Term papers writing service


The principle of equal right to live in the debate about capital punishment

The opponents believe that capital punishment is the worst violation of human rightsbecause the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a psychological torture. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment", and Amnesty International considers it to be "the ultimate, irreversible denial of Human Rights".

Appropriate occasions for killings by law enforcement are strictly outlined by the International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement. Any lethal action taken the principle of equal right to live in the debate about capital punishment law enforcement agents must be taken following a certain set of rules that have been set out in the 'Use of Force' section of the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police.

Proportionately appropriate use of force can, and will in some circumstances, refer to lethal force if a law enforcement agent genuinely believes that ending the life of one civilian would result in the preservation of his life, or the lives of his fellow civilians, as is outlined in the 'Permissibile circumstances for the use of firearms' section of the Pocket Book [4] The Pocket Book [4] also outlines in the 'Accountability for the use of force and firearms' section that there are stringent measures of accountability in place to maintain integrity within State law enforcement agencies as regards their right to the use of lethal force.

International institutions have outlined when and where law enforcement agents might have the availability of lethal force at their disposal. The International Association of Chiefs of Police have 'Model Policies' which incorporate various pieces of information from leading sources and constitute some of the best thinking available in the field.

Law enforcement officers are given the prerogative to engage in department-approved methods to safely bring a conclusion to a scenario and are also given the ability to use issued equipment to resolve issues in scenarios where they are required to protect themselves or others from damage, to bring resistant individuals under control, or to safely conclude unlawful incidents. There is no mention as to what "reasonably necessary" should be interpreted as meaning, but there is reference made to the reasonable man method of determining how one should approach a scenario.

Identity as a law enforcement agentclear warning and adequate time for response, providing that time would not likely result in harm being done to the agent or his fellow civilians, must be given before deadly force can be used within the bounds of international law. While the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police outlines the academic circumstances under which law enforcement agents may use lethal forcethe literal scenarios in which police killings have occurred are also relevant.

Rosenfeld, [8] states that there is considerable literature that gives reason to believe that social conditions also have a part to play in how law enforcement killings can occur. Rosenfeld states that there are numerous studies that have been conducted which link law enforcement agents' use of lethal force to the areas rate of violent crimethe size of the non -indigenous population and the socioeconomic position of the community concerned.

Perry, Hall and Hall [10] discuss the phenomena across the United States of America which became highly charged and widely documented in late 2014, referring to the use of lethal force from white police officers on unarmed black male civilians. However, the Propublica analysis of federal data on fatal police shootings between 2010 and 2012, showed that young black male civilians were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than young white male civilians.

The justice system mostly found that these agents acted within the boundaries of the law because the actions of the people who were shot were sufficiently questionable in character for the police officer to fear for his life or the lives of his fellow civilians. Coppolo [13] investigated Connecticut law and reported that the use of lethal force must be followed by a report that determines whether the law enforcement agent's lethal force was proportionately necessary in the circumstances.

Coppolo also stated that a reasonable lethal response must only be made when there is a reasonable belief that the facts you have been presented with could realistically result in a risk of death or grievous bodily harm. Connor[15] a diabetic who was suffering from a blood-sugar episode was detained by an officer who witnessed circumstances that made him suspicious of Graham, the detaining of Graham resulted in multiple injuries to Graham, who then proceeded to sue the police for use of excessive force.

The Supreme Court did not find a diabetic episode in of itself to be potentially threatening to a law enforcement agent.

  • We had a series of people executed in my state;
  • This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception;
  • Proportionality An initial legal issue regarding the death penalty involves the notion of proportionality, that is, whether death penalty sentences are handed down uniformly in similar situations;
  • Let me lead off with one question and then I will turn it over to the audience for questions.

The Supreme Court did find that the totality of circumstances must be considered at the time of the incident when judging the officer rather than considering the incident with carefully considered hindsight, which in the case of Graham's episode it was decided that the diabetic induced behavior on the face of it could be considered threatening to a law enforcement agent or other civilians.

This makes it difficult to ascertain what constitutes a fair description of a valid scenario in which a law enforcement agent might use lethal force. The officer then proceeded to shoot the person in the back of the head. The Supreme Court held that in accordance with the Fourth Amendmenta law enforcement officer who is in pursuit of somebody cannot use lethal force to conclude the pursuit unless the officer has reasonable belief that the person poses a significant threat of harm to the officer or others.

In the United States where the Second Amendment grants civilians the right to bear arms, [17] any one person could pose a threat to a police officer's life or other civilians, as feasibly, any one person could be concealing a firearm. The Annual Police Conduct Report [18] in New Zealand found that over a decade the police had shot and killed seven people, one of whom was innocent and all cases of which the police were found to have been acting within their legal rights.

New Zealand has a strict process through which any citizen wanting to legally use a firearm must go through, this creates an environment through which the standard civilian does not pose a default threat to law enforcement agent's lives or the lives of others. The standard to which international law expects States to operate is the same across the board, lethal force must only be used by law enforcement agents when there is a real threat of harm to those law enforcement agents or other civilians.

The reality is that each State is unique in what constitutes an appropriate situation for law enforcement agents to respond with lethal force due to States all around the world having their own unique environments, law, cultures and population s.

Retribution

Euthanasia The entitlement of a person to make the decision to end their own life through euthanasia is commonly called a right to choose, [19] while people who oppose the legalization of are commonly referred to as the right-to-lifers. Abortion debatePro-choiceand Pro-life The term "right to life" is used in the abortion debate by those who wish to reduce the use of abortions [21] and in the context of pregnancy, the term right to life was advanced by Pope Pius XII during a 1951 papal encyclical: Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority.

McHugh to begin observing trends in abortion reform within the United States. The human blastocyst has a diameter of about 0. Anti-abortion advocates argue that prenatal humans have the same fundamental "right to life" from the moment of conception that humans have after their birth. Although pro-life advocates accept that women have a right to bodily autonomy, they deny that right entitles the women to violate the prenatal "right to life", by having it killed.

Generally speaking, those identifying themselves as "right to life" believe abortion is morally unacceptable.

The term "right to choose" is used in the abortion debate by abortion-rights proponents.

The Death Penalty Today: Defend It, Mend It or End It?

Many abortion rights advocates argue that prenatal humans are not human persons and do not have the same fundamental "right to life" as a mature human. Another abortion rights argument posits that whether prenatal humans do or do not have the same fundamental "right to life" as a mature human is irrelevant because a woman's right to bodily integrity overrides any rights that the fetus may have.

Advocates of the "right to choose" may take either or both positions. Generally speaking, those identifying themselves as " pro-choice " are advocates for legal elective abortion. At the same time, some advocates for legalized abortion state that they simply do not know for sure where in pregnancy life begins; then- Senator Barack Obama took this view in the 2008 election.

Abortion was already covered in cases of rape, incest and when there was a threat to the health and life of the mother. The law expanded the Medicaid coverage beyond those limited cases. They based their numbers on Medicaid figures from the late 1970s, which was the last time Illinois had unrestricted Medicaid-funded abortions.

Abortion debatePhilosophical aspects of the abortion debateand Infanticide Some utilitarian ethicists argue that the "right to life", where it exists, depends on conditions other than membership of the human species. The philosopher Peter Singer is a notable proponent of this argument. For Singer, the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future.

  1. Kamenar, where you get that figure of 98 percent? Second, when victims were white, the murderers who were black were more likely to receive the death penalty than white murderers.
  2. I have a question for Judge Starr.
  3. I have a question for Judge Starr. Critics of proportionality review systems charge that it is nearly impossible to make a comprehensive list of all the relevant factors and to assign to them the appropriate weight.
  4. And in particular I want to mention the call for a death penalty moratorium, which in my opinion is abolition in disguise.

This extends the concept to non-human animals, such as other apesbut since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack this, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be "justified" but are not obligatory in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of a disabled infant whose life would be one of suffering, or if its parents didn't wish to raise it and no one desired to adopt it.

There are exceptions for lawful executions and self-defense, arresting a fleeing suspect, and suppressing riots and insurrections. Since then Protocol 6 of the Convention has called for nations to outlaw capital punishment except in time of war or national emergency, and at present this pertains in all countries of the Council.

Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of capital punishment, and has been implemented in most member countries of the Council. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. It is in force in 23 countries.

This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. The Catholic Church has issued a Charter of the Rights of the Family [34] in which it states that the right to life is directly implied by human dignity. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950, guarantees the right to life to all persons within the territory of India and states: