During the past three decades the issue of capital punishment has been very controversial inside the United States. During 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was unconstitutional because it was a form of “cruel and unusual punishment.” However, this decision did not last long; in July 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment did not violate any parts of the Constitution. Executions as they had before 1972 resumed again. Since then 180 prisoners have been executed. The United States Supreme Court should abolish the death penalty because it is a form of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Under our current U.S. Constitution which has been around for over 200 years, prisoners of the government cannot be subjected to any kind of punishment which is deemed cruel and unusual. However all the forms of capital punishment that the government uses are questionable as to whether or not they are legal according to the Constitution. Forms of capital punishment that are still used in the United States include hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, and lethal injection. With hangings a rope is attached to a persons neck proceeded with them being dropped from a certain height with the other end of the rope attached to something higher than them. The result is either strangulation which can take a while or complete decapitation. With the firing squad option a prisoner is tied to a chair and blinded. After this a firing squad composed most of the time of five individuals fires gun shots at a target attached to the prisoners chest (ACLU).
The most widely used form of execution has been electrocution. With this method of elect…
… middle of paper …
… obtain its goal. Because the death penalty fails its main objective and because of the reason stated above it should be abolished.
American Civil Liberties Union. “Briefing Paper Number 8.” gopher://gopher.pipeline.com:70/00/society/aclu/publications/papers/8.
Associated Press. “PD Chiefs: Death Penalty Fails”. news:[email protected]:Thu, 23 Feb 95 4:40:09 PST.
Bedau, Hugo Adam. “The Case Against The Death Penalty”.
Blumstein, Alfred and Jacqueline Cohen. Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. National Academy of Sciences: Washington, D.C., 1978.
Van den Haag, Ernest. Punishing Criminals: Concerning a Very Old and Painful Question. Basic Books, Inc.: New York, 1975.
The Ethics of TiVo, DVR, and ReplayTV
The Ethics of TiVo, DVR, and ReplayTV
Abstract: After a significant amount of debate and lawsuits about copyright and ethical issues surrounding VCRs in the 1980s, manufacturers and content-providers began to relax as consumers widely purchased the devices and in turn, began renting more videos. In the end, everyone won as VCRs created a new movie rental market and also benefited consumers. But these days, technology does not need to be revolutionary to scare people and cause controversy; it only needs to be evolutionary. In 1999, two companies – TiVo and Replay – introduced a slightly fancier VCR-like device called a digital video recorders (DVR) or a personal video recorder. While the DVRs may not seem much different from VCRs, they are causing lawmakers to look at past copyright cases all over again in a new light and also are managing to wreak havoc on past fair-use and privacy precedents. This paper explores the ethical and privacy considerations with regard to DVRs and how small increments in technology can generate a large amount of controversy.
In the late 1970s, Sony introduced a technology called a videocassette recorder (VCR) to the American public. The product was revolutionary because before its introduction, recording television programs for the average consumer was impossible. The new device created a large amount of controversy. Suddenly, people could record and copy television shows and movies and do with the content what they pleased. Film studios and television networks feared the consequences of the consumer-empowering VCRs. After a significant amount of debate and lawsuits about copyright and ethical issues surrounding VCRs, manufacturers and content-providers began to relax as consumers widely purchased the devices and in turn, began renting more videos.i In the end, everyone won as VCRs created a new movie rental market and also benefited consumers.
These days, technology does not need to be revolutionary to scare people and cause controversy; it only needs to be evolutionary, in that large technological leaps are not as important. In 1999, two companies – TiVo and Replay – introduced a slightly fancier VCR-like device called a digital video recorders (DVR) or a personal video recorder.ii These devices essentially duplicate the functionality of VCRs, but make them slightly easier to use. Now, consumers can choose to record a television show by name and for a whole season instead of only one episode. The black box records constantly so that users can pause live television and return to pick up where they left off.