Most of us would agree, for instance, that it is typically impermissible to imprison people, to force them to pay monetary sanctions or engage in community service, or to execute them. The moral challenge of punishment, then, is to establish what if anything makes it permissible to subject those who have been convicted of crimes to such treatment. Traditionally, justifications of punishment have been either consequentialist or retributivist. Consequentialist accounts contend that punishment is justified as a means to securing some valuable end—typically crime reduction, by deterring, incapacitating, or reforming offenders. Retributivism, by contrast, holds that punishment is an intrinsically appropriate because deserved response to criminal wrongdoing.
Bobby Moore, 60, had been the center of a landmark case in which the U. Supreme Court overturned his death sentence because he is intellectually disabled. The so-called honor killing of a year-old girl in Iran has shaken the country and forced an examination of its failure to protect women and children. There are too many noosed necks, charred bodies and drowned souls for them to deny knowing precisely what they are doing. The pardon effectively ends the prospect that any of the men who killed Jamal Khashoggi will be executed.