Because of the treacherous crimes and hazardous criminals that exist in today's society and legal system, Tyler claims that the death sentence is unavoidable in today's society and legal system (307). Human activist lobby groups have repeatedly urged the government to abolish the death sentence because they perceive it as a crime against humanity, but some sections of the community and most of the government have consistently disagreed. The death penalty is an optional punishment in the United States (U.S.) when a crime was committed that includes cold-blooded conduct like murder. The use of capital punishment for such crimes not only acts as a deterrence against the transgressions and serves as retribution for the affected victims and the society (Van den Haag and Conrad 87). Though met with opposition, the use of capital punishment acts to safeguard the community from harm from individuals capable of committing inhumane crimes against their fellow populaces. The Death penalty as currently applied in the United States is an appropriate form of capital punishment for crimes that meet the threshold of brutal felonies.
An argument in favor of the death penalty is that the form of capital punishment needs to be upheld to discourage citizens against committing crimes such as murder. As disclosed by Van den Haag and Conrad, most human beings fear death, and as a result, the use of death as capital punishment serves as deterrence against committing offenses that are punishable by death (134). Given that there is the law that life can be taken if they commit felonies that warrant a death sentence, the law acts to discourage such crimes and also influences the citizens of the nation to be cautious against committing the offenses that fall within such law. Human beings have been known to value life, and every human being wants to live their life to their fullest potential. Besides, the death penalty should be used on the grounds of retribution for heinous crimes such as murder. Banks argues that when a person murders another in cold blood, death is the right kind of retribution for their inhuman act since it is only fair that someone who consciously takes a life of another human being to suffer death (210). As Van den Haag and Conrad point out, the death penalty is deserved for individuals who commit murder knowingly, and it is morally justifiable based on the distinction of the omission and acts committed (233).
The standard argument raised is the moral questioning of instituting the death sentencing, since many oppose the capital punishment claiming it is not humanitarian to take life knowingly. Despite the antagonism, it is also notable to agree that such characters capable of brutal crimes do not deserve to be part of the society since they cause harm to others. Since it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens, capital punishment is necessary for both deterrence and retribution of such dreadful crimes. Without capital punishment applied for gruesome crimes against humanity, there is nothing to stop the perpetrators of such crimes from acting upon them. Enforcing the law on the use of the death penalty serves to protect the citizens of a country from atrocious offenses and needs to be sustained as an appropriate form of punishment.
Work Cited
Banks, Cyndi. Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Sage Publications, 2012.
Tyler, Tom R. "Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule breaking." Journal of social issues 62.2 (2006): 307-326.
Van den Haag, Ernest, and John Phillips Conrad. The death penalty: A debate. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
Marijuana Legalization
As Siegel and Worrall point out, according to American federal law, marijuana is illegal even in the states that have recently legalized the drug (241). In the U.S, twenty-nine states have authorized the use of medical marijuana, and in eight states, the use of marijuana by adults is legal; however, the U.S government still considers marijuana as an illegal drug that has a high probability of abuse, as do the remaining twelve states. This has led to the debate on the classification of marijuana under the Controlled Substance Act, which puts it under Schedule I of the act, despite the use of marijuana being associated with medical reasons. As marijuana has been researched and identified to contain a medicinal value, its classification under Schedule 1 is unfitting, and there is need to revise its classification. Marijuana legalization would be beneficial to the drug industry due to its medicinal significance; furthermore, other benefits associated with its use may be realized (Cohen 16). Thus, marijuana should be removed from the Schedule 1 classification in the Control Substance Act and regulated just as alcohol has been done.
Under the Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, a substance qualifies in this category has to meet the criteria of; the high potential of abuse, which has no currently accepted medical use and the lack of adequate safety for its use under medical supervision. According to Bostwick, marijuana has medicinal benefits since it contains chemicals that can help the drug and pharmaceutical industries can treat a range of symptoms and illnesses (179). However, the use of marijuana is also associated with drugs and substance abuse and often argued to be a gateway drug to other harmful substances. Such arguments provide the basis for the illegalization of marijuana in the U.S, and due to its popularity and ease of access, it has been categorized under the schedule 1 of the Controlled Substance Act. Since marijuana has some potential benefits, it is only logical to allow the substance to be used for its beneficial purposes with sufficient control and regulation to ward off its abuse.
Case and example of a successfully regulated substance is alcohol, which also has damaging effects on the users should it be abused. Alcohol is excluded in the Controlled Substance Act category despite its associated impacts that based on the criteria of Scheduling, and it should undoubtedly feature (Nutt et al. 1049). However, the argument is that marijuana needs to adopt the regulations such as those of alcohol that enable its use but at a limited capacity and its production monitored closely by the government. The benefits of using marijuana based on its medicinal value to the medical and drugs industry have been researched and proven. Another advantage that would arise from the legalization of marijuana is the budget implications that would be offset since a lot of money goes into the prohibition of the use of marijuana in America. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) spends billions in its effort to fight against the use of marijuana in the U.S by cracking down on its importation, growing in America, and prosecuting the culprits found to violate the laws of its prohibition.
Other arguments point out that the legalization of marijuana would generate billions in taxes should it be regulated as it has been done for the use of alcohol (Cahn, D, and Cahn, J 215). Contrasting opinions also allude to the fact that the legalization of marijuana to be used in the medical fields would provide American patients with a valuable drug that has therapeutic benefits to their health. While reclassification of marijuana may be associated with abuse, under the regulation of its use, it can prove to be beneficial to the American drug industry and the economy due to its benefits earlier mentioned. There is proof of such success in the regulation of marijuana evidence based on the control of alcohol and the states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana. While the use of marijuana is associated with substance abuse risks, the upside is that under strict regulation, the use of marijuana could prove beneficial to the United States.
Work Cited
Bostwick, J. Michael. "Blurred boundaries: the therapeutics and politics of medical marijuana." Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Vol. 87. No. 2. Elsevier (2012): 172-186.
Cahn, David, and Jack Cahn. When Millennials Rule: The Reshaping of America. Simon and Schuster, 2016.
Cohen, Peter J. "Medical marijuana: the conflict between scientific evidence and political ideology. Part one of two." Journal of pain & palliative care pharmacotherapy 23.1 (2009): 4-25.
Nutt, David, et al. "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse." The Lancet 369.9566 (2007): 1047-1053.
Siegel, Larry, and John Worrall. Introduction to criminal justice. Nelson Education, 2013.
Gun Licensing in Higher Learning Institutions
In America, the prevalence of shooting and gun-related crimes has been on a significant rise because gun possession laws are considered to be lenient and give room for many citizens to have ownership of firearms and ammunition (Lott 81). The state of Oklahoma has its Gun laws that are used to regulate the possession, sale, and use of weapons and ammunition, and more often the laws in Oklahoma State considered less limiting compared to the laws in other states in the United States (U.S). The law in Oklahoma allows for concealed and open carrying of handguns by only authorized persons (Lott 6). However, the same laws in Oklahoma that allow carrying of guns prohibits the carrying of concealed firearms in learning institutions especially colleges. The concern raised is that carrying of guns to colleges promotes a sense of fear and insecurity among students, thus, creating an unfavorable learning environment. However, the new dangers facing higher learning institutions have been caused by outsiders who in most cases target these schools due to the large numbers of students present in the colleges. Thus, there is need to allow firearms to be openly carried by licensed individuals on all Oklahoma college campuses.
The narrative that carrying of firearms to schools creates fear and insecurity among students can be disputed, since the ownership of guns in the state of Oklahoma, requires licensing and meeting the qualifications for ownership of a gun under federal laws. According to Patten, Thomas and Wada, under the current laws in Oklahoma concerning gun ownership, an individual can be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to college given the permission by the schools' president under exceptional circumstances (557). Equally, it should be recognized for individuals to openly carry firearms to the institutions under similar special conditions as those of concealed weapon carry. There has also been supporting for the open carrying of weapons in colleges by licensed individuals, alluding to the fact that it creates awareness of gun owners within the learning environment and presents the relevant authorities with the possibility to monitor those carrying guns. Illegal carrying of guns can be nabbed under these circumstances, as the authorities are aware of those allowed to carry guns openly in the campuses.
Carrying of a gun in the state of Oklahoma requires licensing and carrying of the license both for concealed and open carrying of firearms. Under the second amendment of the U.S constitution, the right to keep and bear firearms should not be tampered with (Bouffard, Nobles, Wells and Cavanaugh 317). Therefore, arguing a ban on legal aged persons not being able to carry a gun while on campus is not an infringement of their rights is quite difficult. Texas has recently passed a bill that allows school carrying of weapons and has proven to be successful since no accidents have been recorded yet in the learning institutions since the passing of the law. Supporters of open gun carrying also argue that open carry of firearms could be advantageous to learning institutions, as it would create deterrence of criminals venturing to commit shootings and other crimes in schools. Currently, schools are targeted as the would-be criminals are aware of the restrictions against carrying guns to the learning environment and they use the information to their advantage. The legalization of open carry of guns on campus would reduce the number of crimes that happen within the learning institutions (Bouffard, Nobles, Wells and Cavanaugh 319).
Since crime cannot be controlled and violence removed from people's minds, the safety of each person becomes an important subject and the need for self-defense against any attacks. The society requires comprehensive gun carrying laws to allow its citizens to be able to protect themselves against attacks and also protect others who are unable to defend themselves. Criminals have access to guns and do not use it sparingly in their attacks, and so should every legally aged person who needs a gun in the state of Oklahoma with the freedoms to carry the guns whenever and wherever according to the rules of the law. The ability to be able to defend yourself is more appealing than not being able to protect yourself from attack should it present itself, regardless of where someone is at the time of the attack. Therefore, open carrying of firearms should be allowed on all Oklahoma college campuses.
Work Cited
Bouffard, Jeffrey A., et al. "How many more guns? Estimating the effect of allowing licensed concealed handguns on a college campus." Journal of interpersonal violence 27.2 (2012): 316-343.
Lott, John R. More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press, 2013.
Patten, Ryan, Matthew O. Thomas, and James C. Wada. "Packing heat: Attitudes regarding concealed weapons on college campuses." American Journal of Criminal Justice 38.4 (2013): 551-569.
We will email this sample to you with pleasure!
Type your email