Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
By definition, any argument that contains faulty reasoning is termed a logical fallacy. Most logical fallacies are arguments seem psychologically convincing, but are weak logically. Most importantly, a logical fallacy makes people accept certain arguments and conclusions that would ordinarily not be easily acceptable as valid (Doss et al. 2014). This paper discusses some logical fallacies and how they affect criminal justice.
Since there is no connection whatsoever between how much pity one feels for a particular speaker and the validity of the speaker's arguments, the appeal to pity can be said to be an informal fallacy. However, such arguments are accepted by the courts on a regular basis; for example, in Ryan v. People, the court cut down the sentence handed down to the defendant for hindering government operations from one year to 6 months. The reason the court gave was "the totality of the disgrace faced by the defendant, the manner in which he was discharged by the Department, forfeiting his pension and other entitlements, the pitiable sight of his suffering wife and incapacitated children, who all depend on his support and presence." The court was quite aware its action as a response to an appeal to pity or ad misericordiam, however, the court stated clearly that whenever such as plea is presented, the court "must clearly view all circumstances and facts, measuring rights of society and justice, avoidance of cruelty and punishment." The court made further addition "mercy, in its right place, is the characteristic of every appellate court" (Saunders,1993).
.....personal ethics derive from a combination of established codifications of moral conduct, such as those embedded in political documents or in religious scripture, but also from my personality, my upbringing, and my worldview. I tend towards a utilitarian point-of-view, in that I do believe that the consequences of actions are more important than worrying about whether an action is inherently right or wrong. I also believe that there are situational
California Proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, would legalize marijuana/cannabis for adults over the age of 21. The legalization measure only applies to the state of California, as federal law continues on its war on drugs/prohibition path. Proposition 64 was on the ballot in the November 8, 2016 federal election. Prior to passing this Proposition, cannabis was illegal, and possession of cannabis was punishable by law. This proposition would
According to Miller and Wright (2002), "When it comes to plea bargaining, we have created a false dilemma. The dilemma grows out of the central reality of criminal adjudication in the United States. The vast majority of criminal cases are resolved through guilty pleas rather than trials. Most of those guilty pleas result from negotiations between prosecution and defense" (p. 29). Straw Man. According to Walton (2004), "The straw man fallacy
Crime Understanding why crime occurs requires an appreciation for the complexity of human behavior. Behavior is not determined by one factor, but rather influenced by a host of interrelated factors. Modern biological theories in criminology differ from previous theories in that they examine the entire range of biological characteristics, including those that result from genetic defects (those that are inherited) and those that are environmentally induced. In addition, theories developed since
Restorative justice asks fundamentally different questions, and is based on a different set of assumptions, than the current criminal justice paradigm (Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth, n.d.). The most notable and important difference between the current criminal justice paradigm and the restorative justice paradigm is that restorative justice does not focus on the punishment and does not advocate a punitive criminal justice system. Instead, the restorative justice model is based
Panetti has not challenged those factual findings on appeal." Panetti could not be considered incompetent to stand execution based on Ford v. Wainwright. Similar to Panetti, Ford did not initially argue mental illness, but during the trial he developed a severe form of mental disorder, leading to his unawareness of the crimes he had committed and of the reasons for his capital punishment. The involved parties were both counting on Justice