Euthanasia and death penalty are two controversy topics, that get a lot of attention in today’s life. The subject itself has the roots deep in the beginning of the humankind. It is interesting and maybe useful to learn the answer and if there is right or wrong in those actions.
The decision if a person should live or die depends on the state laws. There are both opponents and supporters of the subject. However different the opinions are, the state is the one that can decide for a person.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
Already in Roman Empire the act of euthanasia was known and was conducted by people. Since it wasn’t in divergence with moral standards during those times, people were not condemning or judging those who performed it . Who has the right to decide if one is to live or to die, even if it is a punishment for heinous crime, or if a person has unimaginable sufferings. Can anyone measure the pain that one goes through while lying in bed unable to move?
Only a few states in the USA legalized euthanasia, but many states have death penalty. Is it fair to people, who did not commit any crimes, but go through pain and suffers, not being able to leave this world peacefully? But one who committed a crime maybe the one to die under merciful circumstances.
The word euthanasia derived from the Greek words that translate as easy death and means helping terminally ill persons to die in a fairly painless way .
As in the case of a death penalty, euthanasia has its supporters and opponents. Whether it one or the other depends on several facts, such as personal opinion, culture the person was brought up, religion that one practices or the lack of it, and, finally, circumstances surrounding the decision.
Usually, if the decease causes the unbearable physical and mental pain, that person will ask to be killed, but if this factor is eliminated, then there is no reason to die. When a person asks to kill him, in reality he is asking to help him.
Supporters of the death penalty have several arguments justifying the state-sanctioned murder of those who take life from other people. First of all, there is an old law – tooth for tooth, eye for eye. Then there is the practical argument: death sentence keeps many criminals from being killed. In addition, the death penalty for murderers prevents recurrence: if they are released from prison, they can again become murderers. The third argument is also pragmatic, although it is inferior: the state saves money by killing the murderers, instead of keeping them in prison for life at the expense of society.
The opponents state two ethical arguments. First of all, in modern democracy, punishment should not only be punitive, but should also try to reeducate a criminal to enable him to live in a society with other people. But while this argument is unconditional, those who have heard about modern prisons recognize that many inmates are immune to re-education, which is a fact that cannot be explained solely by conditions of detention.
The second ethical argument is based on the commandment Thou shalt not kill, which also warns states against murder. But the strength of this argument is undermined by the fact that the state may resort to the death penalty to prevent serious crimes, or to prevent war or rebellion.
Opponents of the death penalty also rely on utilitarian arguments. The death penalty is irreversible. If the offender turns out to be innocent, it is no longer possible to cancel the sentence. In addition, objectors harshly criticize the preventive effect of the death penalty.
Criminologists have confirmed by statistics that in those US states where the death penalty is allowed, the number of serious crimes has not decreased. Other criminologists, however, argue that such a conclusion, if it has sufficient justification, should apply to all criminal law: offenses are committed every day; nevertheless, if we did not have such prohibiting norms, the number of crimes would be even greater. In their view, capital punishment serves, at least, to limit people’s even thinking of a murder. Hence, from the point of view of consistent atheistic and materialistic consciousness, the death penalty is fundamentally permissible: life imprisonment, as an alternative, is completely meaningless from this point of view. And in general: “” If there is no God, then everything is allowed, “and the matter is only a reasonable, balanced determination of the degree of social expediency of certain measures.”
From the viewpoint of a Christian religion, the death penalty must be recognized as absolutely unacceptable, since it represents the ultimate violence against a person and the audacity of the final sentence to a person in his metaphysical sense .
First of all, it is necessary to recognize the clear fact that the state has the right to use the death penalty, as well as to dispose of the lives of its citizens in other forms (conscription for military service with the subsequent participation in hostilities). At the same time, the state should not be thought of as irresponsible and alien force for citizens, but as the highest expression of the will and life of the people, as a political and legal realization of the country. The recognition of the principle right of the state to use the death penalty means its acceptability but does not yet say anything in favor of its necessity . It is possible that the state, having the principle right to the death penalty, should nevertheless, if possible, refrain from using it, at least in peacetime: the death penalty, according to this point of view, is acceptable, but it is better to do without it. The arguments in favor of such a refusal are: the unavoidable risk of judicial errors, the need for executioners, the doubtful effectiveness of the death penalty, humanistic considerations. At the same time, the first three arguments that have a rational sense and a clear rationale, as a rule, come to the fore, and “humanistic considerations” play, at first glance, the role of some emotional reinforcement. In fact, they are the ones that determine the refusal of the civilized world from the death penalty. The risk of judicial errors, indeed, has always been, is and will be, the malice of the executioner’s “work”, and, could the death penalty truly ever reduce the crime. However, never in the whole history of mankind, these arguments were considered as a possible reason for refusing the death penalty. If it was canceled at any time, it was only due to the impulse of the moral sentiments of individual rulers. Looking at history, it is necessary to recognize the legislative consolidation of the death penalty as a rule from which exceptions were extremely rare. Why is the modern “civilized world” so stubbornly seeking to ban the death penalty? Perhaps crime has decreased, and social standards softened? Nothing of the kind, and rather the opposite. And even if that were so, there would be no need to legally stop the death penalty: after all, in a society of law-abiding people with a high legal conscience, it would be difficult for anyone that the death penalty is provided for by law for those crimes which nobody commits? The real reason for the movement of the modern “civilized world” to the elimination of the death penalty lies in its pacification and loss of the spiritual dimension, in materialism and the cult of bodily life, which have become both mass and state ideology . On the one hand, indeed, materialism means that There is no God and everything is allowed, that is, since man is nothing more than a material bio-object reflecting on the bone skeleton and covered with natural leather on the outside, through brain impulses to the extent that other material objects of a similar device do not and cannot have any reasonable grounds to protest against the cessation of some specific physiological processes in this biosystem, especially since this does not mean wow “destruction” nothing is destroyed (the soul is not there, and no “world” does not “die” together with man), but just matter passes into other forms of its eternal movement. But on the other hand, since this complex of specific physiological processes in the biomass that makes up the body, life for the materialist is exhausted, the physiological well-being and integrity of the body becomes for him a fundamental value. On the question of life and death, materialism demonstrates a very bad “dialectic.” It is materialism, which is not even able to raise (not just solve) the question of the meaning of life, materialism, which is not even able to distinguish life from death at the conceptual level (both of which are movements of matter), it is he who clings convulsively to life, and is afraid of panic to think about death, although there is no meaning for him either in life or in death. A humanistic and kind-hearted materialist extends these instincts of his own and beyond his individual physiological process – according to the feeling of solidarity he is pleased with someone’s successful physiology and terrifies someone’s transition to other forms of the movement of matter. It is not the Christian love for one’s neighbor that repels him from the death penalty, but the irrational fear of approaching the topic of death itself – fear threatening the tranquility of his own physiological process. A materialist, becoming humane and sympathetic, becomes completely powerless to decide anything in matters of life and death. And the more he clings to life ” reduced to the physiology of his biomass ” the more truly he lives his life ” taken in the fullness of this word ” loses: For who wants to save his soul, he will lose it, and who will lose his soul for my sake and the gospel he will save her ( The Soul Christ calls life here). For the religious-philosophical view, the prospect of eternity is open, and only in this perspective can fundamental solutions to human existence be obtained. The problem of the death penalty should also be comprehended, first of all, in these limiting grounds. There is no unity among believers regarding this problem. Commenting on the initiatives of the State Duma to toughen the punishment for pedophiles, Pedophiles should be shot: Russian parliamentarians insist on toughening penalties for committing sexual crimes. Priests expressed different opinions (Muslims were more unanimous in endorsing the death penalty). Punishment for pedophiles should be inevitable: Orthodox priests and muftis commented on the proposal to introduce the death penalty for pedophile rapists. Along with unconditional support for the death penalty right up to the Lynch courts, there are fair indications that the main attention should be paid not to the consequences, but to the causes – to propaganda of corruption in the media, and also sounds “rather negative” attitude moratorium. The priest and academic archpriest Gleb Kaleda, who for several years practiced suicide bombers in Butyrka, believed that people in prison often radically change their views, repenting of atrocities committed. And it turns out that we sentence one person to the death penalty, and we shoot a completely different one. However, it is this circumstance that, in our opinion, serves as an argument not
Is the purpose of punishment is to punish a person exactly in his spiritual, moral and physical condition, in which he committed a crime? Is it not the meaning and the most important task of punishment (not always, however, attainable by the most important task) the repentance of a criminal, his spiritual and moral transformation? What to do if for many people who are hardened in sin, repentance is impossible without facing the inevitable death? The testimony of Archpriest Gleb Kaleda about the prevalence of repentance among suicide bombers, so that we sentence one person to death, and we shoot a completely different one, is, in our opinion, evidence of the achievement of the most important task (super task!) Of criminal punishment. If it were as successful as the death penalty (more precisely, waiting for it), contributed to the spiritual and moral transformation of the criminal other types of punishment, the crime would be reduced not only by times, but by orders of magnitude. At the same time, of course, we must not forget that even the death penalty does not guarantee a repentance.
The only drawback is that people transformed by the expectation of the death penalty do not return to societies. However, this deficiency is more than offset by the acquisition: the saved soul of man. If, indeed, we execute a completely different person, if he repented and changed, becoming another, then eternity departs no longer a criminal, but a righteous person ” the first person to enter paradise was the repentant robber. If even the imminent death inevitably could not change the souls of the criminal, then his failure to return to society can hardly upset anyone. It would be absolutely fabulously wonderful if the condemned man, after going through the horror of inevitable death and being reborn in repentance, would have received pardon and would have returned to a different person after all, but this cannot be the rule. In order for the transformative potential of the death penalty to be revealed, the sentence should not be a joke, and death is not just probable, but it is inevitable. And even in this case, having pardoned the suicide bomber, we cannot know for sure who he had pardoned ” another person who had changed in repentance, or a person who was simply frightened, capable, taking a breath, to new crimes, or even embittered by the more moral restraints.
It must be said about the imminent risk of judicial errors, which is always cited as the most serious argument against the use of the death penalty. Indeed, there is no guarantee against such errors, however, as has already been said, this argument has never, in the whole history of mankind, been considered as the reason for refusing the death penalty. The necessity of not even measuring seven times, but measuring out seventy times seven times, before passing a death sentence on a person, is obvious. But it is also so obvious that physical death is not the absolute evil that humanistic materialism sees in it. If everything ends with physical death, then nothing at all makes sense: neither life nor death, nor truth, nor suffering, nor love, nor punishment. If death is a transition to eternity, if God’s will keeps the world and His love does not leave anyone, even those who have renounced it, – then there is no reason to fall into catalepsy from contact with the theme of suffering and death of the innocent. At the same time, we are far from the irresponsible position that atheism ascribes to the believing consciousness: they say, we will write everything down to God, and no problems. The theme of innocent suffering and death is a huge, deepest topic of religious thought. The presence in the law of capital punishment in the form of the death penalty is normal for a morally healthy society. The non-use of this measure as superfluous is an indicator of the criminological well-being of society. The refusal to legislate the death penalty, even in relation to crimes that clearly outrage public opinion and conscience, can only be regarded as a shameful weakness of the moral position of the legislator. The general principle of building a healthy sense of justice was perfectly expressed by F.M. Dostoevsky: Laws should be, perhaps, more severe, and the public atmosphere should be softer. So far, in the light of the abolition of the death penalty, everything looks “exactly the opposite.”
Gender Equality And Crime
The court and the Judiciary, in general, are guided by the basic principles of justice to all. Judges usually give rulings based on the rule of law with the intention of protecting the public, deterring crime, rehabilitating law offenders, punishing offenders and offering reparation to the victim. The principles of justice mean fairness, protecting the rights of all regardless of gender, race or religion. However, gender equality has been a significant issue for many years, and there has been a debate on when convicted of a crime, which sentences should be handed based on gender. Numerous studies establish that women are the most significant beneficiaries of gender during sentencing, judges are more lenient to women (Hopkins, Light and Lovbakke, 2011).
The researchers also identify that judges should look at the type of crime committed by the offender before issuing a judgment. Women are given short sentences as compared to men. More so, the lenient treatment of women goes beyond the duration of the sentence, they are also advantaged in various other ways such as ladies are likely to get bails, they are also more likely to be released. Women are also given short sentence for a similar crime with a male counterpart and serve a smaller portion of their judgment before being released. For that reason, you find a large number of men in prison as compared to women.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
In this essay, I aim at discussing if this kind of preferential treatment given to women is discrimination against men or is the course of justice performed by the judicial system. Women are perceived as weak as compared to men the court considers the ability of the lady to commit the misdeed. Women have since traditionally been taken to play a critical role in the family, most of them are mothers. Because they are the key players, long sentences would mean a separation of the mother from significant functions such as caring for a child.
The court should consider several other factors apart from gender when issuing judgment to criminalsJudging women differently from men may not be fair because it encourages women to do more crimes since they are privy of the fact that they will get lenient judgments and sentences. But, in the past decades, women have been discriminated in various fields, including politics, business, and in organizations, women usually receive the small share. But at the moment, with multiple campaigns for women rights, women are now equal to men in all fields. If you look at the number of women in the job market, for example, it is increasing at a high rate as compared to men. Therefore, gender parity should not be used anymore to favor ladies against men in the judicial system.
The best interest should be determining the factor for the particular action, the benefit of the third party is also used as the central factor in the court when influencing the court outcome. The judge should consider individual elements, for example, if the suspected person is a lady with a young child, then the court should consider giving lenient judgment for the interest of the child. The law requires that a child should not be separated with the mother. The best interest of the child is chief. However, it should not be the only merit used in court. Whether private or public, the social welfare of the institutions, the court are mandated to protect law and offer administrative judgment.
Gender-based sentencing is conditioned by crimes, which benefits women from feminist crimes such as drug offending, property because they are given preferential treatment. Selective judgment will also have an impact on small crimes if the courts provide ruling depending on one’s sex. If the factors related to the crime committed by the person is not gender-related then, there is no need to issue the sentence that is gender bias. Gender-based judgment is a public relation exercise, rather than seeking to find justice and punish offenders. The judges have created a public image that the courts fight against gender parity, and at the long-run, it will cause more harm to men, and in the process undermining the courts (Mona, 2013).
Traditionally men are perceived as healthy and can fight for themselves, but ladies are known to be weak, and vulnerable, and they need more attention and protection from the third person. That explains the reason why males receive harsh sentences than females, but they also receive more treatment. The court should consider the gender when sentencing criminal so that they can protect women. Also, men are more likely to commit crimes than ladies, which explains the reason why there are several men compared to women at the criminal prisons. Ladies rarely commit crimes, and when they do, they are transgressed and break the gender beliefs. When a simple sentence is delivered to them, ladies feel that they are being punished double.
For example, when a lady fails to be a mother and she is considered a law offender. Failing to be a mother would mean that the children would be victims as well, in some countries when a mother has been imprisoned the kid also stays in prison with her. The act leads to psychological problems to the child as he or she is growing. Even, in many countries such as the United Kingdom and Wales, ladies account for only 5 percent of the total prison population. Thus, when ladies are jailed, they feel they are being stigmatized double. Moreover, men and women react differently if they face the same situation. The theory of Moral development suggests that females are more emotionally and psychologically affected when they are in prison.
While ladies see moral life as care rather than justice, men, on the other hand, take it as responsibility. This theory makes sense because if you make a keen observation about the women when they are arrested, they so emotional and they feel that lack of care. But men are concerned with the truth and justice. Thus, they are not affected psychologically (Banks, 2013). Men are more often guilty until proven innocent, while women appear to be honest especially when the crime relates to domestic cases. The judges also consider gender when they are issuing judges based on the individual judge’s gender. Women judge are lenient to fellow ladies, and the male judge may also be gender biased.
The other reasons why the sentences should be based on gender is that, women are the most affected by the domestic violence. The court should then be seeking justice for these women are suffering at the hands of ignorant men. The sentence issued should serve as a lesson to other men with similar behavior and will go a long way to reduce domestic violence. However, the latest statistics show that men are also victims of domestic violence, but most of them do not report to the police. The criminal court should be careful to identify the victim and also assist the men who are silently suffering underground.
Also, men’s crimes are worse to a level that justifies the reason for an increase in the number of men in prisons as compared to women. Men are more likely to be sentenced than ladies because women are less criminally compared to men. A large percentage of the offenders are men, and they are being jailed because of their criminal activities. Men on average receive longer sentence than ladies and they serve the more significant proportion of sentences (Mona, 2013). Most of the ladies criminals are not criminals or do not commit the offense by choice, they are being forced by men to do so. Most of them are given death threats so that they commit any crimes. In such a situation the gender issue is used in determining the charges someone should face. The lady would be given less judgment, and the men are given many years to serve their punishment.
It has been established that men are the subject of gender parity in the courts of law. If male offenders were to be given similar treatment to women, then it would mean that one-sixth of the male in jail. In fact, more than 60,000 men would not have been in prison if they were women. The findings speak volume and the need of being gender sensitive when issuing the criminal sentence. In some instances, women convicts have poor health, have little education, and they have children to look after. The children suffer a lot when the mother is jailed as compared to when the father is imprisoned. Although either situation makes the children separated from the parent, the gravity is much more significant when the lady is arrested and accused of the crime (James, 1990).
The gender disparity in the criminal justice courts results from multiple places. When two people man and woman commit the same crime, the judges rule based on the law but also use the stereotype that females are less dangerous, less threatening and less culpable. As a result of such stereotype, the court imposes a harsh punishment because they are believed to be more dangerous and more menacing. Also, looking at the criminal history ladies have committed fewer crimes compared to their male counterparts who commits crimes occasionally. The fact that girls have less criminal history can also have an impact on the decision.
Since there are no sentencing guidelines, the judges decide on their own and impose the sentence in whatever manner he or she thinks it is suitable. The decision is influenced by gender because a lady may appear weaker in the eyes of the deciding judge.During the medieval era, women were crucial in the society, but they never had the same rights as men. The community did not identify them as full citizens, so the status of a lady in that era depended on the father or husband. If the husband or the father held a crucial position in the society and a lady is convicted of the crime, she will receive preferential treatment. To make it worse men held important jobs in the community and no woman could defend the rest, the crimes committed by ladies at the time were something to do with basic needs. If a lady was not married, she could engage herself in petty theft because of lack of employment, and when she was convicted, she received the most terrible and humiliating punishment (Lawrence and Tracey, 2000).
Looking at the enlightenment time, a period between 17000 and 1820 women had become more enlightened in the society, and they committed different crimes as today. History has shown that ladies are always seen as the only victims, back then ladies were not considered as capable as gentlemen when committing offenses. Although they were capable of being brutal just like men, women never committed severe crimes as males. The first misdeed ladies conducted during that period include assault, prostitution, robbery, homicide and property crimes. Mothers are less likely to involve themselves in crimes than men. When a lady commits murder, it includes a domestic partner. Ladies who were caught committing crimes and were sentenced in court particularly if she had committed a violent crime (James, 1990). The woman would receive a harsh punishment than men.
In addition to the petty theft, women were accused of witchcraft, and they were not spared capital punishmentIn the 19th century, the rate of crimes among the ladies decreased, but the population and the institutions dealing with the women crimes had increased. The females at this era were seen as caring, passive and moral individuals. So if the lady commits an offense, she had also broken the traditional ideas of the feminists. Most of the ladies convicted of sin during this period were mostly the lower class because the upper level didn’t worry about money, their husbands provided them with enough money. Those from humble background did not have enough money, so they resorted to crime.
The common crimes committed by women during this era included housebreaking, petty theft such as pickpocketing and selling stolen items on behalf of men. The judicial system deals with this women in different ways. A lady who was convicted of small crimes is given lenient judgment. The court realized that ladies needed protection from negative influencers. The harsh punishment was directed towards men because they committed significant mistakes than ladies. Those women who were found guilty of committing horrible acts like homicide were punished by the judiciary and also labeled as problematic in the society (Lucia, 1991).
Also, from the history, it is found that ladies usually learn from the past mistake, and they often avoid any form of crime once they are released from the prison, but men are likely to repeat the same offense over and over even after serving many years in jail. Thus, the court should be hard on them. Research from 2003 to 2013 shows that female offenders are less likely than men lawbreakers to have been warned before for the last ten years. Only one-fifth of men are the first time offenders and two-thirds of the ladies are beginning time criminal.
The study suggests that men are likely to repeat the same crime he was previously convicted. Thus supporting the need to consider the gender during sentencing. Being lenient to women would be better since once she is out of prison, she is less likely to commit the same offense. Men, on the other hand, are likely to make the same mistake when they are released from jail. The judges, therefore, should give a harsh punishment to warn them of the consequences of breaking the law.
In 2013, ladies were most likely than men to have encouraging factors for offenses such as theft, dishonesty, fraud, and public order offenses. Men are also likely to have aggravating issues used in crimes than the other gender. The core mitigating factors for ladies include being remorse, the age of the accused, caring duties and lack of previous convictions. But gentlemen are less likely to have these elements considered the responsibility of care primarily men are not supposed to be central in taking care of the children, it is ladies who are believed to have the direct responsibility (Michael, 2013). The aggravating behaviors for men include previous convictions, being a member of particular gangster group, evidence of a degree of pre-meditation and the location of the offense. All these characters are rare to appear in ladies, but the use of weapons seems in similar proportions.
The different application of aggravating and mitigating factors by the sex contributed to a more significant extend the sentence, with men having the high probability of being given custody than ladies.
Shoplifting affects both genders in equal measures, but the proportion is higher for ladies than men. This offense made more than half of all the women who are convicted and almost a quarter of the sentenced are men. But men are likely to get the immediate custodial sentence.
The other factor that the court considers is the fact that men are more likely than women to run or break out of the prison once they are in jail. The ladies are patience enough to complete their term, a higher proportion of ladies will serve their sentence until it is over. But men are attempts to run out of a cell. The judge is hard to men because they are believed to break the law repeatedly. It is also known that ladies are less likely to defy the court order, but men do breach the court order.
Thus, leading them into more trouble with judges. Ladies are sincere, and they will tell the truth in the court, but gentlemen do lie mostly. One the court established that someone lied to the court, the accused is likely to serve the longer sentence than the one who spoke the truth at the court chambers. Research conducted in 2011 indicates that men offenders are likely to be imprisoned to immediate custody for breaching the court order. More than 73 percent of men received custodial sentence (Hopkins, Light and Lovbakke, 2011).
The scientist has also explained the reason why men and women are criminal in a different manner. The initial explanations of the female criminal stated that human and criminal behavior relates to biological and social factors. These theories argued that female and their criminal nature are secondary to that of men. The born penal theory believes that gender is the determinants of illegal characters, a man with primitive features are likely to be criminal. The argument concludes that the criminal ladies possess male features (Belknap, 2004).
The other idea is Criminality of Women states that the type of offense committed by ladies such as petty theft and shoplifting are not represented in statistics because concealment in the justice system and that they are not reported. The idea states that the criminality in men and women are the same, but it is less prevalent in ladies. The theory further suggests that females have deceitful nature, which is rooted in their role, ladies are the mastermind of crimes and convince men to perpetuate the act. By doing so, they clean their name, and the man is labeled criminal.
In conclusion, when convicted of the crime, the court should issues sentence based on gender because ladies are less dangerous, and their evil is an auxiliary to men. Females always commit minor mistakes as opposed to men. Also, women are more remorse, they are more likely to commit a crime only once, but gentlemen do it repeatedly. The most critical factor that the court considers is the role a lady plays in the family, she has the responsibility to take care of children, and once a lady is arrested with a young kid, the child is also jailed until a certain age where he or she is allowed to go home. Men are likely to breach the court orders as compared to ladies, which explain the reason why court issue sentence to gentlemen as soon as they are put under custody.
References
Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justice Ethics. Journal of Justice, 46-65.
Belknap, J. (2004). Gender, Criminal and Justice. Journal of Criminology and Crime, 36-41.
Greenfelf Lawrence and Snell Tracey. (2000). Women Offenders. Statistics on Bureau of Justice, 3-14.
James, B. (1990). The Punishment of Women. In J. Burford, the Bridles and Burnings (pp. 206-227). New York: Press London.
Kathryn Hopkins, Miriam Light, and Jorgen Lovbakke. (2011). Evaluating Gender as A Factor Linked with Custodial Sentence for Breaching Court Order. Ministry of Justice, 2-7.
Lucia, Z. (1991). Women, Crimes and Penal Responses. A Historical Account, 307-360.
Michael, D. (2013). Research on Ladies and Criminal Justice System in 2013. Ministry of Justice, 62-67.
Mona, C. (2013). The Other Gender Divide: Where Men Suffer. The Guardian, 10-16.`
