Do you think capital punishment on a case-by-case basis is fair? Do you agree with Garland that CP should be abolished in the US? Why or why not?
On a day-to-day occurrence, individuals continue being guillotined, while others face death sentencing by the state as a penalty for various wrongdoings. The wrongdoings range from drug-related instances to terrorism-related deeds and killings. The death sentence is typically assumed as an essential process of regulating crime. Individuals in favor of execution indicate that the penalty is likely to escalate the death penalty restrictive effect. This specifies the punishment may act as a limiting factor to wrongdoings.Conversely, individuals in opposition to capital punishment state that it is likely to desensitize people to violence. This specifies that persons become more oblivious to wrongdoings. According to Garland (2007), the death sentence in the United States ought to be abolished. Moreover, I believe that eradicating the death sentence is more compassionate and upholds human rights.
Based on capital punishment on a case-by-case basis, the death sentence is very partial. First, capital punishment is very indiscriminate as it infringes upon the Eighth Amendment, which offers protection against infrequent and cruel punishment. Research indicates that there is an incompatible dispute between two requirements in death sentencing. Furthermore, there is no justice, nor is there any humanitarian method to killing human beings. As a result, assassination is contrary to upholding human rights and is therefore considered to be unfair. Garland (2007) indicates that capital punishment continues to bear numerous comparisons to lynching. Moreover, Garland (2007) states that capital punishment is invigorated by racial disparities where the American system, the law encourages racial discernment irrespective of parity being advocated. According to Levick et al. (2011), the capital punishment burden is imposed on individuals believed to underprivileged, particularly communities with a cultural, socio-economic, and racial disadvantage. This comprises but is not restricted to access to lawful representation.
What are the similarities and differences between the Henry Smith lynching example and Malinowski’s description of the Trobriand Islander’s incest taboo? Do you think public executions give local communities retribution or revenge? Why or why not?
There exists various similarities regarding Henry Smith’s lynching example and Malinowski’s description of the Trobriand Islander’s incest taboo. Likewise to Henry Vance, Malinowski (2013) reveals Trobriand Islander’s incest taboo whereby lynching transpires under the imperfect regulation that bears numerous complications and breakdowns. However, both aspects differ whereby Trobriand Islander’s description of incest is considered a communal method of maintaining low delinquency. At the same time, Henry Vance’s lynching is attributed to eradicating a particular community and is considered an act of discrimination.
Based on the case, public killings give local communities vengeance. For instance, in Henry Smith’s case, lynching is regarded as an act against Negros. They were primarily slaves, therefore, resulting in whites condemning them of numerous concerns that include the rising cases of crime. However, I do not support the aspect of public execution. Every person is entitled to the right to life. Consequently, a public execution is unlawful founded on human rights viewpoint. Moreover, with the numerous judicial system faults, there is an enlarged danger of guillotining innocent individuals. During the individual killing, innocent citizens are likely to be exterminated due to faults or errors in the judicial structure. This form of castigation fails to discourage persons from perpetrating grave violent wrongdoings. The verdict would only discourage the probability of being apprehended, therefore making delinquents more innovative to evade apprehension. Public execution is supposed to propagate the cycle of violence and may not ease the anguish already experienced by the casualties’ kin. Furthermore, it is an expensive procedure that is conducted at the outlay of taxpayer’s funding. Punishment is prejudiced, illustrating a component of injustice.