who determines what moral interests justify more lenient treatment

Is the state justified in coercively restricting offenders’ liberties?

 · If so, who determines what moral interests justify more lenient treatment? Part B: Stage 6 moral development requires looking at ethical problems empathically; that is , impartially and from the perspective of all parties concerned.

What is the moral challenge of the legal institution of punishment?

 · If so, who determines what moral interests justify more lenient treatment? PART 2: Answer the three (3) discussion questions on pages 175-176 in the Discussion Questions Section. PART 3: should religion have any role (making of law and policy, inmate rehabilitative practices, addiction treatment, etc.) in criminal justice? Explain your response

Why did the jurors decide that the defendant was mentally ill?

Should motivation and moral reasoning be considered in the sentencing process such that crimes motivated by higher-level moral interest are subject to lesser types or degrees of punishment? If so, who determines what moral interests justify more lenient treatment?

Do offenders need moral education?

 · Treatment or Punishment. That there are many mentally ill individuals in the prisons (including those incarcerated under circumstances like the New York case described earlier) raises the question of whether indeed it is a desirable situation. 6 Today, there is more emphasis placed on the examination of the relationship between the crime and psychotic …

Who decides moral law?

It is not a person, nor a group of persons who determine what the moral law requires of you. It is YOU. It is your reason. And that is not because "nobody knows your life better than you." It is not because you think differently than others.

What determines someone's morality?

Some philosophers argue that morality is not biologically determined but rather comes from cultural traditions or from religious beliefs, because they are thinking about moral codes, the sets of norms that determine which actions are judged to be good and which are evil.

WHO advocates moral relativism?

However, Moral Relativism is essentially a 20th Century creation, and the main impetus came from cultural anthropologists such as Franz Boas (1858 - 1942), Ruth Benedict (1887 - 1948) and Margaret Mead (1901 - 1978).

What determines the moral worth of an act?

Consequentialism measures the moral worth of an act according to the goodness or badness of its consequences. This requires a determination of what makes the consequences of an act good or bad. For utilitarianism this is accomplished by the principle of utility.

How do we determine what is morally right and wrong?

Generally speaking, doing the right thing is an act that follows justice, law and morality while doing the wrong thing refers to an act that does not follow morality or justice. The right action is one which is legitimate, appropriate, and suitable while the wrong action is one which is not legitimate or appropriate.

How does character determine moral action?

So far, we have seen that one's actions reflect one's character, and they also form one's character. Consequently, the morality of one's actions also reflects and forms one's character. Good moral actions come from a good character and form a good character. Bad moral actions come from and form a bad character.

How does utilitarianism judge the morality of an action?

Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms of consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they produce.

What were Immanuel Kant's beliefs?

His moral philosophy is a philosophy of freedom. Without human freedom, thought Kant, moral appraisal and moral responsibility would be impossible. Kant believes that if a person could not act otherwise, then his or her act can have no moral worth.

What is Kant's approach to ethics?

Kant's ethics are organized around the notion of a “categorical imperative,” which is a universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone.

What is the one and only thing that Kant thinks determines the moral worth of an act?

Kant argues that no consequence can have fundamental moral worth; the only thing that is good in and of itself is the Good Will. The Good Will freely chooses to do its moral duty. That duty, in turn, is dictated solely by reason. The Good Will thus consists of a person's free will motivated purely by reason.

What does Kant believe is the supreme principle of morality?

Kant's moral theory is often referred to as the “respect for persons” theory of morality. Kant calls his fundamental moral principle the Categorical Imperative. An imperative is just a command. The notion of a categorical imperative can be understood in contrast to that of a hypothetical imperative.

What does Kant think is the fundamental principle of morality?

According to Kant, the fundamental principle of morality must be a categorical, rather than a hypothetical imperative, because an imperative based on reason alone is one that is a necessary truth, is a priori, and is one that applies to us because we are rational beings capable of fulfilling our moral obligations.

Why was the jury determined that he was mentally ill but guilty?

The jurors determined that he was mentally ill but guilty, because he understood the nature and meaning of his actions and because he told the police that he knew his actions were wrong. 3. In many countries, there is an increase in the rate of court-ordered hospitalizations of mentally ill individuals who commit crimes.

What happens if you are ill and you are incompetent to stand trial?

If the accused was ill when the crime was committed and is currently ill, in all countries, the patient would be sent to the hospital for treatment. The danger to public safety and illness-related threats become considerations when the patient was ill when ...

Which countries have a dichotomous view of criminal responsibility?

There are countries that have a dichotomous, all or none, view of criminal responsibility, such as Austria and Israel. However, most countries have a graduated view that leads to partial responsibility and/or reduced punishment or treatment.

What is the emphasis of the sentence "Guilty but mentally ill"?

The emphasis is on punishment and consideration of public safety and not psychiatric treatment in prison . 9. Guilty but mentally ill is not a defense, but rather a court ruling that the individual is guilty and a candidate for punishment. The emphasis is on punishment and consideration of public safety and not psychiatric treatment.

What is the concept of guilty but mentally ill?

In the United States, the concept of guilty but mentally ill began in Michigan in 1975 and gained momentum following the United States v. Hinckley trial (1982). 8 Many states added this option to the insanity defense and did not abolish it. This verdict leads to a double stigma, and more prison time, because it implies that the accused committed the crime, was aware of the wrongfulness of the crime, but had a mental disorder that interfered with compliance with the law. This course was intended to be intermediary, but it did not reduce the number of rulings of not guilty by reason of insanity. A more severe course of punishment was created—one with no limitation on punishment, including the death penalty. The emphasis is on punishment and consideration of public safety and not psychiatric treatment in prison. 9

Do mentally ill people have the right to an attorney?

In all countries, the suspect has the right to an attorney, even if legal representation is contrary to the will of the accused. The courts are extremely cautious with regard to the prospect of the mentally ill representing themselves. In most countries, the cost of the attorney is covered by the department of justice, and the accused is not required to participate physically in the trial, though he or she must appear in court for the verdict.

Who handles forensic services?

The responsibility for forensic services differs among countries. It may be handled by the Justice Department (e.g., Greece, Italy, and Portugal), or by the Health Department (e.g., England and Germany), or there may be joint responsibility for forensic services (e.g., Belgium). In all countries, there is a consensus that the law relates to mentally ill individuals who have schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

What does Scanlon mean by equal treatment?

Scanlon suggests that the norm of equal treatment applies to any agent, A, who is obligated to benefit X and Y. It “presupposes an obligation on the part of some agent to provide benefits to everyone in a certain group” (11, also 9, 21).

Is Y's apparent equal treatment complaint an improvement complaint in disguise?

Some may suspect, however, that Y’s apparent equal-treatment complaint is really an improvement complaint in dis guise. The complaint, one might say, is that S could have given B to Y. That S in fact gave B to X is immaterial. But this doesn’t seem right, for several reasons.

Does Scanlon offer an argument for the requirement of equal treatment?

First, Scanlon offers no explanation why being obligated to benefit should trigger a further requirement of equal treatment in general. Scanlon does offer an argument for why the requirement applies in the special case of state and citizens.

Does Scanlon's idea apply to B to X?

Scanlon’s idea must be instead that the fact that A has an independent obligation to give benefit B to X and to Y explains why the requirement of equal treatment applies when A gives a benefit, B’, to X but not Y, whether or not in giving B’ to X or to Y, A discharges an independent obligation.

Does Y have an equal treatment complaint against a private person?

Second, Y does not have an equal-treatment complaint against a private person, P, who gives B to X but not Y, unless (i) it contributes to a pattern of discrimination or (ii) P stands in some special relationship, of the same kind, to X and Y (e.g., that P is the parent of X and Y).

Is Y a non-comparative complaint?

One possibility is that Y has a non-comparative, improvement complaint: that Y could have been given a better chance for the job without unfairness to anyone else. In general, it is not unfair to X to raise Y’s chances at least as high as X’s, at least if Y would find the job just as rewarding.

What Is Punishment?

Various Questions

Consequentialist Accounts

• Consequentialism holds that the rightness or wrongness of actions—or rules for action, or (relevant to our context) institutions—is determined solely by their consequences. Thus consequentialist accounts of punishment defend the practice as instrumentally valuable: the consequences of maintaining an institution of legal punishment, according to thi...

See more on iep.utm.edu

Retributivist Accounts

Alternative Accounts

Abolitionism

References and Further Reading