Is The Death Penalty Ever Justified - 1099 Words

Lyndze Curry Professor Jennifer Arceo English 1301.1CY 09, June 2015 Is The Death Penalty Ever Justified? In the American society many citizens argue daily, is the death penalty justified? The United States is sharply divided, and equally strong among both supporters and protesters of the death penalty. Arguing against capital punishment, many believe The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights (White).† Some simply believe it to be premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice (about.com). It violates the right to life. Some would even argue that this violates the Eight Amendment for no cruel or unusual punishment inflected. Many argue that the death penalty diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing. However, I completely disagree that the death penalty is cruel unnecessary punishment. If an individual intentionally and knowingly commits a crime that deserves the death penalty then I believe it is justified. For example, if someone kills an innocent citizen then I feel it would be okay to take the life of the person who committed the crime. The phrase, Life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, (New Testament)† is punishment in which the offender suffers what the victim has suffered, exact retribution. There are defendants who earn the ultimate punishment that society has to offer by committing murderShow MoreRelatedThe Death Penalty Is It Ever Justified?1111 Words   |  5 Pagesbeing committed more often. The death penalty is something that is needed here in the United States to help lower these ongoing vicious crime rates. In the essay â€Å"The Death Penalty: Is It Ever Justified?† Written by Edward I. Koch, this exact issue is discussed. Koch believ es capital punishment in the form of the death penalty may help make these criminals to understand morality, or right from wrong. He states, â€Å"Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm that fact† (483)Read MoreThe Death Penalty Is It Ever Justified?958 Words   |  4 Pageswere written about the death penalty. Throughout this essay I will be using examples from multiple sources. Marie Cartier â€Å"Right to Life vs Right to A Life†, Edward Koch â€Å"The Death Penalty: Is it Ever Justified?†, David Bruck â€Å"The Death Penalty† which is a direct response to Koch, and lastly Zachary Shemtob and David Lat â€Å" Should Executions Be Televised†. It should also be stated that when talking about the value of life, this author is referring to the criminal, on death row for murder. As insensitiveRead MoreCan The Death Penalty Ever Be Justified?1828 Words   |  8 PagesCan the death penalty ever be justified? The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the â€Å"potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one mustRead MoreThe Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified? Essay1426 Words   |  6 Pages â€Å"The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?† Edward I. Koch uses his essay â€Å"The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?† to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiantRead MoreCapital Punishment Essay example710 Words   |  3 PagesCapital Punishment Lets keep society safe and give murderers what they deserve - the death penalty. In this essay I will hope to set out both sides of the argument, for and against Capital Punishment. The advantages and the disadvantages will be considered in conjunction with Christian teachings and belief. The Christian teachings, Old Testament and New Testament will also be compared with human reactions to the subject. From my research and analysis inRead MoreDealth Penalty Is Not a Solution Essay1003 Words   |  5 PagesIs the death penalty a good solution to crime? The death penalty is not a good solution to crime. The ultimate purpose of the justice system is to control crime by punishing criminals and protect people by imprisoning them. Compared to the death penalty, life imprisonment not only achieves the same goals but also in many ways it can be more effective than capital punishment. In the Vincent Brothers’ case of 2004, Brothers murdered five of his family members- his wife, children, and mother in lawRead MoreCapital Punishment : A Prosperous And Amazing Journey For The Development And Advancements Of The Human Race1656 Words   |  7 Pagesand Han dynasties all demonstrated the need for a death penalty to expunge the evil from their land. Established in the Roman 12 Tablets, contested as one of the greatest pieces of law from its time, validated the death penalty on the concept that a nation needed to be pure and as humanely guided as possible. The concept of capital punishment, although highly challenged, has a chronicle of evidence that supports the requirement of the death penalty. Capital punishment is necessary based on the factRead MoreThe Death Penalty Is Not Morally Permissible?1231 Words   |  5 Pagescrime has been met with several different styles of execution. In 1976, the United States government reinstalled the death penalty four short years after having banned it claiming that it violated the Constitution s ban on cruel and unusual punishment (MacKinnon, Ethics 289). Since 1976, the morality of execution as just punishment has been a highly discussed topic. The death penalty is not morally permissible because dissolving one s basic human right to life is wrong. In the United States,Read MoreJustification in The Old and New Testaments Essays1681 Words   |  7 Pages When a man is justified before God, he is declared not guilty with reference to the sins he has committed against God. Amazingly, Gods not guilty verdict does not relate to just one crime, but to every sin the justified man has ever committed or will commit. Paul declares that we have no penalty to pay for sin, which includes past, present or future sins that we may commit. Those who have been justified by faith, â€Å"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in ChristRead MoreBanning the Death Penalty1620 Words   |  6 PagesShould the death penalty be banned internationally as a type of punishment? This form of punishment has been quite a controversial issue worldwide for quite a few years. The death penalty for hundreds of thousands of years has been a punishment for criminals throughout the world; in the past ranging from what we would n ow consider small crimes to huge ones, to the present where most if not all those punished with death penalty are for fairly large crimes. Actual laws involving death penalty is known

Involvement and Involvement Factors When Buying a Computer Free Essays

You should first have an idea of the type of computer you want. You should plan to purchase your new computer so that you can get a good product life out of your computer. It will be very disheartening to purchase a brand new computer only for you to get a small use out of it. We will write a custom essay sample on Involvement and Involvement Factors When Buying a Computer or any similar topic only for you Order Now You should purchase a computer for two or three years out; due to the rapid changes in the technology field. The next step should include finding a good store to purchase from. A general rule to remember is that computers are much cheaper if you buy them versus leasing one. If you are tight on cash, you would be better off leasing, as a better alternative. If the store you purchased your new computer from is overall helpful and friendly, you can expect great things if you have questions about your new computer purchase in the future. You should decide whether you want a laptop or a desktop computer. Desktop computers are much cheaper than laptop computers, about twice as much cheaper for some brands. If you are a business person and are always on the go, you should consider the purchase of a laptop computer. If you are a stay at home parent, a desktop computer would best fit your lifestyle. You should always invest in a good monitor. Monitors with a 17 inch screen or less causes you to squint a bit. You can either choose from a flat panel monitor or a tube type monitor. Flat panels don’t have the best image quality as tube type monitors have. However, tube type monitors take up a lot of space. They also tend to get blurry when they age, while flat panels won’t corrupt when they age. Networking is what makes the computer fun. Another key factor that you should consider while purchasing a computer is your Ethernet cords. Be sure to purchase a computer with 10/100/1000 Ethernet jack; as it is preferred by most computer lobbyist. You should also enable encryption codes to keep other people from hacking into your wireless internet. Another key involvement factor would be purchasing a warranty for your new computer. Extended warranties just make perfect sense when purchasing a new electronic device. They are excellent for big retailers and you should be sure to know about the coverage on your warranty, what it covers and what it doesn’t cover. I think apple has complicated things for the average consumer. I don’t feel as if the website broke down all of the products and services down to a tee. How to cite Involvement and Involvement Factors When Buying a Computer, Papers

Immigration and Border Protection

Question: Discuss about the Immigration and Border Protection. Answer: Introduction: Explain in plain English the practical implications of the decision of the Federal Court in Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 32 The issue in this case is related with the practical implications of the decision given by the Full Federal Court in this case. In its decision, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has overruled the interpretation of Schedule 3 that has been adopted by the DIPB. In this case, it was the opinion of the court that the interpretation that has been adopted by the Department was too strict and similarly, the court also believed that this interpretation was not supported by the law. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant was from Thailand and his wife was from Australia. Under these circumstances when the applicant made an application for partner Visa, he did not have a substantive Visa. Similarly, the criterion 3001 was not satisfied by the applicant. According to this criteria, it was required that the applicant should have made an application for partner Visa within 28 days after the expiry of his visitor visa. Therefore, efforts were made by the applicant to e stablish that there were compelling reasons due to which the requirements that have been prescribed by Schedule 3 should have been waived in his case, but he was not successful. While refusing the application, it was the opinion of the department that the discretion of the Minister was restricted only to the compelling reasons that were in existence when the applicant had made the application. As a result of this construction of these provisions, any compelling reasons that were related with the circumstances or events that came into existence after the application for partner visa was made by the applicant, cannot be considered. In this way, while the applicant tried to establish that feared persecution if he was make a fresh application after returning to Thailand as he was a Muslim citizen of Thailand. In the same way, the applicant also expressing his fears that they may not be able to meet his wife again if they had to go back to Thailand for making the application for partner visa. The applicant also tried to rely upon the fact that his wife was ill and required continuous medical attention along with the fact that his wife was dependent on him financially. However, it was the opinion of the department that these circumstances were not in existence when the applicant had made the application for partner visa and therefore, these compelling reasons cannot be considered for waving schedule 3 criteria. But the court did not accept this interpretation of the department of these regulations. The first issue pointed out by the court was that there was nothing in the words of these sections on the basis of which, it can be said that the consideration of decision-makers has been confined to the compelling reasons that were present at the time of making the application. The second issue raised by the court was that in this case it was obvious that the waiver power has been introduced with a view to provide flexibility while deciding the cases in which compelling reasons are present to which the applicants may not be put to the hardship of meaning Australia for the purpose of making the visa application. In this way, it was stated by the court that the strict interpretation that has been adopted by the department appears to be against the purpose due to which the waiver power has been introduced by the Legislature. Consequently, the court stated that the case should be sent back to the Ad ministrative Appeals Tribunal for a rehearing. Before this decision generally the applications of the applicants who were under similar circumstances in which the applicant in the present case was, (a non-citizen applying for partner visa while remaining in Australia) were not allowed the waiver of schedule 3 criteria and the result was that these applications had to leave Australia in order to make the application for visa. But in this case, in the opinion of all the three judges, no reasons were present which the circumstances can be restricted, whether they were in favor of the applicants or not, to the position at a time before the Minister arrives at the conclusion that such discretion should be exercised. As a result of the fact that almost entirely, it has been left to the immigration Minister or his delegate to decide if there are sufficient compelling reasons due to which a waiver of schedule 3 criteria should be granted, the judges gave a strong message in this case that i t is very significant that such decisions should be made by remaining within the bounds of law. Therefore, the impact of this decision can be described as being more sympathetic towards the applicants for partner visa as against the current policy interpretation that was adopted by the department. In the same way, there will be strong implications of this decision on the way in which the schedule 3 criteria is applied to the other applicants. In this way, it can be said that as a result of this decision, the grounds have been expanded on which the applicants may rely upon when they are applying for the schedule 3 criteria waiver. Similarly, as a result of this decision, it can also be said that the full court decision has increased the chances of such applicants to remain onshore when their visa application is being assessed. The decision is also likely to have a retrospective impact on the cases that were earlier decided by relying on the compelling circumstances that existed then the application was made. What principles of statutory interpretations (if any) were utilised by the Federal Court in this case? Answer: In this case, the court arrived at his decision by relying on certain principles of statutory interpretation. The term statutory interpretation is related with the action of the court for the purpose of understanding the specific meaning of a particular piece of legislation. A number of cases go to appeal on the issue of interpretation of a particular statutory provision. Broadly speaking, the statutory rules of interpretation are the literal rule, Golden rule and the mischief rule. The literal rule which is also known as the ordinary meaning rule, the court gives the literal meaning to the words of the statute, regardless of the fact that such result is sensible or not. On the other hand, the golden rule is considered as an exception to the literal rule. This rule of statutory interpretation is used when the application of the literal will result in an interpretation that circumvent instead of applying the intention of the Parliament. The final rule of statutory interpretati on is the mischief rule. According to this rule, a judge tries to determine the intention of the legislature or what is the mischief or a defect that the statute in question is trying to remedy and what ruling will effectively implement this remedy. In the present case, the full court applied the golden rule of statutory interpretation and arrived at the conclusion that the effect of sub-clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) is that the compelling circumstances on which the applicant had claimed the way for a visit in the criteria, are not restricted to the circumstances that were at the time of making the application. In view of this interpretation of this provision by the court, despite the current policy adopted by the department and the tribunal according to which they only considered the circumstances that were present when the application was made, they had to consider the circumstances that arose after the application was made. Therefore, as a result of the statutory interpretation adopted by the court, despite its current policy, the Department and the Tribunal were under an obligation to consider the circumstances of the applicant that were present data in the application was made and not only the compelling circumstances that existed at the time of the application. In this regard, the provision in Migration Regulations mentions that the criteria provided by schedule 3 can be waived if the department is of the opinion that compelling circumstances are present in the case due to which the criteria should not be applied. Bibliography Migration Act 1958 Migration Regulations (Amendment) 1996 No 75 (Cth), Explanatory Statement Migration Regulations 1994 Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 32