|
LeylaHadiSecondPaper 2 - 27 Apr 2013 - Main.LeylaHadi
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Punishment | >
> | Prisons | | | -- By LeylaHadi - 08 Apr 2013 | |
<
< | Drunk Driving
I am trying to figure out what the law actually accomplishes. There is a running theme this semester, it seems, that is, the purpose of the law. But that is too broad a concept – the purpose of a law depends on the particular law. For example, the law on operating a vehicle while under the influence exists to establish that the state officially condemns the act, in hopes of preventing drunk driving. But a part of this law is the punishment, the axe that compels us to adhere to the rule. What is the purpose of this punishment for this law? To deter others from driving under the influence? As a form of retribution to the particular driver? But retribution for what exactly? What real evil has the drunk driver committed when he’s tailed and stopped by a police office? He drank and drove, which doesn’t show that he is evil or in need of retribution. Is it, then, to prevent a possible harm from occurring if he is allowed to continue drinking and driving? Well, no, because a police officer need only put him in the back of his car and take him home. | >
> | Deterrence
There is a running theme this semester, it seems, that is, the purpose of the law. But that is too broad a concept; the purpose of a law depends on the particular law. For example, I suppose the law against operating a vehicle while under the influence exists to establish that the state officially condemns the act, in hopes of preventing drunk driving. But a part of this law is the punishment, the axe that compels us to adhere to the rule. What is the purpose of this punishment for this law? To deter others from driving under the influence? As a form of retribution to the particular driver? But retribution for what exactly? What real evil has the drunk driver committed when he's tailed and stopped by a police officer? He drank and drove, which doesn't necessarily show that he is evil or in need of retribution. Is it, then, to prevent a possible harm from occurring if he is allowed to continue drinking and driving? Well, no, because a police officer need only put him in the back of his car and take him home. | | | So, continuing with this particular situation, the purpose of punishing a drunk driver who has yet to actually harm anybody should not be retributive, if retribution is based on the moral right, and what is deserved. It must be, then, to make an example out of this particular drunk. Society has been warned that if they drink and drive (and are caught), they will pay. If they do it more than once, they will pay in more ways than one. | |
>
> | Eviction
Take a different criminal law though: larceny. The purpose of the rule against stealing from others is, again, to establish that the state condemns taking another person's property without consent, to prevent theft from happening. But if the law did not exist, and the government did not condemn larceny in some overtly dog-eat-dog world, I don't think it is clear that people would steal more, or that more people would steal. Society would have some sort of unwritten understanding not to take other people's things, thus pretty much having the same people steal for the same reasons, regardless of the nonexistence of the law. They would still suffer condemnation from society, they would still become outcasts, except they would not be behind bars. So here, then, is the purpose of the punishment for larceny to rid society of thieves? And why is that ok, and why is it that the people who get to decide get to decide, and does it actually accomplish anything? | | | | |
<
< | Larceny
Take a different criminal law though: larceny. The purpose of the rule against stealing from others is, again, to establish that the state condemns taking another person’s property without consent, to prevent it from happening. But if the law did not exist, and the government did not condemn larceny in an overtly dog-eat-dog world, I don’t think it’s clear that people would steal more, or that more people would steal. Society would have some sort of unwritten understanding not to take other people’s things, thus pretty much having the same people steal for the same reasons, regardless of the nonexistence of the law. They would still suffer condemnation from society, they would still become outcasts, except they would not be behind bars. So here, then, is the purpose of the punishment for larceny to rid society of thieves? And why is that ok, and why is it that the people who get to decide get to decide, and does it actually accomplish anything? | | | | |
>
> | Cages | | | | |
<
< | Mercy Killing | >
> | During my third year at Cornell, when a string of suicides occurred, the administration decided to put up large fences all across the bridges. Without saying what I think about the fences ability to deter death, I can say this was no solution to the actual problem, what actually compelled students to take their own life. Isn't this just a small representation of how society deals with most of the unpleasant parts of humanity? Throwing them inside a cage instead of dealing with the source. Throw a kid into prison for possessing marijuana, taking away his opportunity for education, for livelihood, for freedom; for harming nobody, except possibly themselves. If the point is to prevent the kid from being harmed, then throwing him into jail sure as hell isn't going to help that goal. | | | | |
<
< | And then take an act like mercy killing. What is the purpose of locking someone up when they take the life of someone they love who is suffering with no hope of recovery, and requests an end? | >
> | But what exactly do these realizations accomplish? Punishment is the institution, rehabilitation the naive dream. What can I do to change that? Do I want to do something to change that? Either way, once I decide, I should be able to pursue it, be able to have the knowledge, skills, and network to shake up the system. Otherwise, I am just putting myself in another form of prison. | | | |
|
|
LeylaHadiSecondPaper 1 - 08 Apr 2013 - Main.LeylaHadi
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Punishment
-- By LeylaHadi - 08 Apr 2013
Drunk Driving
I am trying to figure out what the law actually accomplishes. There is a running theme this semester, it seems, that is, the purpose of the law. But that is too broad a concept – the purpose of a law depends on the particular law. For example, the law on operating a vehicle while under the influence exists to establish that the state officially condemns the act, in hopes of preventing drunk driving. But a part of this law is the punishment, the axe that compels us to adhere to the rule. What is the purpose of this punishment for this law? To deter others from driving under the influence? As a form of retribution to the particular driver? But retribution for what exactly? What real evil has the drunk driver committed when he’s tailed and stopped by a police office? He drank and drove, which doesn’t show that he is evil or in need of retribution. Is it, then, to prevent a possible harm from occurring if he is allowed to continue drinking and driving? Well, no, because a police officer need only put him in the back of his car and take him home.
So, continuing with this particular situation, the purpose of punishing a drunk driver who has yet to actually harm anybody should not be retributive, if retribution is based on the moral right, and what is deserved. It must be, then, to make an example out of this particular drunk. Society has been warned that if they drink and drive (and are caught), they will pay. If they do it more than once, they will pay in more ways than one.
Larceny
Take a different criminal law though: larceny. The purpose of the rule against stealing from others is, again, to establish that the state condemns taking another person’s property without consent, to prevent it from happening. But if the law did not exist, and the government did not condemn larceny in an overtly dog-eat-dog world, I don’t think it’s clear that people would steal more, or that more people would steal. Society would have some sort of unwritten understanding not to take other people’s things, thus pretty much having the same people steal for the same reasons, regardless of the nonexistence of the law. They would still suffer condemnation from society, they would still become outcasts, except they would not be behind bars. So here, then, is the purpose of the punishment for larceny to rid society of thieves? And why is that ok, and why is it that the people who get to decide get to decide, and does it actually accomplish anything?
Mercy Killing
And then take an act like mercy killing. What is the purpose of locking someone up when they take the life of someone they love who is suffering with no hope of recovery, and requests an end?
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|