ethics RQ21 - not end up with the same verdict some...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Jason Lim Ethics Reading Questions #21 1. The author offers three philosophical models that justify punishment. The utilitarian argument supports punishment when good is produced more than evil through the process. The retribution stance links punishment to moral wrongdoing, that people get what they deserve. The compromise approach is a mix between the first two. 2. The two major forms of those who defend the legitimacy of the death penalty are that murderers deserve to be put to death and that the death penalty is a deterrence to potential killers. The former is more plausible because the law has no real phase on people who truly have problems. Serial killers probably didn't think about the law before they started killing people. 3. Certain justices had problems with the death penalty because it was too random. Often cases would
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: not end up with the same verdict, some criminals would go to prison, others would get the death penalty. Some states tried to remedy this issue by taking away the jury's discretion and simply refer to a list of crimes that would result in death. The other solution was to give the jury some discretion, but they would have to find an aggravating circumstance within the case and weigh it with the mitigating circumstances to decide the sentence. 4. A few years later after a couple of statutes were put in place, capital punishment was put back in into the legal system because the justices thought that juries still had too much discretion. 5. Capital punishment as a deterrence became irrelevant because people still valued it as a tool for retribution and for people to express their stance on “getting tough” on crime....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online