CRJ325 - WEEK 9 - DISCUSSION 9

"Death Penalty"

Read the article titled, “Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate” located at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Next, take a stand for or against the death penalty and discuss the effectiveness of the death penalty in preventing murders.

In the consideration of the death penalty comes various viewpoints of contemplation those against and those for. As the death penalty and administering of the conclusive state of execution it conclusively allows the objective nature of surmising its purpose to halt the killing and murdering of innocent people.

In my effective capacity to understand the horrendous loss and sheer horror of a person’s life assaulted and destroyed by deliberate animal purpose I feel as an active agreement of the correct due has been attributed to any who takes a life and that is execution. A life for a life is a philosophy threaded and embedded in any court system in any country and based on biblical principle.

Therefore, I am with the stance of a needed death penalty in Michigan. I feel that a murderer can never pay his dues in society or to society because he or she will kill again when released back into society and cause serious mayhem. If a compiled report is done this will probably reflect again my theory a killing has been repeated by them.

Further these killers are teaching killing to the young and hiding predatorial acts being taught. Once again, I am for the death penalty in this state and any other that needs it. As part of a criminal justice program, the duty is to keep the populace safe and as such seeing and knowing has to be acted upon fast. If you see it, realize it that it is actively being done.

A nation filled with danger for women and children to be savaged and killed is not a nation to own. Lastly, as a negative enforcement the death penalty is effective and should deter acts of harmful, murderous threat. Further, when placed on the “death bed” it does not facilitate to have them incarcerated for years and years until the summarily charged execution. If the flow and change alters an act then the consequence is weighed more seriously when contemplation of acting on a criminal act.

Identify and discuss one (1) major difference between State Tort Cases and Federal Section 1983.

In the United States are two court systems the Federal and State Court. These two court systems are divided into two areas of law: criminal and civil law. Criminal law deals with non-felonious and felonious acts of criminal misdeeds. Civil law purpose is to compensate individuals whose person or property has been wrongfully damaged by the conduct of another.

A tort is described as a private or civil wrong or injury which would include actins for bad faith breach of contract and will cause the court to provide a remedy and action for damages. Torts of each state include the acts of two torts: Intentional and Negligence. Under the intentional are trespass, intentional conduct damaging personal property and to actual bodily battery, assault, false imprisonment, and infliction of emotional distress. Whereas negligence is concurrently a purpose that it does not have to be intentional but the conduct is enough to cause damage.

In contrast, Federal Section 1983 relatively is based upon a violation of a constitutional right and prudently by an actor under state law or authority. Therefore, the capacity of violation is inclusive of beatings, cruel and unusual punishments. Consequently, who is at fault is the individual in his or her personal capacity, official capacity with the employee as well. There is no vicarious liability unless the ability to prove a violation exists and is relatively associated with governmental actions thereby compromising the government and public officials.

Thank you.

Felicia

http://www.fwlaw.com/news/186-tort-law-united-states
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/immunity/FTC_v_1983.htm
https://www.pagepate.com/experience/civil-litigation/section-1983-and-bivens-liability/

REPLY TO CO-STUDENT

I agree that it effectively changes a thought. Anyone who conspires to murder is a threat to the whole populace. I agree that the ripple effect is there and being cloaked, disguised and deliberately nurtured in recruits and the vulnerable youth.

I agree that something that happened in a few minutes changes everyone life and not always for the better. Further I agree that these events leave internal scars, emotional baggage and generates a thristing hate to hurt someone. Viewing criminal acts against one causes severe levels of indifference and become common place acts that are accepted by all. Learning to take a stand against wrongful death and murder is the only way to prevent emulation.

Torts and Federal Section 1983 are comparatively the same because they are addressing wrongs and violation of constitutional rights guaranteed to everyone. Sometimes it is not the act of monetary compensation but the right to protest in a country of EQUALITY.

Thank you.

Felicia

REPLY TO CO-STUDENT

I appreciate your point but the death penalty is a major deterrent when a state has nothing but incarceration and early parole. I am agreeable with instilling the death penalty in this state (Michigan) and enforcing because high rates of murder and lack of concern and care for people as a whole but viewed as a minimal part causes more violence, secrecy and treachery. The lack of concept that these acts of criminality will not hit them one day does not dawn on them.

I agree but there are sometimes federal agents who have unfortunately crossed the line and became involved in torts and suffered the consequences. Also, there are so many torts that exist they are too numerous to list.

Thank you.

Felicia

REPLY TO CO-STUDENT

I agree that the police can be an intricate part because of accusation of police brutality, assault and infliction of emotional distress, etc. Also, constitutional rights can be violated by state and federal law with torts an applicable part also. Proving the level of governmental involvement is the most difficult part but is an inclusive factor that cannot be overlooked.

I agree that mass killing of individuals deserve the death penalty for it is an assault and war against this country. If the investigation proves the person(s) is guilty without a doubt then it is God's will.

Thank you.

Felicia