This, hopefully would have resulted in him not killing Tybalt. People could argue that Romeo only killed Tybalt simply because of his bad temper. A reason to support the view stating Romeo is fortunes fool and this bad act was destined to happen is the fact that Romeo is a Montague and Tybalt is a Capulet. This shows us that Romeo was born into bad luck, as both the families had always been rivals. Romeo and Tybalt are unable to prevent being born into these families, stating Romeo and Tybalt only fought considering that they were both born into families which had forever been enemies making Romeo bound to have killed Tybalt, or death could have easily occurred the other way round.
As people state “to take a life when a life is lost is revenge, not justice”. This suggests there is no humanity in the area, as everyone just wants vengeance. While many argue this is where theory of deterrence comes in. But they should answer the main question, how are people able to amend by witnessing wrong? Instead it brutalises the society and increases murder rates.
Prospero uses sarcasm with his daughter to try and not alarm her rather than telling her the complete truth. Also, he’s not just trying to get justice for what has happened; he is trying to hurt the men who betrayed him. This is illustrated by how he talks about his enemies and how eager he seems to be to have them on the island. Prospero only seeks to harm the others for what they have done, practically a textbook example of revenge. Prospero’s action on the island, splitting up Ferdinand and Alonso to cause them pain, is another example of his revenge.
Nowadays, horrifying crimes are being committed by criminals and they are being punished for it. It has been believed that behind every crime there is a reason, which usually gets neglected. In the world of justice, reasons doesn’t matter, only thing that matters is whoever did the crime has to be punished and everyone should get justice. From the articles “How people turn monstrous” by Mark Buchanan and “Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment” by Philip G. Zimbardo, which means human behavior is forceful. The good people always get forced inherently into the bad situation.
He passed a law that restrained anyone from burying his own nephew’s body. Creon tried to prove that by ignoring family relations he gave more importance to law and order in Thebes. He believed his law was more powerful than the laws of the gods. He believed that anyone who disobeyed his law will be punished no matter who you are; this was the biggest mistake which lead him to lose his son and his nephew. Second, Creon abused his power by thinking that he can change or break the laws of the Gods and not allowing other people to break his laws.
Another scene where Romeo acts out of impulse is when he fights Tybalt. During his fight with Tybalt, Romeo was only concerned about avenging his friend; he didn’t consider the entailing consequences of killing Tybalt. In both situations, Romeo acts rashly to resolve the problem at hand without considering the possible consequences. As was explained in my earlier examples, Romeo Montague exemplifies these three aspects: fearlessness, faithfulness, and impulsiveness. One may have the urge to disagree, but the proof I have established from observing said person is irrefutable evidence.
They should be distinguished by motivations because someone could have done something that is considered a crime by law but it actually helped or saved someone’s life. Another reason is because if someone planned out and executed a murder and someone got into a car accident and took a life, the person who thought it out should get dealt with more severely. Yes I feel that hate is a more heinous motivation than revenge. I feel this way because hate crimes are committed for no specific reason aside from the fact that they hate that person because of their race, gender, or religion. Revenge crimes are committed because the individual themselves may have been mistreated and have more of a reason to commit a crime.
Institutionalizing the notion of revenge and to have it be a goal that society pursues through the criminal justice system offends the ideals of many. This ethical dilemma is most apparent in the death penalty debate. Arguably, there is no real reason for inflicting the death penalty other than society's need for retribution, as incarcerating that same individual for a life sentence without the possibility of parole will effectively incapacitate them and protect society from his criminal behavior. But the desire for retaliation dates back to ancient times, where the Hammurabi Code essentially necessitated "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," which is reflected by the punitive goals of our modern criminal justice system. The ethical debate between those who view retribution as a natural goal of justice and those who feel that state-sanctioned revenge has no place in modern society will continue, particularly as it relates to the death penalty
This theory is defined as the pressure that individuals feel to reach socially determined goals. In 1938, Robert Merton defined this theory as delinquency as a form of adaptive problem solving behavior which the response to frustration and undesirable social environments. Merton states that goals such as wealth and personal happiness are often portrayed as desirable for everyone but means to these goals are equally available (Schmalleger, 2012). Because of the unavailability of these desires, this causes a strain, many turn to crime to get what they want/desire. The inmates in the Pelican Bay Prison have committed crimes, such as murder and robberies so they can get what they want without working for it.
I think because we do not know what death brings that we use consequences even in death and after lives to set guidelines while we are alive. Socrates is using the myth of Er as a way to show that being just is the only way to show that being just is the only way to true happiness. Someone who refuses justice and lives a life as an unjust person, and fallows all his desires no matter who they might hurt, will suffer the consequences in the end. Socrates believes the Gods will love the just and hate the unjust. while the just are alive they seem to be the once who suffer.