Question:
It is clear fromt he passage that the author believes that the state shoudl administer sentences to criminals in order to:
I. Abuse the criminal.
II. Protect Society.
III. Punish the Criminal.
Related Text:
But does the state have the moral right to kill a person for the crime of murder when it would seem that the act of killing is equally harmful for the individual as for the state? To understand this seeming contradiction, we must look at what it is that we seek to punish. There are some cases where murder is allowed - in self-defense, for example - and in other cases we make a distinction between accidental, negligent, and premeditated murder. I would posit from this that we are punishing not the action itself, but the intent behind the murder. ... Most people would agree that the police need to be armed to keep order, and sometimes they must shoot in the line of duty, yet no one would say they should be tried as murderers. The state should be accorded the same leeway, because its intent is not to harm, not to kill for cruelty, revenge, or selfish gain, but to protect us from those who do.
Kaplan's Logic:
I. Abuse the criminal.
WRONG. (This is pretty clear by even the last sentence).
II. protect society:
CORRECT: "The state should be accorded the same leeway, because its intent is not to harm, not to kill for cruelty, revenge, or selfish gain, but to protect us from those who do"
III. punish the criminal
CORRECT: It is clear that the author believes that we (in this first instance, "we" as in the stae) "we seek to punish".
My logic: I agree with their understanding of I and II. But why don't we finish the quote they started for three?
"We must look at what it is we seek to punish." Well, that was pretty important, because that changes the quote from a statement "we seek to punishment" to an inquiry. Moving forward from their, the quote continues... "I would posit from this that we are punishing not the action itself, but the intent behind the murder."
Right there. You're not punishing the action. You're not punishing the individual. You're not punishing the criminal. You're punishing the intent. The author makes that very clear, and I am not going to assume that people are there intents. After all, i may sometimes get so angry I want to punch somebody in the face, but I don't, and i don't get incarcerated for it either.
It is clear fromt he passage that the author believes that the state shoudl administer sentences to criminals in order to:
I. Abuse the criminal.
II. Protect Society.
III. Punish the Criminal.
Related Text:
But does the state have the moral right to kill a person for the crime of murder when it would seem that the act of killing is equally harmful for the individual as for the state? To understand this seeming contradiction, we must look at what it is that we seek to punish. There are some cases where murder is allowed - in self-defense, for example - and in other cases we make a distinction between accidental, negligent, and premeditated murder. I would posit from this that we are punishing not the action itself, but the intent behind the murder. ... Most people would agree that the police need to be armed to keep order, and sometimes they must shoot in the line of duty, yet no one would say they should be tried as murderers. The state should be accorded the same leeway, because its intent is not to harm, not to kill for cruelty, revenge, or selfish gain, but to protect us from those who do.
Kaplan's Logic:
I. Abuse the criminal.
WRONG. (This is pretty clear by even the last sentence).
II. protect society:
CORRECT: "The state should be accorded the same leeway, because its intent is not to harm, not to kill for cruelty, revenge, or selfish gain, but to protect us from those who do"
III. punish the criminal
CORRECT: It is clear that the author believes that we (in this first instance, "we" as in the stae) "we seek to punish".
My logic: I agree with their understanding of I and II. But why don't we finish the quote they started for three?
"We must look at what it is we seek to punish." Well, that was pretty important, because that changes the quote from a statement "we seek to punishment" to an inquiry. Moving forward from their, the quote continues... "I would posit from this that we are punishing not the action itself, but the intent behind the murder."
Right there. You're not punishing the action. You're not punishing the individual. You're not punishing the criminal. You're punishing the intent. The author makes that very clear, and I am not going to assume that people are there intents. After all, i may sometimes get so angry I want to punch somebody in the face, but I don't, and i don't get incarcerated for it either.
