William Forrester a character in a movie named ''Finding Forrester.'' The character is quite a mysterious one. Being a novelist who wrote many books and only got one book published named the Avalon Landing'' and disappearing from the world of critics the same happened with the real novelist who wasnt just a character in a movie but in real was J.D Salinger. As J.D Salinger wrote only one book called ''The catcher in the rye.''
The movie shows how Forrester confines himself to an apartment only but knows all that is going on in the world outside that apartment but doesnt want to face the public. And the same happened with J.D Salinger. This common phenomena is known as agoraphobia which means fear of open spaces.
Also in the movie Forrester blocked a biography of himself that the character Professor Robert Crawford was going to publish. Salinger did the samething by filing a lawsuit again Ian Hamilton.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
''IT IS BETTER TO
RISK SAVING A GUILTY PERSON THAN TO CONDEMN AN INNOCENT ONE'' .. by Voltaire
Capital punishment is an emotive topic which has the potential to flare up emotions on both sides of the argument. However only a logical and dispassionate discussion will lead us to a rational conclusion.
Death penalty is the lawful infliction of death as a punishment for a wide variety of offenses since times immemorial . However in more recent times there have been attempts to restrict it to major crimes only such as murder, treason kidnapping etc. Reform of the death penalty began in Europe by 1750's by Italian jurish Cesare Beccaria , French philosopher Voltaire and English law reformers Jeremy Bantham and Samuel Romilly. They argued that capital punishment was unnecessarily cruel and over rated as a deterent. Vanzuella and Portugal were the first nations to abolish it altogether as early as 1853 abd 1867 respectively.
Today it is virtually abolished in all of Western Europe and most of Latin America. The U.S.A, China, Japan and many Asian and Middle Eastern countries however still carry it out with varying frquency.
In democracy if the majority are in favour of cource the wishes of the people should be seriously considered with equal consideration given to downside of their views.
One powerful arguements advanced by pro death penalty lobby is that ultimately we are all going to die, and in some cases we will know of this in advance. This is particularly true of those diagnosed as having terminal cancer. They then ask as to why it is acceptable to ''sentenced to death'' by one's family doctor without having committed any crime but totally unacceptable to be sentenced to death by a Judge having been convicted of murder after a fair and careful trial.
We will briefly consider the for and against arguments under four headings :-
1) Deterrance
2) Retribution
3) Innocence
4) Artribution & Discrimination
Deterrance:-
''Death penalty prevents future murders''
Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrants.
Potential murderers will think tiwice before killing if murderers are sentenced to death and executed. Death penalty ''deters'' the murderer who is executed. Criminologists analysed murder rates in countries before and after abolitian of death penalty and the results have been inconclusive because of the influence of a large number of complex socio- economic and environmental factors. There is some evidence that it acts as a deterrant in countries where the sentence is always carried out (such as Singapore) and also where the crime requires planning and premeditation rather than a crime committed in the heat of the moment.
Statistics do not tell the real story because societies change over a period of time the statistics are collected.
When crime is planned, criminal usually concentrates on escapingdetection, arrest and conviction, and therefore the question of the most severe punishment as a deterrant does not arise. Most crimes are committed in moments of emotional stress or under influence of drugs, alcohol when logical thinking is suspended. In such cases violence is inflicted by persons heedless of consequences to themselves or others.
Retribution:-
''A guest society requires death penalty for the taking of a life''
When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed and society succumbs to a rule of violence.
Taking murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.
I would also like to qoute the Holy Quran. Verse number 17 ayat number 33 ..
''Nor take life- which Allah has made sacred-except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or toforgive) but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life for he is helped (by the law).'' (17:33)
Execution bring closure to murderer's crime and some measure of solace to victim's family.
Robert Macy Distt Attorney of Oklahoma City described his concept of retribution thus and I qoute '' In 1991, a young mother was rendeved helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was than mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable tv, family visits and an endless appeals. For justice to prevail some killers just need to die.''
Opponents of death penalty often say that perhaps the murderers deserve to die but what authority does the state have to execute him or her?
Here I would like to qoute an ayat from Surah Al- Baqarah from the Holy Quran...
''O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murde; the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a mercy from your lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.''
Retribution is another word for revenge. Standards of a mature society demand more mature response. Many people think that death penalty is simply vengeance which has no place in our justice system Islam also encourages forgiveness as above mentioned Surahs of the Holy Quran have clearly stated.
Innocence:-
''The risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty.''
Once a person has been labelled as a murderer and executed nothing can be made to ammend if a mistake has been made. There are many persons who have been sentenced to death as a result of miscarriage of justice. Since 1973 atleast eighty eight people have been released from death row. For every seven people executed it has been found that 1 person on death row who should have never been convicted. This clearly shows the risk of executing the innocent. It has been shown that two thirds of all capital trials contain serious errors. Newer scientific advances such as the DNA testing has helped to exonorate people previously convicted of murder by the judicial system.
One relevent case in point is of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who was executed in Pakistan but recently one of the justices who was a member of the trial bench admitted on television that the four:three split verdict of guilty of murder flawed and probably politically motivated and was he was not guilty of the crime for which he was executed.
Some people would say that executing the innocent is a rare but acceptable risk of death penalty. If improvements are required in the system these should be carried out, but the need for such improvemnts are not sufficient reason to abolish the death penalty besides many convicted murderers are granted pardon by the president if it has been shown that they might be innocent though not proved.
Arbitrariness & Discrimination:-
''The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used.''
In practice the death penalty is awarded on such irrational factors as the quality of the defence council. The country in which the crime was committed or the race of the defendant or the victim. Every defendant cannot afford a top notch attorney and therefore the defence is dependant on the quality of the lawyers who maybe underpaid or inexperienced. A poorly represented defendant is more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence. In countries where racial prejudice exisits it appears to count white lieves more valuable than black lives.
From the above it is clear that our options are:-
1)Not to have thhe death penalty and to accept relatively high levels of murder.
2)And to have capital punishment only for the worst murderers. This option is unlikely to reduce overall crime.
3)Have the death penalty enforced in a very strict format there will be alot of humanmisery caused to the innocent family of the murderers . And also there will be occational if envitable mistake.
ultimately the choice is yours.
RISK SAVING A GUILTY PERSON THAN TO CONDEMN AN INNOCENT ONE'' .. by VoltaireCapital punishment is an emotive topic which has the potential to flare up emotions on both sides of the argument. However only a logical and dispassionate discussion will lead us to a rational conclusion.
Death penalty is the lawful infliction of death as a punishment for a wide variety of offenses since times immemorial . However in more recent times there have been attempts to restrict it to major crimes only such as murder, treason kidnapping etc. Reform of the death penalty began in Europe by 1750's by Italian jurish Cesare Beccaria , French philosopher Voltaire and English law reformers Jeremy Bantham and Samuel Romilly. They argued that capital punishment was unnecessarily cruel and over rated as a deterent. Vanzuella and Portugal were the first nations to abolish it altogether as early as 1853 abd 1867 respectively.
Today it is virtually abolished in all of Western Europe and most of Latin America. The U.S.A, China, Japan and many Asian and Middle Eastern countries however still carry it out with varying frquency.
In democracy if the majority are in favour of cource the wishes of the people should be seriously considered with equal consideration given to downside of their views.
One powerful arguements advanced by pro death penalty lobby is that ultimately we are all going to die, and in some cases we will know of this in advance. This is particularly true of those diagnosed as having terminal cancer. They then ask as to why it is acceptable to ''sentenced to death'' by one's family doctor without having committed any crime but totally unacceptable to be sentenced to death by a Judge having been convicted of murder after a fair and careful trial.
We will briefly consider the for and against arguments under four headings :-
1) Deterrance
2) Retribution
3) Innocence
4) Artribution & Discrimination
Deterrance:-
''Death penalty prevents future murders''
Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrants.
Potential murderers will think tiwice before killing if murderers are sentenced to death and executed. Death penalty ''deters'' the murderer who is executed. Criminologists analysed murder rates in countries before and after abolitian of death penalty and the results have been inconclusive because of the influence of a large number of complex socio- economic and environmental factors. There is some evidence that it acts as a deterrant in countries where the sentence is always carried out (such as Singapore) and also where the crime requires planning and premeditation rather than a crime committed in the heat of the moment.
Statistics do not tell the real story because societies change over a period of time the statistics are collected.
When crime is planned, criminal usually concentrates on escapingdetection, arrest and conviction, and therefore the question of the most severe punishment as a deterrant does not arise. Most crimes are committed in moments of emotional stress or under influence of drugs, alcohol when logical thinking is suspended. In such cases violence is inflicted by persons heedless of consequences to themselves or others.
Retribution:-
''A guest society requires death penalty for the taking of a life''
When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed and society succumbs to a rule of violence.
Taking murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.
I would also like to qoute the Holy Quran. Verse number 17 ayat number 33 ..
''Nor take life- which Allah has made sacred-except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or toforgive) but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life for he is helped (by the law).'' (17:33)
Execution bring closure to murderer's crime and some measure of solace to victim's family.
Robert Macy Distt Attorney of Oklahoma City described his concept of retribution thus and I qoute '' In 1991, a young mother was rendeved helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was than mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable tv, family visits and an endless appeals. For justice to prevail some killers just need to die.''
Opponents of death penalty often say that perhaps the murderers deserve to die but what authority does the state have to execute him or her?
Here I would like to qoute an ayat from Surah Al- Baqarah from the Holy Quran...
''O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murde; the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a mercy from your lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.''
Retribution is another word for revenge. Standards of a mature society demand more mature response. Many people think that death penalty is simply vengeance which has no place in our justice system Islam also encourages forgiveness as above mentioned Surahs of the Holy Quran have clearly stated.
Innocence:-
''The risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty.''
Once a person has been labelled as a murderer and executed nothing can be made to ammend if a mistake has been made. There are many persons who have been sentenced to death as a result of miscarriage of justice. Since 1973 atleast eighty eight people have been released from death row. For every seven people executed it has been found that 1 person on death row who should have never been convicted. This clearly shows the risk of executing the innocent. It has been shown that two thirds of all capital trials contain serious errors. Newer scientific advances such as the DNA testing has helped to exonorate people previously convicted of murder by the judicial system.
One relevent case in point is of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who was executed in Pakistan but recently one of the justices who was a member of the trial bench admitted on television that the four:three split verdict of guilty of murder flawed and probably politically motivated and was he was not guilty of the crime for which he was executed.
Some people would say that executing the innocent is a rare but acceptable risk of death penalty. If improvements are required in the system these should be carried out, but the need for such improvemnts are not sufficient reason to abolish the death penalty besides many convicted murderers are granted pardon by the president if it has been shown that they might be innocent though not proved.
Arbitrariness & Discrimination:-
''The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used.''
In practice the death penalty is awarded on such irrational factors as the quality of the defence council. The country in which the crime was committed or the race of the defendant or the victim. Every defendant cannot afford a top notch attorney and therefore the defence is dependant on the quality of the lawyers who maybe underpaid or inexperienced. A poorly represented defendant is more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence. In countries where racial prejudice exisits it appears to count white lieves more valuable than black lives.
From the above it is clear that our options are:-
1)Not to have thhe death penalty and to accept relatively high levels of murder.
2)And to have capital punishment only for the worst murderers. This option is unlikely to reduce overall crime.
3)Have the death penalty enforced in a very strict format there will be alot of humanmisery caused to the innocent family of the murderers . And also there will be occational if envitable mistake.
ultimately the choice is yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)