/usa/192660­mumia­abu­jamal­commencement/ 2/8 9/4/2015 Mumia Abu­Jamal to deliver commencement speech for Vermont's Goddard College — RT USA "This was a police frame‐up against a revolutionary journalist and activist, very well known organizer in Philadelphia, outspoken against police abuse," Sarah Flounders, co‐director of the International Action Center,told RTin 2011, 30 years after Abu‐Jamal’s conviction. Honored with awards in over 20 cities worldwide, with a street named after him in France, Abu‐Jamal has been dubbed “the Voice of the Voiceless” by human rights activists. His work has been translated into several languages and distributed across the world. His conviction has been questioned by such Nobel laureates as Nelson Mandela,Toni Morrison and Desmond Tutu. "[Abu‐Jamal’s] analysis is a revolutionary analysis. That this system is rotten to its core, that it's racist, classist, sexist, evil and that it is the head, the leader of an imperialist domination of the world,” Suzanne Ross of the Free Mumia Abu‐ Jamal Coalition told RT in 2011. Just days before the 30th anniversary of his conviction, in 2011, prosecutors dropped pursuit of the death penalty for Abu‐Jamal. Seen worldwide as a victim of an unjust American legal system, he is expected to spend the rest of his life in the SCI Greene facility in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, his latest commencement speech ‐ he previously addressed graduating students at Washington state’s Evergreen State College,in 1999, and Ohio’s Antioch Collegein 2000‐ has again sparked outrage. Maureen Faulkner, widow of the slain Officer Faulkner,toldFox News the selection of Abu‐Jamal to speak at Goddard was “despicable.” http://www.rt.com/usa/192660­mumia­abu­jamal­commencement/ 3/8 9/4/2015 Mumia Abu­Jamal to deliver commencement speech for Vermont's Goddard College — RT USA “It’s not appropriate,” Faulkner said. “His freedom was taken away when he murdered a police officer in the line of duty. It seems like our justice system allows murderers to continue to have a voice over the public airwaves and at college commencement. It’s despicable.” Goddard, located in Plainfield, Vermont, is a private liberal arts college that has around 600 enrolled students who are allowed to build their own curriculum. Sunday’s commencement ceremony will mark the graduation of 23 Goddard students,accordingto PennLive.com. The Vermont Troopers Association also disparaged the selection. “We are outraged that Goddard College is hosting a man who shot and killed a police officer,” the group told AP. Abu‐Jamal, 60, pre‐recorded the ceremonial address from prison, according to reports. A video documentary of his life will also be shown. While in prison, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Goddard in 1996. The students’ choice of Abu‐Jamal “shows how this newest group of Goddard graduates expresses their freedom to engage and think radically and critically in a world that often sets up barriers to do just that,”saidBob Kenny, Goddard’s http://www.rt.com/usa/192660­mumia­abu­jamal­commencement/ 4/8 Mumiasets Abu­Jamal deliver commencement Goddard CollegeKenny, — RT USA Goddard’s in a world that often upto barriers to dospeech justfor Vermont's that,”saidBob interim president. 9/4/2015 Dylan Byerly, Goddard’s associate director of advancement and alumni affairs,addedthat "it's a complicated dialogue [Abu‐Jamal] brings up in racism, imprisonment, the prison industrial complex. I think these conversations are important to have. We encourage our students to have complicated dialogue and they don't run from them." Byerly underscored Abu‐Jamal’s activism as reason for the students’ selection. "He is convicted of murder. We all know that. The college is not questioning that nor are we condoning violence in allowing students to choose him as a commencement speaker,"Byerly said. "What students are attracted to in Mumia is his journalism, his ability to continue to speak for a very underrepresented population, the prison population, and his ability to do so in a way that's powerful to people of this generation." people reading ﴾0﴿ Comments All New Popular Enter text... Add comment e‐mail http://www.rt.com/usa/192660­mumia­abu­jamal­commencement/ 5/8 9/4/2015 Mumia Abu­Jamal to deliver commencement speech for Vermont's Goddard College — RT USA Mumia Abu‐Jamal won't get death penalty Mumia – political prisoner? 30 years behind bars http://www.rt.com/usa/192660­mumia­abu­jamal­commencement/ 6/8 9/4/2015 Mumia Abu­Jamal to deliver commencement speech for Vermont's Goddard College — RT USA Big Brother ‘legal’ in US: Mumia Abu‐Jamal exclusive to RT UN hammers US human rights record on spying, torture, drones and death penalty ​ http://www.rt.com/usa/192660­mumia­abu­jamal­commencement/ 7/8 9/4/2015 News Mumia Abu­Jamal to deliver commencement speech for Vermont's Goddard College — RT USA In vision Live RT NEWS APP ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺒﻴﺔ‬ s USA In motion Where to watch Android UK Shows Schedule iOS Русский Applications Russian politics More Legal disclaimer Windows phone Deutsch R RSS Business Privacy policy Windows 8 Français Op‐Edge Feedback ИНОТВ About us RTД Contact info RUPTLY Español © Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV‐Novosti”, 2005–2015. All rights reserved. http://www.rt.com/usa/192660­mumia­abu­jamal­commencement/ 8/8 ENGL 102 Instructor: Aiden James Kosciesza Citation Exercises Assignment Sheet English 102 Citation Exercises Throughout this course, you will be assembling a list of sources that you have read or consulted. To practice citation, you will complete citation exercises for all assigned readings. Each citation exercise will contain:  MLA-style Works Cited entries for all readings assigned during this period  15 quotations drawn from different places in the reading (at least one from each source)  MLA-style parenthetical citations for each quotation (do NOT write a signal phrase) Please choose quotations that you find interesting, not just sentences that you pick out at random. You will be looking back at these assignments for inspiration and resources when you write your papers, so do yourself a favor and choose the very best quotes! Works Cited entries should be listed all together at the end of the document, in alphabetical order. To be successful, you must:          Choose your quotations from varied places throughout the assigned text Choose the most interesting or useful quotations Copy the quotations you choose exactly, with no errors Number each quotation to make sure that you have 15 total Include an MLA-style parenthetical citation (in-text citation) for each quote Write MLA-style Works Cited citations for each reading at the end of the document Alphabetize your list of Works Cited entries Cite each selection from the Prison Writing anthology separately Double-check all citations to make sure they are correct and they follow MLA rules List of readings according to number of citation assignment: 1. Johnson et al., PW “Introduction”, PW “Autobiography of an Imprisoned Peon”, PW London, Alexander pg. 20-58 (5 sources, 3 quotes per source) 2. Foucault, Murtagh (2 sources, 7-8 quotes per source) 3. PW Abu-Jamal, Cuevas (CNN), Miller (Fox), “Mumia Abu-Jamal to Give...” (Goddard), “Mumia Abu-Jamal to Deliver...” (RT) (5 sources, 3 quotes per source) 4. Mecca, Girshick, Alexander pg. 139-160; (3 sources, 5 quotes per source) 5. Lundy Martin OR Lussenhop (your choice); Bauer (2 sources, 7-8 quotes per source) NOTE: There is no Citation Exercise #6, but Works Cited entries for the readings you complete after Citation Exercise #5 (Abbot and Bunker in PW) must still be included on your final Course Bibliography
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Surname 1
Name
Professor
Course
Date
Citation Exercises
1. “Since his incarceration, Abu‐Jamal, once heavily involved with the Black Panther Party,
has gained a dedicated following for his writings on, among other topics, racial biases of
the US justice system” (“Mumia Abu-Jamal”).
2. “The students’ choice of Abu‐Jamal ‘shows how this newest group of Goddard graduates
expresses their freedom to engage and think radically and critically in a world that often
sets up barriers to do just that” (“Mumia Abu-Jamal”).
3. “Honored with awards in over 20 cities worldwide, with a street named after him in
France, Abu‐Jamal has been dubbed ‘the Voice of the Voiceless’ by human rights
activists” (“Mumia Abu-Jamal”).
4. “Goddard College holds twenty commencement ceremonies ea...


Anonymous
Great! 10/10 would recommend using Studypool to help you study.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags