Every free action is produced by the concurrence of two causes; one moral, i. When I walk towards an object, it is necessary first that I should will to go there, and, in the second place, that my feet should carry me. If a paralytic wills to run and an active man wills not to, they will both stay where they are.
Support for the death penalty in Britain seems to be slowly declining although it is supported by many young people who were not born when we still had it. In the short term say the next 10 yearsthere is no realistic chance of reinstatement, however, despite majority public support for such a move.
Reintroduction of something that has been abolished is always much more difficult than introducing something entirely new. Politically it would be impossible now, given our membership of the EU and our commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which totally prohibit capital punishment.
The EU contains no member states that practice it and will not allow retentionist states to join. The present Labour government is implacably opposed to capital punishment and has removed it from the statute book for the few remaining offences for which it was still theoretically allowed.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are also against reintroduction. There is no doubt that capital punishment is a very emotive issue and there is a strong anti-death penalty lobby in this country who would put every obstacle in the way of its return should it ever become likely.
There is concern at the number of convictions that are being declared unsafe by the Courts, particularly for the most serious offences such as murder and terrorism. Yet we live in a time of ever rising serious crime despite what the government tells us.
Will people become so fed up with escalating levels of crime and what they see in, most cases, as derisory punishments that they will support anything that appears likely to reduce crime and redress the balance?
Or do they see the return of capital punishment as a return to barbarity? There are very real issues of human rights that will effect us all if it were to be reintroduced. Will the government introduce laws that are just and contain sufficient safeguards and will the judiciary administer them properly?
We are all potentially capable of murder a lot of domestic murders, where one partner murders the other during a row, are first time crimes and, therefore, we must each consider whether we and our loved ones are more at risk of being murdered or being executed for committing murder.
We must also consider what the likelihood is of innocent people being executed - it is inevitable that it will happen sooner or later.
Can the police, the courts, and the system generally be trusted to get things right on every occasion? They never have been able to previously.
Will juries be willing to convict in capital cases? Would you like to have to make the decision as to whether the person in the dock should live or die? Will the government really be willing to carry out death sentences or will they find every excuse for not doing so, thus returning to the injustices of earlier centuries?
Will executions really prove to be the deterrent that some supporters of capital punishment expect them to be? It is unlikely the very worst murderers would be deterred because they are typically psychopaths or of such dubious sanity that they are incapable of rational behaviour sometimes taking their own lives immediately after the crime, as in the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres Certain criminals, e.
It is unlikely that a handful of executions a year will have any real deterrent effect particularly on the people whom society would most like to be deterred, e. Yet these particular criminals are the least likely to be executed, the serial killers will be found insane and the drug barons will use any means to avoid conviction, e.
So we go back to the situation where only "sane" murderers can be executed. Thus a modern day Ruth Ellis might also hang because she was sane, whilst Beverley Allitt, who murdered 4 small children, would be reprieved because she has Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy or so she and certain psychiatrists claim.
Can these scenarios ever be seen as justice? Should we only execute people for the most awful multiple murders as a form of compulsory euthanasia rather than as a punishment or should we execute all murderers irrespective of the degree of guilt purely as a retributive punishment for taking another person's life and in the hope of deterring others?
What about crimes such as violent rape, terrorism and drug trafficking - are these as bad as murder? How should we punish such offences?
Should executions be carried out in such a way as to punish the criminal and have maximum deterrent effect on the rest of us, e.
Would this be a deterrent or merely become a morbid show for the voyeuristic?
Or should they be little more than a form of euthanasia carried out in such a way as to remove from the criminal all physical and as much emotional suffering as possible?
Does it make any sense to imprison someone for the rest of their life or is it really more cruel than executing them, particularly if they are young? If we do not keep them in prison for life, will they be released to commit other dreadful crimes?
A small but significant number do. What is the cost to society of keeping people in prison? These questions need to be thought about carefully and a balanced opinion arrived at.
How do you feel about them? If you wish to share your thoughts with me send me an email Please include your name and age If the general conclusion is that capital punishment is desirable, then the first step toward restoration is for the government to present a fully thought out set of proposals that can be put to the people in a referendum stating precisely what offences should carry the death penalty, how it should be carried out, etc.
If such a referendum produced a clear yes vote, the government would have a genuine mandate to proceed upon and could claim the support of the people, thus substantially reducing the influence of the anti-capital punishment lobby.
There should be another referendum about 5 years later so that the effects of reintroduction could be reviewed and voted on again.
Referenda have the advantage of involving the public in the decision making process and raising awareness through the media of the issues for and against the proposed changes.The Positivist School of Criminology • Positivism - a method of inquiry that attempts to answers questions through the scientific method.
– The researcher examines the "real world" of "empirical facts" through the testing of "hypotheses" with the main goal of arriving at the ultimate "truth" and deriving "laws" (e.g., the law of falling bodies, the law of relativity). Maybe people are interested in how socialism, administered in the correct way, could work as an alternative to a Capitalist SOCIETY though.
*This is clearly a Russian bot question. 56 Views. School corporal punishment refers to causing deliberate pain or discomfort in response to undesired behaviour by students in schools.
It often involves striking the student either across the buttocks or on the hands, with an implement such as a rattan cane, wooden paddle, slipper, leather strap or wooden yardstick.
Less commonly, it could also include spanking or smacking the student with the. This is all worth the effort, and will teach your child self control and make you a much happier more effective parent. Kristin Alexander is a mother, writer, web designer and marketer.
Reach Her at: Effective Alternatives to Punishment and How to Be a Happier Parent ashio-midori.com Ten Worst Discipline Mistakes Parents Make and Alternatives. by James Windell. Most good parents realize that there is always much more for them to learn about being good parents.
Psychology and Punishment. No branch of psychology has been able to support punishment as a viable form of discipline or control. Even the behaviorists have unequivocally stated that aversion techniques are not inherently motivating.