I am doing a class discussion that I will be getting marks out of. Please answer the questions below THROUGHLY with real life proof so that i can get the full marks.

Supreme court of Canada, strikes down life without parole ruling. In Canada's legal justice system, sentencing is the process of determining the appropriate punishment for a person who has been found guilty of a criminal offense. Sentencing is a critical part of the criminal justice system as aims to balance, the interest of the offender, the victim and society as a whole.

1. What alternatives to life parole sentences do you think that Canadian justice system can implement to ensure public safety and rehabilitation of offenders?

2. In your opinion, how will this ruling change the way in which Canadian courts sentence individuals convicted of violent crimes? Do you think that other countries should adopt a similar approach? Why or why not?

READ THE ARTICLE IN THE PHOTOS AND ANSWER THESE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS BELOW:

1. According to Beccaria, why is it necrssary for the state to sometkmes punish people?

2. Beccaria assumes that offenders are rational individuals pursuing their self-interest. Do you think this is an accurate view of all or most offenders?

3. Do you think Beccaria would favour death penalty? Why or why not? (He discusses this issue in some detail in his essay on crimes and punishments)

4. Evaluate our current system of punishing offenders, using the criteria for effective punishments listed by Beccaria. In particular, do we satisfy the criteria listed by Beccaria?

5. Beccaria states that the "end of punishment is no other than to prevent the criminal from doing further injury to society." do you agree or do you feel that there are other purposes for punishment? Defend your answer

make sure you answers are at a grade 12 university level

MARTIN LUTHER KINGS definition of justice is that segregation distorts the soul and damages personality therefor whatever degrades human morality is unjust and whatever uplifts it is just

AL PACINOS definition of justice to see that guilty proven guilty and innocent walk free, and that justice is the finding of the truth

MICHAEL WALZER definition of justice is that justice means equality

now answer this question:

1. Martin Luther King in bud “Letter from Brimingham Jail”, Al Pacino, in his famous “Justice for All” speech, and Michael Walzer, provide their own definition of justice. Do you agree with their definition of justice? Why or why not? (this is worth 10 marks)

MAKE SURE THE SENTENCES ARE PROPERLY STRUCTURED TO GET THE FULL 10 MARKS. THROUGHLY EXPLAIN THEIR VIEW OF JUSTICE AND BACKUP YOUR POINTS AND EXPLAIN WHY OR WHY NOT U AGREE WITH THEIR VIEW. MAKE SURE ITS AT A GRADE 12 UNIVERSITY LEVEL

CAN YOU WRITE A REFLECTION BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN??

MY THESIS STATEMENT:

Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of the categorical imperative aligns with peoples beliefs of the most, because it emphasizes the importance of treating people as end rather than means, promoted the idea of universal ethics, and stress is the significance of individual autonomy in decision making.

NEXT PART IS THREE POINT PROOF EXPLANATION:

POINT 1: Immanuel Kant emphasizes the importance of treating people as end, rather than means. For Kant, human beings have inherent value and dignity, and they should never be treated merely as a means to an end, but always as ends in themselves. This means that individuals should be respected and treated with dignity, regardless of their social status, or usefulness to others. According to Kant, using people as mere means to achieve one’s own goals, is not only an ethical also undermines the dignity of human beings.

PROOF: “A human being however, is not a thing, and hence not something that can be used merely as a means, but must in all his actions always be regarded as an end itself.” (Kant, 113)

EXPLANATION: Here, Kant argues that every person has inherent dignity and worse, and should be treated as an end in themselves, rather than merely as a means to an end. This means that we should not use others for our own purposes, or treat them as objects to be manipulated, but rather respect their autonomy, and treat them with respect and dignity.

POINT 2: Immanuel Kant promoted the idea of universal ethics. Kant believed that ethical principles should be universal and applicable to all human beings. He argued that ethical rules are not based on personal preferences or opinions, but are grounded in reason, and rationality.

PROOF: Kant believed, in the principle of universalizability, which he describes as, “Act only according to that maxim through you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 109)

EXPLANATION: Kant believed that ethical principles should be universal and applicable to all people. He argued that morality is not relative, and that there are fundamental principles that apply to everyone. This proof supports the point that Kant promoted the idea of universal ethics. Kant argues that morality is not relative and that ethical principles should be universal. He believes that there is only one categorical imperative that should guide all moral actions, which is to act in a way you could will to become a universal law.

POINT 3: Immanuel Kant stress is the significance of individual autonomy in decision making. He believed that individuals have a moral duty to act autonomously and to use their own reason and judgment, to make ethical decisions. He believes individual should not simply follow the rules or conventions of society, but should use their own judgement to determine what is morally right or wrong.

PROOF: Kant states, “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” (Kant,112)

EXPLANATION: Kant’s  emphasis on individual autonomy, highlights the importance of respecting individuals freedom and independence in the moral decision making. This principle suggest that individual should take responsibility for their actions, and not be unduly influenced by external factors, such as societal norms, or pressure from others. It also implies that individuals have a duty to use their own reason and judgement to make a decision that align with moral principles, rather than blindly, following authority or tradition.

THE CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of the categorical imperative is a valuable philosophical framework for guiding moral decision making. It emphasizes how crucial it is to view people as ends rather than means, encourages the concept of universal ethics, and highlights the value of individual autonomy in decision making. These ideas are crucial for creating adjust and equitable society that values the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals.

MY THEMATIC STATEMENT: Kant’s philosophy offers a framework for examining ethical behaviour that is relevant, not only in personal decision making but also and broader social and political contexts. By emphasizing the importance of treating people with respect and promoting universal ethics, Kant challenges us to consider the impact of our actions on others, and to strive for a more just and equitable society.

YOUR JOB IS TO TAKE ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND CREATE A GOOD AND WELL WORDED REFLECTION. I ALREADY HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION FOR YOU TO DO SO. HOWEVER, YOU CAN ADD EXTRA SENTENCES AND EXTRA INFORMATION THAT WILL MAKE IT SOUND BETTER. (DONT JUST TAKE ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND PUT IT ALL IN ONE, MAKE SURE YOU MAKE GOOD USE OF EXTRA WORDS AND SENTENCES TO MAKE THIS SOUND GREAT FOR AN A+) l