Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This picture of civil disobedience raises many questions. Why must civil
disobedience be non-violent? Why must it be public, in the sense of forewarning
authorities of the intended action, since publicity gives authorities an opportunity
to interfere with the action? Why must people who engage in civil disobedience be
willing to accept punishment? A general challenge to Rawls's conception of civil
disobedience is that it is overly narrow, and as such it predetermines the conclusion
that most acts of civil disobedience are morally justifiable. A further challenge is
that Rawls applies his theory of civil disobedience only to the context of a nearly
just society, leaving unclear whether a credible conception of either the nature or
the justification of civil disobedience could follow the same lines in the context of
less just societies. Some broader accounts of civil disobedience offered in response
to Rawls's view (Raz, 1979; Greenawalt, 1987) will be examined in the first
section of this entry.
This entry has four main sections. The first considers some definitional issues and
contrasts civil disobedience with both ordinary offences and other types of dissent.
The second analyses two sets of factors relevant to the justification of civil
disobedience; one set concerns the disobedient's particular choice of action, the
other concerns her motivation for so acting. The third section examines whether
people have a right to engage in civil disobedience. The fourth considers what kind
of legal response to civil disobedience is appropriate.
Military
PROS
One reason supporters of the capital punishment are for death penalty is its
potential criminals will be scared to suffer such harsh punishment and as a result, they
will be hesitant to commit crimes like rape and murder. In fact, for them, it is the greatest
and gets executed, this will be known by the public, including those who are potential
criminals. For fear of suffering the same plight, they will be discouraged to commit
crimes.
Some of the crimes that are under capital punishment include murder and rape,
depending on the country or state legalizing the practice. For pro-death penalty, there
are criminals who are repeat offenders and not scared to rape and murder again,
knowing they will only be imprisoned. These types of people and those who cannot be
and such.
If there will be no death penalty, criminals who have committed grave offenses will only
get life sentences and stay in prison. With the increasing number of incarcerated
individuals, the government will be spending more and more on food and health care of
these inmates. According to some critics, spending for people committing heinous
People who are for death penalty posit that without it, the number of major crimes like
murder and homicide will escalate since bad elements will not be afraid to do whatever
they want., from dealing drugs to killing other people. Without harsh punishments for
their offenses, criminals will be taking advantage of weaker people and victims.
Advocates for the death penalty claim that with lethal injection being practiced by more
states and countries over other forms of death sentence executions, it is the better
option. Death by lethal injection is not as barbaric as hanging or firing squad that can be
Critics argue that the death penalty does not really deter criminals from committing
offenses. This is because there are criminals who suffer from mental illnesses and a
death sentence will not be able to prevent them from doing bad things they cannot
The legal systems in most countries, even in the U.S. have flaws. There are many
instances where innocent people are sent to jail and convicted of crimes they have not
committed just like the case of a man who was imprisoned for 30 years for rape. If all
people who are convicted will be executed, mistakes will be made and many people will
be put to death through legal injection even if they do not deserve to be.
Critics of death penalty contend the view of supporters that feeding the inmates is more
expensive than death penalty. On the contrary, the drugs used in lethal injection and
One of the disadvantages of this practice is the reality that some of the people who
have been involved in the process suffer from depression out of guilt from having to end
another persons life. Some of this people end up committing suicide and others have to
suffer living the remaining years of their lives tormented with the thought. According to a
former executioner, there are many people who have participated in executions whose
lives were later destroyed. Some turned to drugs and alcohol to feel better.
There was an incident where a person who underwent lethal injection did not die right
away and it took more than 30 minutes for him to die from a heart attack. This was
traumatic not only for the person being executed but also for the people who witnessed
the incident since they saw the man gasping for air and trying to stand up. For people
who are against death penalty, this is not a humane thing to do. Moreover, they say that
if a criminal is executed and after the execution, a new piece of evidence comes out that
would have proven the persons innocence, he or she can never be brought back to life
anymore.
With the ongoing issue on the availability of lethal drugs and the outcry for abolishment,
the death penalty continues to be a divided issue. Whether it is indeed good for society
And for many people, though, the advantages have more weight than the
disadvantages.