'Case Study: Murder by Two Colleges Students Essay\r'

'As an intellectual game, two male college assimilators, ages 18 and 19, attempt to intrust the â€Å"perfect crime” by cunt a young boy and de hu macrocosm beingshoodding ransom from his parents. They receive the ransom m unmatchedy however blot out the boy some(prenominal)way. Later, they are caught, tried and convicted of strike and kidnapping with intent to do bodily harm. Their defense attorney, a brilliant lawyer, successfully argues against the ending penalty and both men are sent to prison house for support.\r\n afterward about five years, one of the men is killed in a fight, plainly the former(a)wise completes his college education date still in prison and teaches other convicts English. He also volunteers for medical experiments, bothowing himself to be injected with malaria germs in ensnare to test new drugs. A model prisoner, he causes no trouble throughout his entire prison term. After about 30 years, he is paroled, whereupon he goes to a differen t country and continues to teach English. dickens years later he dies of natural causes. Should this man induce been subjected to bang-up penalty? Why or why not Theories that provide be employ:\r\n1. Divine Command Theory\r\n2. Virtue morality\r\n3. Utilitarianism\r\nCapital penalization has been and provide always be a widely debated topic. The biggest question that surrounds capital penalisation would be is it mor completelyy right or is it morally wrong? at that place are many line of credits for and against capital punishment. Is a capital punishment really a deterent as some would say? I will apply and test terzetto theories to the display sequel mentioned higher up to square up if capital punishment is the most entrance solution or not. First I will examine the divine ascertain possibleness and see how it applies to the case mentioned preceding(prenominal). In all fairness I must(prenominal) say that in the case mentioned to a higher place the divine command theory is strongly contradicting itself. How is that possible? Well let us start by saying that the divine command theory uses beau ideals commandments to pulsation whether something is morally right or wrong. How is that contradicting? Speaking in the case of most major religions God asks us to punish those who commit intentional murder by death.\r\nAt the same time God asks us to be clement. Even with this major contradiction we prat safely say that the divine command theory would revoke the capital punishment in the case mentioned in a higher place. Such a controversial conclusion burn down be easily proved. We can also safely say that forgiveness outweighs punishment in the look of God. We all know that God is the most forgiving and the most merciful. How do we know that? Lets take any human cosmos as an example. There is no doubt that there is no human being in the world without sin. If God really favored to punish us rather than forgive us for e very sin we make indeed life would be a little different. Instead God waits for us and gives us a chance to abye so he can forgive us. because in the case above it is clear for us all to see that the individual mentioned in the case above has committed to repentance and most significantly he is not the same man who entered the prototypical time into prison.\r\nIn conclusion the divine command theory would demand us to forgive the man and give him a chance after all that time he served in prison nowadays we come to the theory of rightfulness ethics. Without any argument or hesitation we can say that virtue ethics rejects capital punishment in all of its forms. Virtue ethics instead demands for a buffer solution. It considers capital punishment to be cruel and sound reflection productive. Virtue ethics works towards making soul a better person and reinstate in them true and honorable virtues. How are you exhalation to that if mortal is dead? Some might say that there is a long time bef ore a death sentence is carried out and there is bounteous time for that person to smorgasbord and try to be a better person. Well that is definitely not the case here. That is similar to saying to a student we are going to let you in to college but when you are done we are not going to give you a college degree.\r\nYou are telling him that he can work hard but he cannot harvest his fruit. No Matter how good we may try to make it sound it is peakly stupid to expect someone who is sentenced to death to commit to change without giving them some sort of hope. On the other hand when there is a little hope, a little light at the end of the tunnel, then we can say that we have done our fiber in the eyes of the virtue ethicist. Last but not least we come to utilitarianism. First we must understand utilitarian’s argue for the outgo possible outcome or the solution that would raise the sterling(prenominal) happiness and least suffering. In the scenario above utilitarianâ€⠄¢s would also reject the death sentence. We can simply start off by asking how do two deaths or three deaths create more happiness? It is just unreasonable. There are other ways of punishment one can use for the crime committed above other than capital punishment that are greater promoters than the death sentence would ever be.\r\nTo promote the greatest happiness in the scenario above is to give the inpatient a chance to reform and repent and have a good influence or furbish up on society. In the balance that will always outweigh capital punishment. In my opinion, capital punishment is the best possible outcome for the scenario mentioned above. First let me start by saying that the punishment should sum up the crime. The person mentioned above committed the most extreme crime known to man and therefore deserves a punishment equal in magnitude.\r\nSecond I will without hesitation state that everyone fears death. Being so the case then capital punishment would be the best deterre nt and preventative of crime man can employ. Then I will go on to mention that by committing intentional murder one has stepped outside the line that divides us from animals, there for no longer deserves to live among us. Then let us examine the case of the life sentence. It is very evident that one who is sentenced to life in prison has nothing to loose and is more likely to commit more crimes even inside prison. Summarizing all this up I stand by position as being a advocate for capital punishment in the case mentioned above and any other there is to come.\r\n'