Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Absurdity (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Dannel Malloy (1)
- Death penalty (1)
-
- Dishonesty (1)
- Fact suppression (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Independent judgment (1)
- Justice Stevens (1)
- Justice Stewart (1)
- Lethal Injection (1)
- Lethal injection (1)
- Life without parole (1)
- Mandatory (1)
- Moral values (1)
- Public opinion (1)
- Rape (1)
- Recidivism (1)
- Retardation (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Supreme court (1)
- White Collar Crime (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Homicide Survivors’ Fairness-For-Victims Manifesto, Lester Jackson
The Homicide Survivors’ Fairness-For-Victims Manifesto, Lester Jackson
LESTER JACKSON
Murderer advocates place a far greater value on the lives of the most savage murderers than on the lives of their victims. Let them deny it; their words and deeds conclusively give the lie to that denial. The critical question is this: Whose concept of justice is going to prevail? The concept of a small but vocal well-financed minority with influence and power out of all proportion to its numbers, or that of the large but poorly financed and disorganized majority. In recent decades, the former have dominated. Tragically, compared to media-dominant murderer advocates, victims have been virtually voiceless. Yes, …
The Death Penalty’S “Finely Tuned Depravity Calibrators” Fairness Follies Of Fairness Phonies Fixated On Criminals Instead Of Crimes, Lester Jackson
The Death Penalty’S “Finely Tuned Depravity Calibrators” Fairness Follies Of Fairness Phonies Fixated On Criminals Instead Of Crimes, Lester Jackson
LESTER JACKSON
It has been loudly and repeatedly proclaimed by opponents that capital punishment is “unfair.” In their view, it is unfair because (1) only some murderers receive the ultimate sentence and (2) they are not the most deserving. Underlying this view is the remarkable assumption that fairness is subject to “fine tuning” and “moral accuracy.” It is argued here that this assumption is indefensible both in theory and in practice. As a theoretical matter, it is insupportable to suggest that matters of conscience, right and wrong, are subject to calibration or “accuracy.” Right and wrong are not determined in the same …