1a media exam

1a) Explain how far your understanding of the conventions of existing media influenced the way you created your own media products. Refer to a range of examples in your answer to show how this understanding developed over time.

Through the conduction of thorough analysis into other media products, I was able to identify key conventions and apply and incorporate such conventions into my own work. As a result of this analysis I was able to identify how media products stick to genre, target specific audiences, apply narrative and follow other conventions. For the foundation portfolio I created a magazine front cover, a double page spread and a contents page of a music magazine within the r&b genre. For my advanced portfolio I created a 2 and a half minute trailer for a film within the Horror genre that followed the plot of 2 young boys being targeted by a masked killer in their own home.

For my foundation portfolio, I completed thorough, detailed research into multiple music videos. Songs within the r&b genre have an instant appeal to me, therefore, I watched various music videos including artists such as; Rihanna, Beyoncé, Chris Brown, John Legend etc. Such established artists gave me some indication of conventions such as; clothing, hair and makeup etc. I also researched multiple magazines featuring r&b singers, particularly focusing on the VIBE magazine, which features mostly in r&b and rap genres.  When analysing these magazines, it became apparent that most music magazines feature a large masthead. For example, the VIBE magazine contained a large masthead in an appropriate colour for the colour scheme of that cover page, therefore I was careful when applying this in my own magazine. What also became increasingly clear is the use of a main image in the centre of the page with direct eye contact from the people featured.  For my main image I used two teenage males looking directly to the audience, which as aforementioned, is a common convention in music magazines. There is evidence of typical conventions seen in my cover, this includes the date of issue, bar code, teasing contents, price etc., all that are typically expected however are still necessary for any music magazine. What become perceptible was the use of advertising competitions and prizes, therefore I decided to include this is my own product. I offered the chance to win a watch the throne IPad case, therefore, enticing the audience to purchase my magazine.

My advanced portfolio required much more analytic detail and consideration when creating the product. I considered theorists such as Propp and Todorov when creating my group and I’s trailer. Todorov said there are 3 stages to a movie. The equilibrium, the disruption and finally the resolution. When creating the plot for our trailer, our group decided on a mutual agreement to incorporate this theory into our trailer. Therefore, we would begin with the equilibrium introducing the 2 main characters, and offering more relaxed and tranquil scenes to offer a sensation of comfort. Then we would have the disruption where the antagonist would attack the protagonists and reveal himself to the audience. As it is a trailer however we were careful not to reveal the ending or propose any spoilers for the audience. The resolution however would be apparent in the film. This theory is apparent in many horror trailers such as Prom night (2008) and Mama (2013).

To film our trailer we have multiple use of new technological equipment. We used a camera that developed high quality footage. We also had access to a tripod which allowed for more focused, professional footage. To edit and construct the movie, we used the app IMovie on the Apple Mac. This was my first experience using a Mac or IMovie therefore we all participated equally in the editing of our final product. I also used platforms such as YouTube for research purposes, this allowed me to view multiple trailers, film clips etc. When conducting my evaluation I used the software Prezi to construct a more visually appealing evaluation of my progress I have made. I used the website blogger to store all of my planning and research, and to upload my final products, including my trailer and two ancillary products. I used labels to organise my work.  When analysing trailers I used the Microsoft publisher document to create PowerPoints analysing the trailers, I would then upload them onto slide share where I could embed them into blogger. I found PowerPoints offered a more visually aiding analytic construction then if I was to write a written report on the trailer.

A key convention of media trailers is the music. Music can create the mood of any scene and is one of the most important considerations when creating a trailer. Our chosen music was identified more around the antagonist, He was created to represent eeriness and creepiness, which is the reason for him wearing a mask. He is not just a typical intruder, he is there for a higher purpose. Therefore, we chose the song Maybe by the Ink Spots. The tone of this soundtrack gave off an eerie vibe and we thought it would be compatible with our trailer. We gained most of our inspiration from the trailer- The strangers (2008)), whom again had a similar soundtrack and featured 3 antagonists invading someone’s home in masks. Our antagonist wore an all-black suit and a homemade mask, which I believe portrayed an eerie vibe. The use of the black are typical colours of a burglar, therefore, we felt this was important to include when designing the costume for our antagonist.

Overall, I believe both products have been drastically influenced by existing media and their conventions. I gained a significant amount of inspiration from existing music magazine trailers when creating my product and this helped me greatly create an image I was satisfied with. For my advanced portfolio, the use of subtle conventions in trailers allowed my group and I to construct a successful trailer that offered existing theories and conventions from start to finish. I now have a developed understanding not only of conventions of music magazine, but also of movie trailers.

english 2011

June 2011 exam

After comparing and analysing texts A, B and C, I became aware that the child- Briony was 21 months categorising her in the two-word stage meaning she can only produce two word utterances, she will not have the capacity to produce full sentences yet. In text A she is in the company of others as she is at a family friend’s house. Therefore, it is likely that she will be speaking more and extended her vocabulary to impress a bigger audience. In text B and C, Briony is at home with her mother, therefore she will simply be in the comfort of her own home and will be spontaneously speaking and mumbling other than speaking to her best ability. Therefore, as this is a much more relaxed environment we can expect Briony to be less enthusiastic to show off her vocabulary as there are no unusual people there to impress. There are a range of omitted words displayed in all 3 texts. Examples of this are portrayed in text A where she says “Dad, look ice cream.” She is simply demanding here the attention of her father to look at her ice cream, instead that phrase should have been “Dad, look at my ice cream.” In text B it reads “a dummy mummy, dummy mummy” Again she is simply demanding her dummy, she is just stating what she wants as opposed to asking for it, which is a typical feature of child language within this stage. In text C Briony states “ah its mine… Moose” Again there is a clear limitation as to the standardisation of Brionys speaking, and she is ultimately speaking in two word utterances. Brinoy’s language consists mainly of nouns. She is consistently addressing people she says e.g. “Mummy or Daddy” and pointing to things and places e.g. cupboard, Mr. Moose etc. This is common as 60% of children’s first words consist of nouns/names. In text B Bryony is very dismissive of her .2mother’s request when her mother asks her to say please she responds “Now, now” This was expressed in Browns theory. In 1976 Brown carried out a study which of two-word stage of babies from0 all over the world. He stated that there was negation, and a certain amount of denial, for example children would be very dismissive of their requests, which is what is expressed in text B. This, according to Brown is a typical feature of child language during the two-word stage. In text C we see evidence of omitted words; there is constant use of phonology used within the 3 texts. Most children learn vowels first therefore these will be evident in their speech. For example, in text A it reads “Go bo-bo. Bye bye” Here we see clear signs of her trying to spell out the word using alternative imaginary terms such as ‘bo-bo’. This relates to Berko-Gleasons theory, which states that children will understand newly invented words, and understand the true context of what they mean.

medical ethics essay

Is it old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics?

There is ongoing conflict between religion and science. Religion tells us what we should do whereas science tells us what we can do, therefore, it makes no sense to allow religion to overrule science. If we consider the medical study of euthanasia, religion would prevent its legalisation as it not compatible with religious principles and teachings, therefore, this is preventing us from developing in scientific discoveries and experiments. I am in full agreement that it is old fashioned to regard sanctity of life as the guiding following principle in medical ethics due to its dependency on God whom there is no evidence for, and its lack of universality. A guiding principle like quality of life would be a much more suitable approach.

The view from sanctity of life is an intrinsic view meaning life is intrinsically valuable and good because of what it is. Biblical quotes in support of this are Augustine, “Life is a precious gift from God and not ours to dispose of as we wish.” Also Job, “If God is the author of life then it follows that He should determine when it ends.” These quotes are essentially stating that God is the creator and the giver of life, therefore we as humans do not have the right to end it. If we relate this to the medical study of euthanasia, the argument of sanctity of life would be in full disagreement. Euthanasia requires the killing of another human therefore this goes against Gods plans and therefore is not compatible with religious principles and beliefs. There are certain strengths to this argument such as t treats all life, regardless of external factors, as valuable. On the other hand, there are certain flaws to this argument. The argument of sanctity of life rests its faith in the belief of God, and as there is no valuable, empirically observable evidence for Gods existence, the argument is instantly flawed. To add, we already interfere with Gods plans when we save people’s lives, as quoted by Daniel Maguire “We already interfere with Gods plan when we save lives, so why not interfere to end them.” Thus concluding, if it is helping that person or freeing them from pain, why shouldn’t this rule apply in such circumstances? Overall, I believe the weaknesses of this argument prove why it is old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics due to their dependency on a divine entity in which there is no evidence for and the contradictory nature of the argument.

The argument from quality of life is the extrinsic view that life is special because of what it can do. If we consider this view to the case study of Reg Crew, we arrive at conclusions that this principle is supportive of the medical study of euthanasia. Crew suffered from motor neurone disease leaving hum completely paralysed and completely dependent on his wife for care. Therefore, he felt his life was no longer valuable and opted for euthanasia. This argument does have some strength, for example, it respects the choices and wishes of the individual as they are the ones most affected by the outcome of their decisions. There are however some weaknesses to this argument, including its subjective nature. This was perceived in the case study of Daniel James. James was a 23 year old rugby player who was left paralysed from the chest down after a spinal injury in a rugby scrum. James felt his life was no longer worth living due to his paralysis, therefore, he chose to end his life at Dignitas- the euthanasia clinic.  People felt that James was too young to end his life, and that his injuries were not sufficient enough that he could qualify for euthanasia. For example, Matt Hampson suffered similar injuries and went onto live a very promising life running a successful charity website and raising money for people suffering similar injuries, concluding that what one person may think is a poor quality of life another may disagree with. To further this view, who knows what kind of medical discoveries could have been made in years to come that could have benefited James’ injuries in some way. To add, what about those who can’t express their own autonomy, for example if we look at the case study of Richard Rudd. Rudd was left completely paralysed and brain damaged after a motorcycle accident, He had always expressed that he would want to die if He was ever left in such a state, therefore his family was fighting for his life machine to be turned off. However, when He was asked the question of whether He wanted to die he communicated with his eyes stating He wanted to live. Therefore, this indicates how people who cannot express their own autonomy raises mass issues. A quote in summary of this is- Boyle, "A person in  a pvs still has bodily life which is good in itself." To conclude, this could lead to a slippery where all the imperfect members of society are euthanasia. On the other hand, these weaknesses are easily rebutted. In response to Daniel James it should not matter if people do not agree with your decision for euthanasia as they are not the ones ultimately affected, therefore, their disagreement is irrelevant if it was that person wants to do. To add, subjectivity only poses a problem when the person cannot express their own autonomy and these are the minority, therefore why should the majority suffer. Finally, to conclude, the Netherlands has legal euthanasia and this is not a holocaust like state as quoted by Helgha Khuse, therefore, why would this be any different if it was legalised in the UK. Overall I believe this argument would be a much more sustainable leading principle as it is universally applicable and considers the individual despite any other circumstance.

The argument from Autonomy states that life belong to the individual as they are the ones most affected by the outcomes of their decisions. This was summarised by J.S.Mill who quoted “If I am the owner of my own life then I have the autonomy to dispose of it as I wish.” This argument would therefore agree with euthanasia, as like autonomy, euthanasia respects the wishes of the individual. There are overwhelming strengths to this argument, such as; it respects the wishes of the person most affected. There are some flaws to this view, Plato argued that “suicide pollutes society.” He said that the more people who opt for suicide the less people there will be to contribute to society. To add, it devalues the sick and disabled from society and portrays them of less value than other people stating how some people are legible for death and others are not. On the other hand, Hume argued that “A person who withdraws from society does no harm, He only ceases to do good.” Here is arguing that a caring society should respect the wishes of the individual when what they are proposing does not directly harm anyone else. Overall, I believe this argument highlights how it is old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics as argument like autonomy are more appealing in a modern society as they benefit everyone, unlike religious principles which only appeal to followers of God.

The view of utilitarianism follows the principle “The greatest good for the greatest number.” It claims that life has no intrinsic value and what benefits the majority is best. This argument would agree with euthanasia if universal utility was achieved, For example, in the case of Reg Crew, who as completely dependent on his wife, his decision to end his life would have inevitable served the majority as it freed Crew from his mental torment and his wife did not have to bear the burden of his permanent care or have to see him suffer anymore. Therefore, in cases like this, utilitarianism would be in favour of euthanasia. There are strengths to this argument, for example, it is a clear non-religious principle that offers a clear method for decision making. There are indeed overwhelming weaknesses to this argument. The minority are left vulnerable and unaccounted for. Also, this theory relies on predicting the consequences, and these are not always reliable. For example, a woman may have an abortion believing it will bring her happiness, but what if she is left infertile by this procedure? Widespread utility will not have been achieved. To add, some things are intrinsically wrong no matter how much utility the case. For example, the Holocaust was necessary for Germans in helping them win the war, however, this does not justify the murder of over 6 million Jews. These weaknesses however are easily overpowered by the overwhelming strengths and responses. There is no guiding rule that will please everyone, at least this theory attempt’s to please to majority. The theory is similar to Western democracy, which prides itself on pleasing the majority. To conclude, the declaration of human rights has been put in place to prevent crimes of such nature from ever re-occurring, therefore, this theory would never result in such drastic amount of misery. Overall, I believe this argument seeks to indicate how it is old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics as they do not benefit the majority, unlike utilitarianism which ultimately seeks to please the majority in all it does, and it is a secular argument meaning it can be universally applied.

The argument of doctor’s integrity looks at how doctors may be affected by things that they have to do. This was seen in the analogy of Jim and the Indians displayed by Bernard Williams “Jim can either do nothing and let 20 Indians die, or He can kill 1 to save 19, but what about the effect on his character.” This is ultimately suggesting that doctors, especially those in the field of euthanasia do have to complete hard tasks to benefit the majority, and it does change the perspective of their character and how people perceive them, but they still do it to benefit that person. There are strengths to this argument such as it allows us to consider the effects on the persona administrating the treatment. There are overwhelming flaws to this argument for example, it is the patient who is most affected, not the doctor, therefore, how people perceive them or how they feel is ultimately irrelevant. To add, patients seek clinical skill-not moral guidance from their doctors. To further this view, this could go too far. For example, some doctors have already refused to prescribe the contraception pill on the ground of their religious beliefs. These weaknesses are however easily disputed by the strengths of this argument. It is possible to protect both the doctor and the patient. An example of this is the 1967 abortion act, this legislation allowed doctors who did not want to permit abortions to refuse to complete the act, however, patients could refer to another doctor who felt comfortable permitting abortions. Overall I believe this argument proves why it is old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics as it does not consider the effects of the patient or the doctor, it simply looks at whether it is compatible with their religious views.

To conclude, I believe it is old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics, Science is based on fact and evidence, whereas religion is dependent on a faith in which there is no scientific evidence for, concluding that it should not be allowed to rule medicine. Religious beliefs on a modern society do not apply to the masses, as people are moving away from the study of the bible and religious views, therefore, a universally applicable theory like the quality of life would be a much more appealing guiding principle.

English coursework year 12

One day, by Georgia Creevy

 

One day, we will live in a society where a man can hold the hand of another man, without judgement, without comment, without hate. One day we will live in a society where a women can walk down the Aisle, to meet her bride, to make a commitment, to make a promise, without the disapproval of others. One day, a child can leave school to greet his fathers, without the risk of being bullied, without the dismissal of others. And when this day comes, justice will be exercised, and happiness will be achieved.

In a society adopting injustice, where will the final straw be drawn? How many more gays, lesbians, homosexuals, fags, bi-sexuals will have to hide their sexual orientation because society won’t accept them? How many more gays, lesbians, homosexuals, fags, bi-sexuals will have to enter a process of mental torture because they aren’t ‘normal’? How many more gays, lesbians, homosexuals, fags, bi-sexuals will walk down the street with their head down because they are ASHAMED of who they truly are?

We have come so far, we have tackled the issue of racism, we have tackled the issue of gender inequality, and we will tackle the issue of homophobia. In the modern world that we live in, it is almost unbelievable that there is still prejudice towards same sex relationships. We turn our backs on these people as they don’t fit in with the norms of society, we subject them to a life of isolation from the world, because we don’t agree with what they do, who they are, what life they lead. Who gave us this authority to treat another being this way? They are still beings, they are no different from you are me. We are all equal.

Imagine, just imagine your brother, you son, your father, imagine they are walking home from work, imagine its dark, imagine they are alone. Then, just imagine a figure walking towards them, imagine this figure is holding a knife, imagine this figure attacks your brother, your son, your father, imagine them lying on the ground, imagine them calling for help, desperate and alone. You would help, without thought or question, wouldn’t you? Now imagine they were gay, does your opinion change? Do you leave them to die? The answer is no, you help that person, because that person is a human being, that person deserves to live, that person is NO different from anyone else!

There are increasing numbers of victims of homophobic attacks, however the media do not publicise this. We read the news about racially motivated attacks, or domestic abuse attacks, however what about those who fall victim to ‘gay bashing’ or ‘bullying.’ 15 year old Jamie Hubley took his own life as he was made to feel worthless by relentless bullies. He was victimised every day leaving him in a constant state of depression, he only wanted someone to love him for who he was. Jamie was 15, He was someone’s son, He had his whole life ahead of him, a life he felt was no longer worth living because society wouldn’t accept him because he was gay.  He is not the only victim subject to this form of bullying, suicide due to homophobic bullying is a common issue, and it needs to be stopped. However, we, you and me, can only do something about it.

I believe one day, this inequality within society will be solved, one day kids like Jamie will feel like their life is worth living. One day, we will look back at society and wonder how this treatment was every accepted, how we could subject a person to such cruelty. When this day is I do not know, but this day will come, and when it does, justice will be exercised and happiness will be achieved.


Source: http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_77432/MARTIN_LUTHER_KING_I_HAVE_A_DREAM_extract_from_speech.html

FINAL EPQ

What are the philosophical and ethical responses to capital punishment?

The dictionary term for capital punishment is “the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime.”  There is ongoing dispute when regarding the controversial study of capital punishment. Out of a possible 196 countries in the world only 58 still have legislation o the death penalty, Since 1976 there have been 1226 executions in the US alone. (Independence educational publishers 2011, volume 223 pg. 38). This ultimately shows mass diversion over the issue of whether the death penalty is considered right or wrong, Even though there are a higher percentage of countries that have opted for its abolition, there are still a mass number of countries favorable of it. The countries that still have the legal death penalty such as; USA, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Thailand etc., find that it meets its aims of punishment.  There are 6 aims of punishment being; retribution, deterrence, protection, reformation and vindication. Retribution is the concept of 'taking revenge', There is an established philosophy that suggests 'an eye for an eye', ultimately suggesting a punishment fit for the committed crime. The Old Testament law of Talion taught  this philosophy however was contradicted when Jesus goes on to tell his disciples to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, rather than seeking revenge. Retribution therefore is not consistent with Christian discipleship. (http://www.ndre.co.uk/aims_of_punishment.htm#Retribution) The theory suggests if you take someone’s life, the idea of retribution would be that you ultimately owe that person a life, therefore yours would be taken from you. In theory this philosophy seems fair and applicable, but what about the effect on those authorising and permitting the criminals death, this wouldn’t be contradictory as you are ultimately committing the crime that the criminal is being executed for-murder. If we look at Bernard Williams’s analogy of Jim in the Indians, "I could no nothing and let 20 Indians die or I could kill 1 and save 19, but what about the effect on my character? This is ultimately suggesting it would be within the greater good to kill this one person to provide justice and safety to the others, however, what about the effect of character on the person administrating their death. Deterrence is the idea of putting criminals off re-offending for fear of the consequences, For example with the death penalty in place, this may act as a deterrent for other criminals whom have considered murder. This view is consistent with Christian teaching as long as the deterrent is proportionate to the crime. There are controversial rebuttals to this Christian belief; one is stated by Albert Peirrepoint quoted by Amnesty International. I do not believe that any one of the hundreds of executions I carried out has in any way acted as a deterrent against future murder. Capital punishment in my view achieved nothing except revenge." (a punishment to fit the crime, Franklin Watts, pg.21)There is also the open letter to Amnesty International to US president Clinton, 1994 "...death sentences in the USA are imposed disproportionately on the poor; on members of ethnic minorities, on the mentally ill or retarded, and on those without adequate legal counsel." (A punishment to fit the crime, Franklin Watts, pg.21) This statement is extremely controversial as the issue of race and disability inevitably raises a sense of awkward debate and you have to be cautious of what you are saying, especially if it is open to public hearing.

To further this argument, many people do not think about the consequences of their actions before committing a crime, it is simply out of an act of passion or anger therefore, the idea of capital punishment as a deterrent act would not process in a criminals mind during the act of murder. The aim of protection is the idea that society is protected from the activities of criminals, this can consist of either prison or capital punishment. This idea of 'protection' is compatible with Christian teachings however, when it concerns the issue of the death penalty there is often controversy within the Christian belief. Protection is ultimately the strongest support for capital punishment as it enables the victim and their family’s security and safeness from their offender. A quote that agrees protection works was from Michael Howard, British home secretary 1994 “Researchers have looked at a sample of burglars who had been given a community sentence. They found that if they had gone to prison instead, this would have prevented between 3 and 13 crimes. Per burglar. Per year.” (A punishment to fit the crime, Franklin Watts, pg. 18), This does provide some credibility to the idea that prsion acts as a aim of protection, as without this, criminals would be allowed to reoffend, however, if we apply this to capital punishment, I believe it proves mainly that there are other substitutes than capital punishment, such as; imprisonment.  To add, what about those who forgive their offender. If we look at the case of Anthony walker whom was brutally murdered in a racially motivated attack, his mother, a believer in Christianity, chose to forgive her sons murderer, therefore, she would be in opposition to the death penalty as she would have no more resentment or bitterness towards her son’s killer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/a-mothers-forgiveness-for-her-sons-killers/439.html Christianity teaches "to err is human, to forgive, divine." Alexander Pope (http://christian-quotes.ochristian.com/Forgiveness-Quotes/) Reformation is the concept that imprisonment can allow criminals to reform into law abiding citizens. This view is consistent with the Christian views of repentance for ones sins. If we look at the study of Saul to Paul, Saul had a conversion experience which converged him from his vicious threats against the Lords disciples to him changing his name to Paul and spreading Christianity around the world, therefore, Christians would be favourable of the idea of reformation. This idea of punishment would be against capital punishment. There is evidence of criminals reforming as well as there is evidence of them re offending. If we look at the case of James Bulger, who was tortured and killed by Robert Thomson and Jon venables, they received a minimum of 15 years imprisonment for their murder, after their release in 2001 after serving only 8 years due to their age, Venables went on to breach a fundamental condition of his license by visiting Merseyside, he was also taking excessive amounts of drugs and downloading child pornography. In 2008, he was found with a large amount of cocaine and received a caution, In 2010 He returned to prison for “extremely serious allegations” which was suspected to be child pornography. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger). This shows that there is a high risk in allowing criminals to re-enter a civilised society as some are not capable of reform, however, there is evidence that suggests some criminals can reform, if we look at the study of Nicky Cruz, whom was a member of a gang, he converted to Christianity and became a Christian evangelist, proving that ultimately there is room for reformation and that Capital punishment does not always seem to be the best option. The aim of vindication is the idea that you are permitting the law by punishing those who commit crimes. This aim is a fair strategy and is compatible with capital punishment, as if someone murders another human being, surely by taking their life from them would show equal balance. However, what about the universal idea that killing is wrong? We punish those for murdering another human being but then we make exceptions for issues like capital punishment, which is still ultimately killing another human being, through legal authority. Surely there are other ways to deal with such crimes, such as life imprisonment etc.

If we refer to earlier century capital punishment, the process of legal murder was of much more brutality than what it is today. In England, the punishment for treason was hanging, drawing and quartering, and sometimes the dismembered bod parts were publicised as an act of deterrence, this was abolished in the 19^th century and instead criminals were hung and then beheaded, beheading was usually reserved for the highborn and was last used in 1747, with Lord Lovat. Hanging was the most common form of capital punishment from Saxon times to the 20^th century in Britain, however it was not the only one, in 1401 there was a law that established burning as the penalty for heresy, which was “belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.” This ultimately suggests that in earlier century Britain, they followed principles of religion and any objection against it was worthy of severe punishment. In modern day society, there is a higher secular approach to the law,  and not everyone follows teachings of religious principles.

 

 

 

(http://www.localhistories.org/capital.html). If we look at the methods of capital punishment now, there is a mass differentiation of methods. The most common modern day method of execution is the lethal injection. In America alone, since 1976 there have been 1367 lethal injections with the last being Juan Chevaz on 2/12/14. The last man to be electrocuted was Allen Davies in Florida in July 8, 1999. This is important to consider as Florida has the highest number of inmates on death row in the USA. There have been 3 cases of hanging used as well as 3 cases of firing squad. Lethal injection was discussed by Miami surgeon Leonidas Koniaris, whom said “My impression that lethal injection as practised in the US now is no more humane than the gas chamber or electrocution, which have both been deemed inhumane,.” This ultimately perceives that the attempt of making lethal injection as a humane way of execution fails, and infact there are no truly humane ways of killing another being. I am favour of this belief, as I do not believe the murdering of another human being under legal authority or not, is in any way justifiable or humane. If we do compare it to earlier century punishment of hung drawn and quartered, the use of lethal injection does seem a less brutal alternative, however it still commits the act of murder, which I so not believe in a modern society is applicable and desirable.

There is mixed opinions when applying religious beliefs to the idea of capital punishment. Some religions are in favour whilst others are against it. If we consider the key religions of Christianity, Buddhism, Islamism, Hinduism and Judaism, you will discover that there are a range of mixed opinions when the issue of capital punishment is raised. Christianity rests their faith in the teachings of God and the holy bible. When regarding the death penalty, there are mixed opinions on whether capital punishment is right or wrong. Throughout history, Christians condemned the fact that capital punishment was a part of everyday life and society. Pope Innocent III stated “The secular power can without moral sin, excersize judgement of blood, provided that it punishes with justice, not out of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation. There is biblical evidence to suggests that supports the death penalty shown in the old and New Testament. In genesis 9:6 there is a quote that reads; "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." This quote is suggesting if you shed the blood of another man, that man has the authority and the power to shed the blood of you, this quote can in theory be applicable as it preaches equality. This is ultimately agreeing with the idea of retribution-"an eye for an eye." In the Old Testament there are 36 capital offences specified including murder, however, Christians are fond of the belief that "Christians say it is inconsistent to preserve murder alone as a capital crime." The New Testament openly talks of the most famous biblical execution, which is Jesus on the cross. In Matthew 15:4 Jesus says "He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die." Even though Jesus does not use violence to exercise his belief or power, there is nowhere in the bible that suggests the state cannot condemn capital punishment. There is a quote in Romans 13:4 that reads does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer" This is a clear and apparent reference to capital punishment which suggests that those who have done wrongly are eligible for capital punishment. The assemblies of God quoted in July 28, 2008 "Opinion in the Assemblies of God on capital punishment is mixed. However, more people associated with the Assemblies of God probably favour capital punishment for certain types of crimes such as premeditated murder than those who would oppose capital punishment without reservation. This consensus grows out of a common interpretation that the Old Testament sanctions capital punishment and nothing in the New Testament negates maximum punishment as society's means of dealing effectively with serious crimes..." (http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000986)If we look at the opinion polls from the years 2001-2004, the data shows that 65% of those who are weekly churchgoers favour capital punishment. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/religion-and-death-penalty)Most Christians who are in favour of the death penalty are of the belief that the state acts out of authority of God whom has the autonomy to dispose of life out of his own freewill. This argument was expressed through the philosophy of St. Augustine. "The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorises killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding or for the representatives of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/capitalpunishment_1.shtml)There is an argument that capital punishment is similar to suicide. The argument is that if a person kills another human being, there are ultimately surrendering their own life to the state if they are caught. Pope Puis XII quoted "Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life." There are also arguments that suggests Christianity is against the idea of capital punishment. Augustine quoted "Life is a precious gift from God and only he has the autonomy to take it away." Father Gino Concetti, L'Osservatore furthered Augustines idea and quoted "In light of the word of God, and thus of faith, life--all human life--is sacred and untouchable. No matter how heinous the crimes ... [the criminal] does not lose his fundamental right to life, for it is primordial, inviolable, and inalienable, and thus comes under the power of no one whatsoever." He is ultimately suggesting there should be no exceptions to the established Christian teaching of 'Thou shalt not kill." All human life is sacred and is not ours to dispose of under any circumstance. There is further argument that the teachings of the bible are inconsistent. The New Testament says that there are 35 crimes that are referable for the death penalty, however, in modern society we would no longer consider such crimes such as; blasphemy, idolatry, magic etc., applicable for the death penalty. The bible speaks of forgiveness and compassion, such as the biblical quote "Love thy neighbour and pray for those who persecute you." However, how can we convey such forgiveness with the death penalty in place? We do not know if these criminals could reform and turn their faith into a supreme being such as God, if they do not have a chance of reformation. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/capitalpunishment_1.shtml). The united Methodist church believes that the power of the church is reformation for criminals who have disobeyed the law; therefore they are in full disagreement with the death penalty. This Christian organisation believes that "all human life is sacred" No matter how your actions have impacted someone else. When law permits the death penalty, any hope of that person reforming is taken away, and they are ultimately devalued from society. They go on to quote "For this reason, we oppose the death penalty (capital punishment) and urge its elimination from all criminal codes." (http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=6385)

 

The teachings of Buddhism do not have an established opinion when regarding the death penalty, they neither agree nor disagree. If we look at Buddhist teachings, it is obvious that the death penalty is not compatible with their beliefs. A quote from the Buddha states "An action, even if it brings benefit to oneself, cannot be considered a good action if it causes physical and mental pain to another being." This does not necessarily relate to the issue of Capital punishment however has a certifiable connotation that it is not moral nor good to cause physical harm if pain to another human being. When discussing life after death Buddhists believe in the process of reincarnation which is that when you die your soul will leave your current body and will be born into a new body. If you have lived a good life then you will be rewarded in your next life, however if you have lived a bad life, you will be somewhat devalued in your future life. Buddhists believe that with the death penalty in place, this will have an effect on both the offender and the punisher. Buddhism teaches that reformation of a criminal is much more desirable than their execution, as it gives them a chance to rectify their mistakes, which is ultimately the paramount importance. Despite such firm belief against the death penalty, there are still some Buddhist influenced countries that continue to use it. An example of this is Thailand. It is essential to consider however that there is no country that considers Buddhism as their official religion. These countries that do support the death penalty however are not always influenced by religion. Politicians have the authority to establish laws such as capital punishment as they believe it brings deterrence to criminals and future convicts. They also may be influenced by the history of that country, if they have had abided by the death penalty in earlier centuries then they are none the wiser to accept it and believe it is a functional part of society. Alarid and Wang states that he contradiction stems from popular and monastic Buddhism, They suggest that Lay Buddhists show complete dedication in their commitments of faith, however, others believe it is superficial and unfitting with daily life. The Buddha Dharma education suggested that Capital punishment entails killing which goes against the Buddhist first precept of 'do not kill.' throughout history there have been devoted Buddhist monarchs who have abolished capital punishment, there are still Buddhist influenced countries that legalise capital punishment however it is incompatible with the teachings of the Buddha. (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd20.htm)                                                                                                     Judaism has a strong disagreement towards the study of the death penalty. During the time when Jewish law operated as a secular and religious jurisdiction, it rarely imposed the death penalty. The death penalty was abolished in Israel in 1954; however, this was with the exception of Nazi war criminals. In the 54 years that Israel has existed as an independent state, only one person has been executed. This person was Adolf Eichman, a Nazi war criminal with particular responsibility for the Holocaust. The Old Testament preached philosophies such as; "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." Exodus 21:23-24, There is a quote in genesis 9:6 that reads "A man who spills human blood, his own blood shall be spilled by man because God made man in His own Image." However, to truly understand the teachings of Jewish law one must read the Torah and consult the Talmud. The rabbis who wrote the Talmud made it exceptionally clear that they were intolerable of the death penalty, they achieved this through teachings of the sanctity of life, the use of emphasis of anti-death philosophies such as 'Thou shalt not kill." Finding alternative punishment for criminals, or compensation for the victims’ families, also imposing procedural barriers that made the death penalty inoperative.                                                                                                             Hinduism has a worldwide established teaching of Ghandi that suggests "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Hindus nor favour nor disregard the death penalty however they do oppose killing, violence and revenge, following the principle of ahisma-non-violence. India still has legislation of the death penalty for reasons similar to Buddhist influenced countries, such as political influence, history of the country etc. There was controversy raised with the debate on capital punishment in India through the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee who had been sentenced for rape and murder, however his plea of freedom was denied on 4 August 2004 and he was executed by hanging on August 14, 2004. This caused mass uproar in India as it was the first hanging since 1955 where murder convicts Kartik Sil and Sukumar Burman were hung. There are over 100 people presently facing death row in India however this is suggested considerably low, and the death penalty is only used in the rarest of cases.                                                                                                                        Islamism ultimately accepts capital punishment. The Qur-an states “....Take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does He command you, so that you may learn wisdom” Muslims are of the belief that capital punishment is a harsh sentence however is classified as necessary in severe cases. In Islamic countries popular ways of execution are; beheading, firing squad, hanging and stoning, in some countries these executions are public to act as a deterrent from future crimes. Some extremist Islamic countries practise the strict Sharia Law which uses capital punishment as a way of deterrence for the largest variety of crimes. The more moderate Islamic countries such as; Albania and Bosnia still have legal capital punishment however are abolitionist in practise. The death penalty can only be applicable for two specified crimes which are; intentional murder: in this case the punishment of that person is left up to the family, and Fasad fil-ardh, which is spreading mischief in the land/ disobeying the state, these crimes often consist of; terrorism, piracy, rape, adultery and homosexual activity. While Islam remains a retentionist country, there is a minority view that is favourable of the abolition if the death penalty. The Ulamas do not always agree on the social context in which texts should be applied, also, Sharia law is often used by repressive powers that attack women and the poor, as there is still a high standard of sexism that remains prominent in some Islamic countries, due to their traditional values and beliefs. There have also been incidences where the death penalty has been used without the criminal’s access to a lawyer, which is contradictory to the concept of Islamic justice. In Geneva, on 28th April 2005, there was a call for a moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty. This was, however, rejected by the Legal Research Commission of the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the world's leading Islamic learning centre.                                                                                                                                 There has been a mass example of miscarriages of Justice and if we look at the death penalty, it is not uncommon to have executed the innocent. In the UK alone between the years 1950-1953 there were 3 exonerations and one pardon with compensation, this may not seem like a considerable amount however the execution rate was only 17 per year, so to have 3 miscarriages of justice was completely inexcusable.  I will focus on 3 UK cases that consist of; Timothy Evans, Ruth Ellis and Derek Bentley. Timothy Evans was a Welshman whom was tried and convicted to death by hanging in 1950, for which he was wrongfully accused of murdering his wife and daughter at 10 Rillington place. During his conviction Evans led suspicions to his neighbour John Christie. 3 years after his execution Christie found to be a serial killer, and the who had a number of other women buried at his home-10 Rillington place.  Christie later confessed to the murder of Mrs.Evans, and an official inquiry in 1966 established that Christie had also murdered Evans’ daughter. Soon after this realisation, Timothy Evans received a posthumous pardon for his execution, however, was this enough to justify the murder of an innocent man? There was a variety of unfortunate incidents that led to Timothy Evans; trail, the most considerable his lack of education. Evans had always struggled with school, and received a tubercular verruca when he was 8, which caused him to be missing more of his education. Consequently he was unable to write or read anything beyond his name as an adult. He was also prone to making stories about himself as a way of boosting self-esteem.  On 30^th November, 1949 Evans informed the police that his wife had died in unfortunate circumstances. His first confession was that he had accidently murdered his wife by giving her by giving her a certain fluid he was given by a man that would abort the foetus. He then claimed he disposed of her remains in a sewer drain outside 10 Rillington place. He said he arranged for his daughter-Geraldine to be cared for and then he went to Wales to stay with relatives. When police examined the drain outside the front of the building, however, they found nothing and, furthermore, discovered that the manhole cover required the combined strength of all three officers to remove it. Evans was re-questioned and changed his story yet again. He claimed that John Christie, his neighbor had offered to perform an abortion on his wife-Beryl; however, Christie had claimed the abortion was botched and had killed his wife. He suggested he would dispose of the body and made plans for Geraldine to stay with a couple in East Acton. He told Evans to stay with relatives in Wales as abortion was illegal in the UK. When Evans returned to 10 Rillington place to see Geraldine, Christie refused contact. The place performed a preliminary search at 10 Rillington place after Evans second confession. On 2^nd December, police found the bodies of Beryl and Geraldine, which the cause of death had both been through strangling. When Evans was shown the clothing of the bodies, and was informed of their cause of death, he confessed to their murders. Ludovic Kennedy suggested that Evans’ confessions were fabricated and dictated to Evans by the investigating officers. The time of questioning was over late evening and early morning which added to his physical and emotional detriment, he also had issues with his self-esteem therefore being questioned under pressure would have only added to his emotions. Evans also stated in court that he was threatened with violence by the police, and it is likely that they coerced Evans to his false confession; there was also a lack of forensic evidence, especially considering Christie had human bones-a human thigh bone of 16 long and 14 ft. wide in his back garden.

The case of Ruth Ellis has been one of the most controversial British executions known to history, simply because her execution was left open to question, there was established right or wrong answer. Ellis had an uneasy childhood, being one of six children. When she was 17 she fell pregnant to a Canadian soldier who stopped sending money about a year after her son’s birth. As she could not financially support this child he was sent to live with Ellis’ mother. Ellis then went onto work as a nightclub hostess at the Court Club, through nude modeling work, which had a significantly superior pay than her previous employment.  Morris Conley, the manager of the club blackmailed his employers into sleeping with him, which led into work in the prostitution industry. In 1950, Ellis fell pregnant by one of her regular customers; however she had her pregnancy illegally terminated and returned to work. On 8^th November she married 41-year old George Ellis- a customer at the Court Club. In 1951, George was a violent alcoholic and was very jealous and possessive. Ruth gave birth to daughter Georgina in 1941 however separated with George soon after. In 1953 she became manager of a nightclub, and met David Blakely, whom she was a victim of domestic abuse to. Ellis fell pregnant again however had an abortion due to the lack of commitment she felt she received from Blakely. In January 1955, Ellis lost another child induced by a punch in the stomach from Blakely during an argument. On 10^th April 1955, Ellis followed Blakely to Magdala. “At around 9:30 pm David Blakely and his friend Clive Gunnell emerged. Blakely passed Ellis waiting on the pavement when she stepped out of Henshaws Doorway, a newsagent next to the Magdala. He ignored her when she said "Hello, David," then shouted "David!" Through a moment of passion, Ellis shot Blakely 5 times and then handed herself in to the police. The case of Ruth Ellis raised such controversy as there was a divide in opinion of whether she was truly eligible for the death penalty. Some people believed that her execution was justified as she did take out a gun and intentionally kill her husband, she followed him to Magdala with the gun in her purse and shot him, therefore some people believed it was a pre-planned killing. However, others believe it was instead a crime of passion and that it was a buildup of anger and resentment that led to such a crime. Ellis was a victim of domestic abuse which actually caused her to miscarry due to a punch in her stomach.

 

 

 

 

The case of Derek Bentley rose mass controversy throughout Britain. Bentley first showed signs of academic struggle at Norbury secondary modern school where he failed his eleven-plus examination. Bentley was known to have had a variety of health development problems. During WWII, the house in which in he lived collapsed around him causing serious head injuries and leaving him concussed. In December 1948, his mental age was estimated at 10 years, 4 months; his actual age was 15 years, 6 months. He scored 66 on an IQ test in December 1948 and 77 in 1952. After his arrest in November 1952, further IQ tests were administered to him at Brixton Prison. He was described as "borderline feeble-minded", with a verbal score of 71, a performance IQ of 87 and a full scale IQ of 77. In November 1952, the time of his arrest, Bentley was still considered “quite illiterate.”  On 2^nd November 1952, Bentley and 16 year old companion, Christopher Craig attempted the robbery of warehouse of the Barlow & Parker confectionery company at 27-29 Tamworth Road. Craig was armed with a Colt New Service .455 Webley calibre revolver, and provided Bentley with a knife and knuckle duster. Police were alarmed and Detective Sergeant Frederik Fairfax grabbed hold of Bentley, until Bentley broke free. The next thing to happen has rose mass controversy and is the key event that caused so much division in attitudes about Bentley’s execution. Bentley quoted the phrase “Let him have it” to Craig who then fired a bullet into the arm of the police officer, whom survived the shot. Bentley then alarmed the police officer he had more ammunition, therefore more police officers arrived at the scene. As a result Police Constable Sydney Miles was shot in the head and immediately died, during this time Bentley had refrained from using any of his weapons.  As a result Bentley and Miles were charged with the murder of Police Constable Sydney Miles. They were tried by jury before the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Goddard, at the Old Bailey in London between 9 December and 11 December 1952. The death penalty was considered a capital offence at this time and under 16’s were not admittible, therefore only Bentley was eligible for t=the death penalty if convicted. There were 3 principle points of contention at the trial; the first being; A forensic ballistics expert cast doubt on whether Craig could have hit Miles if he had shot at him deliberately, as the fatal bullet was not found. To add, Craig had used bullets of different under-sized calibres and the sawn-off barrel made it inaccurate to a degree of six feet at the range from which he fired.  Secondly, the phrase “Let him have it Chris” did not have a specified meaning. Even if Bentley said the words, there is no evidence that he was implying “shoot him Chris” He could of instead meant “Let him have the gun, Chris.” Therefore, the use of this lacks a certain support to its evidence, as there is no evidence for its true meaning.  Thirdly, there was the issue of whether Bentley was physically capable to stand trial.  Bentley was referred to a Psychiatrist-Dr Mill, under Maudsley hospital. Hills reports suggested Bentley was illiterate and suggested as almost borderline retarded. However, Matheson The principle medical officer claimed he was of low intelligence however he was still “feeble-minded” and sane, therefore fit to stand trial.  At this time, England was unaware of the concept of diminished responsibility due to retarded development, whereas the Scottish Law did. The jury took 75 minutes before they decided both youths were responsible for the murder of Sydney Miles. Bentley was sentenced to death on 11 December 1952, while Craig was ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure. Craig was released in May 1963 after serving 10 years imprisonment. Bentley’s execution was scheduled for December 1952 but this was postponed to allow for an appeal. Bentley’s lawyers protested for appeal due to his mental age and the fact he did not use his weapons, however Bentley's appeal was unsuccessful on 13 January 1953. The Home Secretary David Maxwell Fyfe, after reading the Home Office psychiatric reports, refused to request clemency from Queen Elizabeth II, despite a petition signed by over 200 of his fellow MPs. Parliament was not allowed to debate Bentley's sentence until it had been carried out. At 9am on 28 January 1953, Derek Bentley was hanged for murder at Wandsworth Prison, London by Albert Pierrepoint. When it was announced the execution had been carried out, there were protests outside the prison and two people were arrested and later fined for damage to property. These case studies were some of the most famous case studies for raising mass controversy. They highlight the problems with the death penalty and act as credibility as to why it has been abolished in so many countries. I am of the opinion that if capital punishment acts as a risk to any innocent man, it should not be sustained; no matter what amount of benefits it brings. The religious belief of Christianity ultimately has ideas for and against the belief in Capital punishment. In genesis 9:6 there is a quote that reads; "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." This is suggesting that whatever harm you cause to a person, that person therefore has the authority to harm you in return. However, this is only applicable to those that directly harm another being, the case studies of Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley who did not directly harm the victim would act as the exception to this rule. However, Ruth Ellis directly killed her lover, despite being a victim of domestic abuse. In Christianity, murder is wrong, and it does not account for motives or personal revenge for killing another human being. Even though the Bible preaches killing is wrong, Some Christians believe that the state acts out of authority of God who has the autonomy to give and take life of his own accord. The teachings of Buddhism would suggest that killing is ultimately wrong as it is not compatible with their teachings. A quote from the Buddha states "An action, even if it brings benefit to oneself, cannot be considered a good action if it causes physical and mental pain to another being." This relates to capital punishment as; even though the execution might bring justice to a victim and their families, it still intentionally causes pain and harm to another human being, which is wrong. Therefore, it is an undeniable fact that Buddhists would believe the punishment of these accused offenders are wrong as; Evans had no attempt what so ever in the murder of his wife and child and was still executed as a result, Bentley did not have any physical input in the murder of the police officer, and was regarded as ‘mentally retarded.’ Ellis on the other hand was controversial as her crime was a crime of passion from a lot of built up anger she felt under the influence of a domestic abusive partner. However Buddhism teaches that harming another person physically or mentally is wrong no matter what amount of good it brings to the person. However, what about the physical and mental pain Ellis received under the treatment of her abusive husband? Should he not be punished for his actions? The teachings of Hinduism believe in the principle of no revenge, Ghandi quoted “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” They also believe in ahisma, which means non-violence. Therefore they ultimately disagree with capital punishment as it acts subsequently as revenge for the victim and their families. If we consider the case of Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans, who were innocent men in the physical crime and both had a low intelligence rate, Hinduism would disagree with their murder, as they would suggest it is an act of violence which is what they disagree with. If we consider the case of Ruth Ellis however, Hinduism disagrees with revenge, and her crime was an act of revenge to her abusive husband, therefore they would disagree with her crime, however, I believe they would also disagree with her punishment as it is not compatible with their beliefs and teachings. Judaism has a strong disagreement with capital punishment therefore within these circumstances Judaism would disagree with them. They preach many anti-death philosophies including ‘thou shalt not kill.” Therefore, in the cases of Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis, Judaism would be against all their punishments. The Qur’an teaches “....Take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law.” This ultimately suggests that you should not take life unless it is justified by law. Therefore, if we look at the case of Timothy Evans, Islamism would disagree with this punishment as he did not directly harm another human being, he was falsely accused and therefore he was not eligible for the death penalty. If we look at the case study of Derek Bentley, He committed theft as he was committing burglary when the crime happened. In Shiriah Law disobeying the state is eligible for death penalty, and theft is a factor of this therefore his initial crime could be worthy of capital punishment. If we look at the case study of Ruth Ellis, she committed intentional murder, which is eligible for the death penalty under Shiria Law, therefore, despite her motive for the killing or whether it was a crime of passion, she still ultimately killed another person and therefore her punishment was justified.

epq

What is the philosophical and ethical response to capital punishment?

The dictionary term for capital punishment is “the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime.”  There is ongoing dispute when regarding the controversial study of Capital punishment. Out of a possible 196 countries in the world only 58 still have legislation o the death penalty, Since 1976 there have been 1226 executions in the US alone. (Independence educational publishers 2011, volume 223 pg 38). This ultimately shows mass diversion over the issue of whether the death penalty is considered right or wrong, Even though there are a higher percentage of countries whom have opted for its abolition, there are still a mass number of countries favorable of it. The countries that still have legible death penalty such as; USA, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Thailand etc., find that it meets its aims of punishment.  There are 6 aims of punishment being; Retribution, Deterrence, protection, reformation and vindication. Retribution is the concept of 'taking revenge', There is an established philosophy that suggests 'an eye for an eye', ultimately suggesting a punishment fit for the committed crime. The Old Testament law of Talion taught this philosophy, however was contradicted when Jesus goes on to tell his disciples to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, rather than seeking revenge. Retribution therefore is not consistent with Christian discipleship. (http://www.ndre.co.uk/aims_of_punishment.htm#Retribution) The theory suggests if you take someone’s life, the idea of retribution would be that you ultimately owe that person a life, therefore yours would be taken from you. In theory this philosophy seems fair and applicable, but what about the effect on those authorising and permitting the criminals death, wouldn’t this be contradictory as you are ultimately committing the crime of what the criminal is being executed for-Murder. If we look at Bernard Williams’s analogy of Jim in the Indians, "I could no nothing and let 20 Indians die or I could kill 1 and save 19, but what about the effect on my character? This is ultimately suggesting it would be within the greater good to kill this       person to provide justice and safety to the others, however, what about the effect of character on the person administrating their death. Deterrence is the idea of putting criminals off re-offending for fear of the consequences, For example with the death penalty in place, this may act as a deterrent for other criminals whom have considered murder. This view is consistent with Christian teaching as long as the deterrent is proportionate to the crime. According to Albert Peirrepoint quoted by Amnesty International. I do not believe that any one of the hundreds of executions I carried out has in any way acted as a deterrent against future murder. Capital punishment in my view achieved nothing except revenge." (a punishment to fit the crime, Franklin Watts, pg.21)There is also the open letter to Amnesty International to US president Clinton, 1994 "...death sentences in the USA are imposed disproportionately on the poor; on members of ethnic minorities, on the mentally ill or retarded, and on those without adequate legal counsel." (a punishment to fit the crime, Franklin Watts, pg.21)To further this argument, many people do not think about the consequences of their actions before committing a crime, it is simply out of an act of passion or anger therefore, the idea of capital punishment as a deterrent act would not process in a criminals mind during the act of murder. The aim of protection is the idea that society is protected from the activities of criminals, this can consist of either prison or capital punishment. This idea of 'protection' is compatible with Christian teachings however, when it concerns the issue of the death penalty there is often controversy within the Christian belief. Protection is ultimately the strongest support for capital punishment as it enables the victim’s security and safeness from their offender. A quote that agrees protection works was from Michael Howard, British home secretary 1994 “Researchers have looked at a sample of burglars who had been given a community sentence. They found that if they had gone to prison instead, this would have prevented between 3 and 13 crimes. Per burglar. Per year.” (a punishment to fit the crime, Franklin Watts, pg. 18), proving that there are alternative ways to deal with criminals without permitting capital punishment. To add, what about those who forgive their offender. If we look at the case of Anthony walker whom was brutally murdered in a racially motivated attack, his mother, a believer in Christianity, chose to forgive her sons murderer, therefore, she would be in opposition to the death penalty as she would have no more resentment or bitterness towards her son’s killer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/a-mothers-forgiveness-for-her-sons-killers/439.html Christianity teaches "to err is human, to forgive, divine." Alexander Pope (http://christian-quotes.ochristian.com/Forgiveness-Quotes/) Reformation is the concept that imprisonment can allow criminals to reform into law abiding citizens. This view is consistent with the Christian views of repentance for ones sins. If we look at the study of Saul to Paul. Saul had a near death experience which converged him from his vicious threats against the Lords disciples to him changing his name to Paul and spreading Christianity around the world, therefore, Christians would be favourable of the idea of reformation. This idea of punishment would be against capital punishment. There is evidence of criminals reforming as well as there is evidence of them re offending. If we look at the case of James Bulger, who was tortured and killed by Robert Thomson and Jon venables, they received a minimum of 15 years imprisonment for their murder, after their release in 2001 after serving only 8 years due to their age, Venables went on to breach a fundamental condition of his license by visiting Merseyside, he was also taking excessive amounts of drugs and downloading child pornography. In 2008, he was found with a large amount of cocaine and received a caution, In 2010 He returned to prison for “extremely serious allegations” which was suspected to be child pornography. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger). This shows that there is a high risk in allowing criminals to re-enter a civilised society as some are not capable of reform, however, there is evidence that suggests some criminals can reform, if we look at the study of Nicky Cruz, whom was a member of a gang, he converted to Christianity and became a Christian evangelist, proving that ultimately there Is room for reformation and that Capital punishment does not always seize to be the best option. The aim of vindication is the idea that you are permitting the law by punishing those who commit crimes. This aim is a fair strategy and is compatible with capital punishment, as if someone murders another human being, surely by taking their life from them would show equal balance. However, what about the universal idea that killing is wrong? We punish those for murdering another human being but then we make exceptions for issues like capital punishment, which is still ultimately killing another human being, through legal authority. Surely there are other ways to deal with such crimes, such as life imprisonment etc.

If we refer to earlier century capital punishment, the process of legal murder was of much more brutality than what it is today. In England, the punishment for treason was hanging, drawing and quartering, and sometimes the dismembered bod parts were publicised as an act of deterrence, this was abolished in the 19^th century and instead criminals were hung and then beheaded, beheading was usually reserved for the highborn and was last used in 1747, with Lord Lovat. Hanging was the most common form of capital punishment from Saxon times to the 20^th century in Britain, however it was not the only one, in 1401 there was a law that established burning as the penalty for heresy, proving that Christianity was well respected and accounted for in early century Britain. (http://www.localhistories.org/capital.html). If we look at the methods of capital punishment now, there is a mass differentiation of methods.















Capital punishment has arose mass debate amongst different religions.

EPQ draft

There are 6 aims of punishment being; Retribution, Detterrence, protection, reformation and vindication. Retribution is the concept of 'taking revenge', There is an established philosophy that suggests 'an eye for an eye', ultimately suggesting a punishment fit for the committed crime. The old Testiment law of Talion taught this philosophy, however was contradcited when Jesus goes on to tell his disciples to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them rather than seeking revenge for wrongs done against them. Retribution therefore is not consistent with Christian discipleship. (ttp://www.ndre.co.uk/aims_of_punishment.htm#Retribution) The theory suggests if you take someones life, the idea of retribution would be that you ultimately owe that person a life, therefore yours would be taken from you. In theory this philosophy seems fair and applicable, but what about the effect on those authorising and permitting the criminals death, wouldnt this be contracdictorary as you are ultimately committing the crime of what the criminal is being executed for-Murder. If we look at Bernard Williams analogy of Jim in the Indians, "I could no nothing and let 20 Indians die or I could kill 1 and save 19, but what about the effect on my character? This is ultimately suggesting it would be within the greater good to kill this person to provide justice and safety to the others, however, what about the effect of character on the person administrating thier death. Detterence is the idea of putting criminals off re-offending for fear of the consequences, For example with the death penalty in place, this may act as a detterent for other criminals whom have considered murder. This view is consistent with Christian teaching as long as the deterrent is proportionate to the crime. According to Albert Peirrepoint quoted by Amnesty International. I do not believe that any one of the hundreds of executions I carried out has in any way acted as a detterrent against future murder. Capital punishment in my view achieved nothing except revenge." (a punishment to fit the crime, Franklin Watts, pg.21)There is also the open letter to Amnesty International to US president Clinton, 1994 "...death sentences in the USA are imposed disproportionately on the poor; on members of ethnic minorities, on the mentally ill or retarded, and on those without adequate legal counsel." (a punishment to fit the crime, Franklin Watts, pg.21)To further this argument, many people do not think about the consequences of their actionsbefore committing a crime, it is simply out of an act of passion or angerm therefore, the idea of capital punishment as a deterrent act would not process in a criminals mind during the act of murder. The aim of protection is the idea that society is protected from the activities of criminals, this can consist of either prison or capital punishment. This idea of 'protection' is compatible with Christan teachings however, when it concerns the issue of the death penalty there is often contraversy within the Christian belief. The idea of protection is ultimately the strongest support for capital punishment as it enables the victims security and safeness from thier offender, however, what about those who forgive thier offender. If we look at the case of Anthony walker whom was brutally murdered in a racially motivated attack, his mother, a believer in Christianity, chose to forgive her sons murderer, therefore, she would be in opposition to the death penalty as she would have no moer resentment or bitterness towards her sons killer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/a-mothers-forgiveness-for-her-sons-killers/439.html also, Christianity teaches "to err is human, to forgive, divine." Alexander Pope (http://christian-quotes.ochristian.com/Forgiveness-Quotes/) Reformation is the concept that imprisonment can allow criminals to reform into law abiding citizens. This view is consistent with Christianity as thier views of repentance for ones sins. If we look at the study of Saul to Paul. Saul had a near death experience which

EPQ draft

There is biblical evidence to suggets that supports the death penalty shown in the old and new testament. In genesis 9:6 there is a quote that reads; "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." This is ultimately agreeing with the idea of retribution-"an eye for an eye." In the old testament there are 36 capital offences specified including murder, however, Christians are fond of the belief that "Christians say it is inconsistent to preserve murder alone as a capital crime." The new testimant openly talks of the most famous biblical execution, which is Jesus on the cross. In matthew 15:4 Jesus says "He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die." Even though Jesus does not use voilence to excersize his belief or power, there is knowehere in the bible that suggests the state can not comdemn capital punishment. There is a quote in Romans 13:4 that reads does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer" This is a clear and apparent reference to capital punishment which suggests that those who have done wrongly are admittable for capital punishment. The assemblies of God quoted in July 28, 2008 "Opinion in the Assemblies of God on capital punishment is mixed. However, more people associated with the Assemblies of God probably favor capital punishment for certain types of crimes such as premeditated murder than those who would oppose capital punishment without reservation. This consensus grows out of a common interpretation that the Old Testament sanctions capital punishment, and nothing in the New Testament negates maximum punishment as society's means of dealing effectively with serious crimes..." (http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000986)If we look at the opinion polls from the years 2001-2004, the data shows that 65% of those who are weekly churchgoers favour capital punishment. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/religion-and-death-penalty)Most Chrisitians who are in favour of the death penalty are of the belief that the state acts out of authority of God whom has the authonomy to dispose of life out of his own freewill. This argument was expressed through the philosophy of St.Augustine. "The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorises killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/capitalpunishment_1.shtml)There is an argument that capital punishment is similar to suicide. The argument is that if a person kills another human being, there are ultimately surrendering their own life to the state if they are caught. Pope Puis XII quoted "Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life." There are also arguments that suggests Christianity is against the idea of capital punishment. Augustine quoted "Life is a precious gift from God and only he has the authonomy to take it away." Father Gino Concetti, L'Osservatore argued against Augustine and quoted "In light of the word of God, and thus of faith, life--all human life--is sacred and untouchable. No matter how heinous the crimes ... [the criminal] does not lose his fundamental right to life, for it is primordial, inviolable, and inalienable, and thus comes under the power of no one whatsoever." He is ultimately suggesting therre should be no exceptions to the established Christian teaching of 'Thou shalt not kill." All human life is sacred and is not ours to dispose of under any circumstance. There is further argument that the teachings of the bible are inconsistent. The New testament says that there are 35 crimes that are permittable for the death penalty, however, in modern society we would no longer consider such crimes such as; Blasphemy, Idolatry, magic etc, applicable for the death penalty. The bible speaks of forgiveness and compassion, such as the biblical quote "Love thy neighbour and pray for those who persecute you." However, how can we convery such forgiveness with the death penalty in place. We do not know if these criminals could reform and turn thier faith into a supreme being such as God, if they do not have a chance of reformation. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/capitalpunishment_1.shtml). The united methodist church believes that the power of the church is reformation for criminals who have disobeyed the law, therefore they are in full disagreement with the death penalty. They are fond of the belief that "all human life is sacred" No matter how your actions have impacted someone else. When law permitts the death penalty, any hope of that person reforming is taking away, and they are ultimately devalued from society. They go on to quote "For this reason, we oppose the death penalty (capital punishment) and urge its elimination from all criminal codes." (http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=6385) The religious views of Buddhism do not have an established opinion when regarding the death penalty, they nor agree or disagree. If we look at Buddhist teachings, it is obvious that the death oenalty is not compatible with thier beliefs. A quote from the Buddha states "An action, even if it brings benefit to oneself, cannot be considered a good action if it causes physical and mental pain to another being." This does not neccesserily relate to the issue of Capital punishment however has a calrifiable connotation that it is not moral nor good to cause physical harm if pain to another human being. When discussing life after death Buddhists believe in the process of reincarnation which is that you will be reborn into another body in your next life depending on the quality of life you have previously lived. Buddhists believe that with the death penalty in place, this will have an effect on both the offender and the punisher. Buddhism teaches that reformation of a criminal is much more desirable than their execution, as it gives them a chance to rectify their mistakes, which is ultimately the paramount importance. Despite such firm belief against the death oenalty, there are still some Buddhist influenced countries that continue to use it. An example of this is Thailand. It is essential to consider however that there is no country that considers Buddhism as thier official religon. These contries that do support the death penalty however are not always influenced by religion. Politicians have the authority to establish laws such as capital punishment as they believe it brings detterence to criminals and future convicts. They also may be influenced by the history of that country, if they have had abided by the death penalty in earlier centuries then they are non the wiser to accept it and believe it is a functional part of society. Alarid and Wang the contradiction stems from popular and monastic Buddhism. Lay Buddhists are show complete dedication in thier commitments of faith, however, others believe it is superficial and unfitting with daily life. The Buddha Dharma education suggested that Capital punishment entails killing which goes against the Buddhist first precept of 'do not kill.' throughout history there have been devoted Buddhist monarchs who have abolished capital punishment, there are still Buddhist influenced countries that legalise capital punishment however it is incompatible with the teachings of the Koran and Buddha. (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd20.htm) Judaism has a strong disagreement towards the study of the death penalty. During the time when Jewish law operated as a secular and relgious jurisdiction, it rarely imposed the death penalty. The death penalty was abolished in Israel in 1954, however, this was with the exception of Nazi war criminals. In the 54 years that Israel has existed as an independent state, only one person has been executed. This person was Adolf Eichman, a Nazi war criminal with particular responsibility for the Holocaust. The old testament preached philosophies such as; "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." Exodus 21:23-24, There is a quote in genesis 9:6 that reads "A man who spills human blood, his own blood shall be spilled by man because God made man in His own Image." However, to truly understand the teachings of Jewish law one must read the Torah and consult the Talmud. The rabbis who wrote the Talmud made it exceptionally clear that they were intolerable of the death penalty, they achieved this through teachings of the sanctity of life, the use of emphasis of anti-death philosophies such as 'Thou shalt not kill." Finding alternative punishment for criminals, or compensation for the victims families, also imposing precedioral barriers that made the death penalty inoperative. Hinduism has a world wide established teaching of Ghandi that suggests "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Hindus nor favour nor disregard the death penalty however they do oppose killing, violence and revenge, following the principle of ahisma-non-voilence. India still has leglisation of the death penalty for reasons similar to Buddhist influenced countries, such as political influence, history of the country etc. There was contraversy raised with the debate on capital punisment in India through the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee who had been sentenced for rape and murder, however his plea of freedom was denied and he was executed by hanging. There are over 100 people presently facing death row in India however this is suggested considerably low, and the death penalty is only used in the rarest of cases.