1. The personality of a terrorist has always attracted the attention of researchers. It is worth studying this complex issue as a whole. Therefore, everything will become clear in the psychology of the terrorist; and the problem of combating the one will receive a reliable scientific basis. However, it has turned out to be the most difficult though not solvable task. It is curious to compare the psychology of the personality of an ordinary criminal with the terrorist. Only about 20% of perpetrators of the murder regarded the situation before the crime as hopeless, although there had been no sufficient reason for it. Among terrorists, such situation is estimated at more than 80% (Spencer, 2010). Among ordinary criminals that committed serious crimes, over 45% of them are sure that most people would commit an offence in difficult life situations (Spencer, 2010). Thus, these persons clearly overestimated the importance of difficult conflict situations and underestimated the possibility of personal efforts to overcome them. Unlike ordinary criminals, virtually none of terrorists believed that most people could have committed a terrorist attack. On the contrary, each of them was convinced that only her or his comrades were able to accomplish this act. It exceeds the abilities of ordinary people. The difficulty of the situations and the own personal qualities are also overestimated by terrorists. Criminologists believe that there is none property or their sum, but a qualitatively unique combination and a special specific gravity of each in the principle distinguishing between criminals and non-criminals as well as certain categories of criminals among themselves. It is an insufficiently studied set of personality traits that characterizes the system. In contrast, the organizers of terror researched the complex of personal characteristics necessary for a terrorist activity long ago in practice (Spencer, 2010). Thus, despite the difference in time, six basic qualities are clearly distinguished. They include the devotion to their work (terror) and their organization, readiness for self-sacrifice, self-restraint and discipline, comparativeness, obedience, and collectivism. These ones are an ability to maintain good relations with all members of their combat group (Spencer, 2010). Therefore, a criminal justice/law enforcement approach to the war on terror will work best. The reason is that military researches about the terrorist’s personality cannot win the war crimes. The punishment should be equal for all criminals.
2. Kant's views on the issues of criminal law, the problems of criminal responsibility, the application of a criminal punishment, and the committed offence have attracted the attention of many scientific lawyers. It is a consequence of fact when and why a person is subject to criminal responsibility. It is a main question in the theory of criminal law for Kant (Steffen, 2016). In essence, the solution of this question follows from the main provisions of the law philosophy of this German scientist. Kant has called the violation any action that contradicted an established duty (Kant, 2010). He has stated a crime as deliberate violating. The cruelty of punishment has been indirectly denied by the philosopher. The reason is that he saw justice as a main goal of punishment. In accordance with the requirements of the categorical imperative, justice is exercised through penalty; and the innate rights of the person who commits the crime as a rationale are protected simultaneously. The criminal punishment is a direct duty of the state authority, and not only the right, which is paying tribute to the dignity of the criminal. Thus, it is unacceptable to treat cruelty even against an offender, despite the fact that the one committed an offence crime. Kant’s concept of the world history associated with the philosopher's concept of the state and law is based on the following postulate. You should act so that you always have humanity as a goal and never treat it as a means. Absolute importance of justice is connected with authorities; it does not allow it denying anyone the right or restrict in authorities for reasons of ill will or compassion for someone. However, Kant has argued the appropriateness of applying the death penalty for state crimes and murders. This concept is completely consistent with the principle of the US criminal regulation.
Limited time Offer
3. Act Consequentialism refuses to conduct the consequences of concrete actions through the increase in the utility test. The grounds for refusal may include: a) the complexity of analyzing the consequences of individual actions in specific situations; b) the inability of persons to maintain the emotional balance and impartiality in a course of such examination; c) dangerous consequences of utilitarianism of actions for coordinating activities among people, as well as preserving public order and solidarity (Utilitarian Theories, 2002). For example, a separate theft, with the unbiased benevolence of the stolen distribution, can give good results regarding the overall satisfaction or well-being of the parties violated. However, the recognition of conditionality of a ban on the offence, which stems from its separate approval, leads to catastrophic results in the same respect. Rule Consequentialism defines the criterion of the moral validity of the particular act in this case as its ability to trigger such effects for boosting utility to the greatest extent. It is a set of rules of conduct that would be simple enough to learn and set some procedures for resolving conflicts. It would be quite effective so that the moral entity does not lead to a dead end situation. It is impossible in reality but, of course, better than Act Consequentialism.
4. Karl Marx has given the own assessment of the entire theory of Bentham and its author, calling it the genius of bourgeois stupidity. In his view, Bentham preached the ideology of bourgeois liberalism. He was denying the need for the state regulation of private entrepreneurial and trading activities in a bourgeois-capitalist society. It is impossible to completely exclude the state regulation from public relations at the present moment. The fame that Bentham's conceptions acquired in the state and scientific circles of Western Europe countries in the end of revolutionary events of the middle and end of the nineteenth century could play a role in this process. Unlike Kant, whose principle of good is based on the duty, Bentham has argued that a good deed leads to happiness. However, the problem is that the scholar has based the notion of happiness on the material well-being (Dreier, 2006). True state cannot be achieved only through material wealth. Today, in developed countries, many people have reached material prosperity. However, the social mess and the loss of human beings in these states is quite obvious. It proves that the ethics of virtue cannot be an effective way to achieve true happiness. The theory of virtue was aimed at restoring the social environment. It is necessary to renew the original nature of a person to realize an ideal community. At the same time, it is necessary to prepare an appropriate environment. However, the theory of virtue does not foresee how to do this. Moreover, all people can have different views on the concept of virtue. It is impossible to organize all nationalities and social groups and force them to believe in certain definite ideals. Each community will have their own ideas about the good based on the history of the nation's development, financial situation, upbringing, faith, surrounding, and so on.
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
5. Rawls develops the theory of justice by revising the classical concept of the social contract of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant in the book The Theory of Justice. The philosopher raises an idea of a social contract to a higher level of abstraction. He argues that people are interested in increasing their own and reducing the overall share of benefits derived from cooperation. Rawls says that it is necessary to work out such principles of social justice. These concepts would determine the rights and duties of the basic institutions of society and distribute the pros obtained due to cooperation being acceptable for all principles to overcome the interest in personal gain. He explains that the notions of justice are such ones accepted by people as decisive ones when concluding a social contract. They will further determine the rights and responsibilities, as well as the distribution of social benefits. Rawls has created a hypothetical mental construction, in which he assumes the following issue. People, being in a natural state, are equal with each other. They do not know their place in society, their social status, and their class position. In this situation, no one can change anything for themselves for better. It determines the initial situation as fair. John Rawls primarily considers individuals as rational-minded ones that face a challenge of building a just community (Eusepi, 2006). It is also initially inherent in this mental construction that the public institutions resulting from such treaty are subject to these principles of justice. Therefore, the persons build their relationships on honesty, i.e. on the conditions agreed upon. Rawls argues that this fact would give all grounds for the adoption of these concepts as globally recognized and universal. However, such situation is impossible in the real life. Justice is taken in the original situation, which can be honest, for example, in the following case. Two boxers are fighting for the prize of $1 million, but they have to agree in advance how they will distribute the money. If both do not know about a winner, then the honest ratio will be 60% to 40%. If someone knows about the results ahead, then he or she will wish to get all money.