...Everyone in the play Hamlet committed sins except for Horatio, who was the only survivor at the end of the play. This proves that all the other characters committed terrible sins that led to death. The sins and mistakes these other characters made led to their death. All of the characters in Hamlet deserved what they got. Both Hamlet and Laertes tried to avenge the death of a loved one by wanting to kill someone else. Claudius murdered his own brother for selfish needs; all three characters deserved death as a consequence. Young Hamlet has committed murder; Hamlet has killed his own uncle king Claudius for revenge. Revenge resulting to murder is a sin, which exactly what Hamlet did, he committed a sin. “A villain kills my father, and for that, I, his sole son, do this same villain send.” (III.iii.76-77) After Hamlet found out the truth of his father’s death he decided to avenge his death, which meant killing Claudius. The thought of killing someone is a murderous sin. The fact that Hamlet wants to murder Claudius means that Hamlet has committed a sin. Hamlet did not only think about killing Claudius, he actually followed through with his plan of killing Claudius. Following through his plan of killing Claudius is much worse then think of killing Claudius. Hamlet did deserve death at the end because karma came back to haunt him for all the sins he has committed. Hamlet eventually did kill King Claudius which later on resulted in...
Words: 1245 - Pages: 5
...death penalty. The death penalty, to me, is revenge. It kills innocent people every year. Many of the families of victims do not want the criminals to be put to death. The death penalty costs more than a life sentence in jail. "Since 1976, there have been five hundred twenty-three executions in the United States, twenty-three in 1999 alone. There was only eleven before 1984. Then the number rose to twenty-one that year. The number of execution stayed around twenty then dropped to eleven in 1988. Then it steadily rose from there to seventy-four executions in 1997. That was the highest since 1976."(Death Penalty Information Center, P.1) The electrocution method is used by ten states. The gas chamber is used in five states. There are still two states today that use hanging as a method of execution, and two other states use a firing squad. I believe Capital punishment also goes against the Constitution of the United States. Amendments eight and fourteen state that no cruel and unusual punishment can be inflicted and no state can deprive any person of life liberty or property. The death penalty clearly takes these privileges away from American citizens. Everybody makes mistakes. If a jury makes a mistake and a person is falsely accused of murder when they find out they messed up they want to take the sentence away. If the sentence is life in prison, they can tell the person they are sorry and they can go free. It does not work that way if they sentence a person to death...
Words: 830 - Pages: 4
...Over decades, ethical dilemmas like The Trolley or The Transplant have been discussed in great details by philosophers. Different schools of thoughts offer various arguments to whether it is morally right or wrong to kill or let die. In the example of the Transplant whereby a doctor has to choose to kill one healthy person to save five sick patients or let the five die, it is morally impermissible to kill the one person. According to Utilitarianism, an action is ethical if it maximizes the happiness for the greatest number of people (Rowe). Hence, the doctor should kill the one person to save the five people who would die imminently without a transplant. If the healthy person gives the doctor his or her consent to donate the organs to other...
Words: 370 - Pages: 2
...right to live and die at their own rate. Is it okay to kill Someone because they are ill or sick? People should live out their final days without The help of killing them. It gives people the option to kill people without merit or Notion. It is considered murder by most if a person help kills someone with their Permission. Helping the terminally ill At what point does a person with cancer or HIV have the right to end their lives with The assistance of euthanasia from a doctor or nurse. It is often the someone have the The right to tell someone to kill them. The pain and suffering will be great on both Ends of the spectrum with any family member. It can be so much suffering on the Person wanting to end their life to prevent anymore pain. The pain from the actually Act of killing someone can be a great issue for all involved. The quality of life in the End stages of cancer and other diseases can be awfully bad. When you are dying from An illness such as cancer, end stage kidney disease, end stage heart failure, and so on, Ending your life in a painless manner with professional assistance is a very dignified Way to die. Is there a way for someone to past away peacefully in their sleep without Someone helping to go to the other side? Everyone should have the right to die in a Fashionably way with complete respect. Respect and dignity should be a honorable Reflection of a person’s wishes to die in such a humane or...
Words: 823 - Pages: 4
...An issue that has continually created tension in today's society is whether the death penalty serves as a justified and valid form of punishment. Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their arguments. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder. Crime is an evident part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but the question lies in the methods and action in which it should be dealt with. In several parts of the world, the death penalty has been apportioned to those who have committed a variety of offenses from the time of ancient Babylon to present-day America. The Roman Empire made use of the death penalty liberally, as did the Church of the Middle Ages. As history tells us, capital punishment, whose definition is "the use of death as a legally sanctioned punishment," is an acceptable and efficient means of deterring crime. Today, the death penalty remains an effective method of punishment for murder and other heinous crimes. There is debate over the morals and effectiveness of such a harsh sentence. Most commonly, the death penalty is challenged as a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which says that the U.S. cannot use "cruel and unusual" punishment. Due to the fact that "punishment" is a legal...
Words: 1630 - Pages: 7
...snake cross paths in the desert, and life vs. death is involved. The man has to decide whether he should kill the snake or not, and he decided that he is obligated to. Though we understand both sides of the story, the man should not have killed the snake. The snake was calm and alert, not trying to harm anyone, but still protecting himself. In the short passage, “The Rattler” , the personification of the snake, the point of the man, and details about the setting all lead readers to feel sympathy toward the snake, as well as sorrow and frustration towards the man. Readers feel sorry for the snake because it loses its life, even though it never threatens or causes the man any harm. The snake is calm. The snake is careful and watchful, but does not strike. The rattler had not moved; he lay there like a “live wire”. The snake has all potential to harm, but controls itself, not threatening the man. The snake even gave the man a second chance by hiding in the bush, as if saying “I don’t want to harm you, but I can, so leave me alone!” As we all know, snakes are very much able to harm, but the snake, being calm, chose to even hide in order to not harm the man. Readers can also see that the snake is very patient. The snake was patiently waiting for the man to “show intentions”. Instead of automatically striking, it decides to wait, to only harm as self-defense, so that he does not have to harm for no reason. The snake is unwilling to fight, unless absolutely necessary. Any other snake...
Words: 1031 - Pages: 5
...of pleasure for greater numbers. http://www.utilitarian.org/faq.html What is the utilitarian position on monogamy vs. polygamy, marriage and adultery, capitalism vs. socialism, the legalisation of cannabis etc? It is a common mistake to suppose that utilitarians have a fixed approach to controversial political issues. While utilitarians agree on what the criteria for good social policy are (being its conformability to utility), we freely and commonly disagree on which policies are actually useful. We know which goals we should aim for, but we are no better equipped than any others in politics to decide which policies will, in practice, help us achieve those goals. One may ask a utilitarian what makes people happy, but one would be unlikely to receive a better answer than can be given by the psychologist. One may ask a utilitarian about the national debt, but would be unlikely to receive a better answer than...
Words: 2060 - Pages: 9
...Humanity had decided that those who commit the most heinous crimes, deserve to die. For many years people had been hung, burned, skinned alive or thrown into an arena with lions in it, all because of terrible, unspeakable crimes. What’s worse, is that sometimes those people were innocent, putting the authorities into the position of a murderer. But these days, the number of people who believe that execution is wrong has risen dramatically, and debates have started whether it’s okay to lawfully kill someone or not. According to many people and myself, execution should be illegal due to various reasons such as being primitive, and most importantly, giving us a wrong sense of justice. One meaning of justice is : “ fairness in the way people are...
Words: 989 - Pages: 4
...Though the feeling of revenge is meant to motivate a person to retaliate towards someone who did them wrong, it often harms themself in the process. In the novel Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley and the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Victor’s devotion to acting on his revenge leads to his death, while Hamlet’s refusal to do so leads to being killed by a man who does take action. This reveals that a person devoted to revenge causes their own death as well as the deaths of people who take too long to act. After Victor creates a monster a spurns it for his appearance, it kills several people close to him, including his brother, best friend and wife. Hamlet meanwhile, discovers via his father’s ghost that his father was murdered by his uncle, now king Claudius. Both promise that they will get revenge. Despite this, Hamlet constantly delays his revenge, while Victor often chooses to act on his feelings. Eventually, Hamlet acts on his revenge when he realizes he is dying nonetheless, contrasting with Victor, who dedicates his life to fulfilling his revenge after his wife’s death. Because of his late action, Hamlet is killed by his uncle, who takes action before he does, unlike Victor who eventually wears out and dies because of his own long quest for revenge. Hamlet and Victor’s fates are first determined by their decisions as to whether or not to act on their feelings of revenge. After agreeing to create a mate for his monster, Victor takes his first action of revenge on the monster...
Words: 1575 - Pages: 7
...federally prosecute capital cases on historically state-prosecuted violent crimes”(Mysliwiec 255). The author thinks that government has to much power when it comes to the death penalty. In U.S. states have power to decide do they want to have death penalty or not. This depends on who is majority in government. Usually republicans are for death penalty and democrats are against death penalty. In “Death penalty views in China, Japan and U.S” the author shows us the study where we can see the level of death penalty support and views on capital punishment among college students from China, Japan and U.S. (Jiang 1). This study is very interesting because we can see how young people from these countries are thinking and what is they opinion about this issue. It was found that Chinese respondents reported the highest level of death penalty support, followed by Japanese and U.S students. We can see that in these countries young people are usually for death penalty. The fact that in countries with death penalty young students support death penalty shows us that this is because of government and there statement about this issue. Young people are usually following government’s opinion when it comes to the death penalty. One the biggest...
Words: 1486 - Pages: 6
...Rainsford was justified in killing General Zaroff and these facts will prove why. After Rainsford found General Zaroff’s enormous building on the palatial chateau he went in and was treated very well due to them knowing who he was by his book. After a while of talking Rainsford exclaimed, “I can’t believe you are serious, General Zaroff...”. “ Hunting? Great guns, General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder!” (Connell 9). Zaroff got tired of hunting animals because he was perfect at it. He lived by the sea and had the technology to crash ships and he took the people who were on them as his “game”. By Rainsford killing Zaroff, he took one life but he saved many lives by doing this. If Zaroff lived many more innocent people would die....
Words: 318 - Pages: 2
...An eye for an eye, meaning that when a person who has been injured by another person has the same done to them. Meaning if someone kill someone, they have to be killed the same way they killed that person. Do you agree or disagree? What are your feelings or saying with this. I don't like it at all! First of all, it really hard for me to say whether i agree or not on An Eye for an Eye. I do feel that the person who committed the crime should be punished. But should not killed the same way he killed that is so someone is disgusting. I mean after all he, or she is still a human. Meaning they have feeling. Even when the person say they don't care about life. They think they don't. But inside they really do! I think they should be thrown in prison for a really long time. Probably the only way they will learn. But there is a chance that prison cant help them. Prison is not a place for a human being. It makes you go insane!...
Words: 606 - Pages: 3
...keep crime from happening. For the most part the majority of people believe this to be true. For most people punishment will inhibit them from committing crimes such as, stealing while their morals will steer them away from committing crimes such as, murder. What happens when a person does not fear the punishment or has no morals? That’s where there are gaps in our justice system. There is no way to completely stop crime, as long as people still have free will. For the most part, punishment does lead us a way from a life of crime. For those who have no fear or moral value, they will and should be punished accordingly for their crime. Capital punishment has been a controversial issue since the beginning of our nation’s history. Executions began in a much more inhumane way then what we see today. We began with hangings and as of 1888 New York began to build the first electric chair. The death sentence was evolving into a more humane a civil way to carry out a sentence. Further down the line we developed other ways such as cyanide gas, and what is legal in most states today, the lethal injection. Does the person who just raped and mutilated a fourteen year old girl deserve a human death? She didn’t die with humility or dignity. She died in cold blood. If that was your daughter how would you feel in respects to her killer receiving a lethal injection as his final sentence? Is the Death penalty the easy way out for these criminals? Should these people be rotting in jail to suffer for...
Words: 1378 - Pages: 6
...people could be executed, but it’s not as a big of a number as people make it out to be. The death penalty does deteriorate crime, specifically homicide rates, but when a convicted murderer is released from prison there is a 90%+ chance they will re-commit, only because they have been deprived from the outside world for such a long time and there are new things for them to introduced to, which may intimidate them. But at least when you execute the inmate, it’s one less person regular society has to worry about. People like them that are serving time just don’t change. Just put them to death so they cant terrorize society anymore. Surely, it would be a win win situation anyway, because their suffering would cease as well. The medieval philosopher, Thomas Aquinas made this point very clear: “Therefore, if any man is dangerous to the community and is subverting it by some sin, the treatment to be commended in his execution in order to preserve the common good… Therefore to kill a man who retains his natural worthiness is intrinsically evil, although it may be justifiable to kill a sinner just as it is to kill a beast, as Aristotle points out, an evil man is worse than a beast and more harmful. Aquinas is saying that certain situations change a bad crime (killing) into a good crime (killing to repair the violation of justice done by the person killed, and killing a person who had forfeited their natural worthiness of killing.) However, everyone has the...
Words: 2174 - Pages: 9
...punishment for a crime. Capital punishment is a difficult issue and there are many different opinions as there are people. Supporters of the death penalty believe that in some instances, people who take another human life deserve to forfeit their own lives. Many supporters also believe that the threat of death discourages crime. I am oppose to the death penalty for many reasons. Criminals need to live with their consequences for the rest of their life’s, not die for them. He or she will never have to look in the mirror and regret he/she’s horrible crime. Life in prison without parole is the best alternative for the death penalty. Criminals should have to face what they committed everyday of their life; they need a punishment to fit their crime. Death is just an easy escape for the criminal. If we kill the killers we are only becoming them. When turning on the television, radio, or simply opening the local newspaper, one is bombarded with news of arrests, murders, homicides, serial killers, and other such tragedies. Killers kill innocent people, there is no question about that, but does that give us the right to kill these killers? I do not think so. I believe that there is a risk of executing mistakenly convicted people. One could be spending and ending his life incaptivity for simply walking down the wrong street on the wrong day. It's a small fault in the justice system that is not easy to overcome but that's...
Words: 531 - Pages: 3
