堪培拉代写assignment:根据古典理论
ASSIGNMENT代写

堪培拉代写assignment:根据古典理论

2017-03-08 10:43

根据古典理论,那些需要处罚应该接受它是为了防止更大的罪恶,它产生并应等同于乐趣来源于犯罪行为,他提出了一种基于物理的、政治的制裁制度,道德或宗教的标准[ 31 ]。然而,在布朗[ 32 ]的决定可能被解释为道德的家长式作风,并解释为与欧洲公约的基本权利不一致的,尽管事实上,布朗判决维持了在Laskey的欧洲人权法院审查。这种家长作风也是证据,在1997,在欧洲人权法院决定维持对在哪[ 33 ]的情况下禁止亵渎,而不出现在在诺里斯v爱尔兰尊重欧洲人权法院裁定同性恋1988 [ 34 ],十年后,在萨瑟兰V英国[ 35 ]。 Law和道德,连同法律和正义都可以通过对概念结构的关注来揭示,人权为民主制度提供了必要的组成部分。这反映了共享道德的自然结果,没有“规则将缺乏意义”[ 36 ],促进“社会生活的耐久性不可避免地假设一个明确的形式”的概念…。这种复杂的法律和道德之间的关系被定义为一套规则和原则,从而执行特定类型的行为。 有争议的是,Durkheim认为,一定的犯罪没有危害社会,“正常的和有价值的一个健康的社会”[ 37 ],与思想的正确和错误的被重申通过存在罪与罚[ 38 ]。这一概念推广帕佩尔解释与建议:“犯罪功能出现了…建立情感纽带的社会成员在社会越轨行为和犯罪类型的差异。它增加了团结”[ 39 ],有关Durkheim“我们可以确定找的反映在法律的所有基本品种的社会团结”。

堪培拉代写assignment:根据古典理论

According to classicist theory miscreants who needed punishment should accept that it was designed to prevent a greater evil than it produced and should equate to pleasures derived from the criminal act from which he derived a system of sanctions based on physical, political, moral or religious criteria[31]. However, the decisions in Brown[32] could be interpreted as moralistic paternalism, and construed as inconsistent with the fundamental rights of the European Convention, despite the fact that the Brown decision was upheld by the ECHR in its review in Laskey. This paternalism was also in evidence, during 1997, in the ECHR decision to maintain the prohibition on blasphemy in the case of Wingrove[33], whilst inconsistencies emerged during the ECHR rulings on homosexuality in respect of both Norris v Ireland in 1988[34] and, ten years’ later, in Sutherland v UK
Law and morality, together with law and justice can all be revealed through attention to conceptual structures, with human rights providing that essential ingredient for a democratic system. This reflects a natural result of shared morality without which “rules would lack meaning”[36] , promoting the concept of the “durability of social life inevitably assuming a definite form…”. This complicated relationship between law and morality has been defined as a set of rules and principles thereby enforcing particular types of behaviour.
Controversially, Durkheim believed that a certain amount of crime failed to harm society and was “normal and valuable in a healthy society”[37], with the ideas of right and wrong being reaffirmed through the existence of crime and punishment[38]. This concept promoted Pampel to explain the differences in types of deviance and crime across societies with the suggestion that “the function of crime appears….to create emotional bonds among members of society. It increases solidarity”[39] or, as related by Durkheim “we can thus be certain of finding reflected in law all the essential varieties of social solidarity”.