Excessive obedience to authority in defiance of moral laws may be justified because of the stresses of policing, and also because of the necessary obedience required to do the job in an effective fashion of teamwork and trust.
Walking home in a neighborhood that seems suspicious, I do feel better to see a police car than not to see one. But I have also been afraid, at times, when pulled over by an angry policeman, even if I have done nothing wrong, or committed a minor infraction. I know the power of the badge and the fact that an officer is more likely to be believed in court than myself. Trust in the police can never be absolute, so long as one is aware of the potential for abuse from individuals in such powerful positions.
What is the criminal punishment and what do you think is the basis for the sovereign's right to punish? What are the primary arguments in favor of punishment and the various problems involved in determining appropriate punishments for specific crimes? Evaluate the morality of capital punishment in particular, from both a formalist...
In other words, someone who committed a minor offense would not be punished with hanging. The crime, the circumstances, the criminal's mentality while committing the crime, and the criminal's
history all influence the severity and type punishment, as does the need for
society to be protected, since the modern sovereign derives his or her right to punish crimes from the
consent of the governed, and the citizenry's wish to be protected from lawlessness. However, different aspects of the
calculus of factors that go into determining a sentence will vary -- while a utilitarian might argue that capital punishment is invalid, because of the cost of condemning someone to
death, financially and in terms of the drain on systemic resources, a formalist or traditional criminologist might argue that the 'greatest good for the greatest number' of the utilitarian means nothing and the only price that will pay for the loss of a life is the criminal's own life.
