Should fighting be banned from hockey Explain your reasoning Essay

Should fighting be banned from hockey Explain your reasoning - Essay Example Recently NHL has been banning fights, but as said earlier, the fights remain to be a main attraction in hockey games. While the NHL does not necessarily approve of the violence in the game, there are some unwritten rules in hockey and most of them have something to do with fighting. On the other side of the coin there are also written rules when playing hockey, and some of it are (McNaughton 1): 1) not being the third man in; 2) not leaving the bench to join the fight and 3) dropping of gloves and stick if someone intends to enter into an altercation. There are definitely penalties for getting into fights like being ejected or suspended; and all players must adhere to the rules or they are subjected to additional penalties which are generally known as misconducts. Another article claims that hockey fighting should not be banned in the game because hockey is a physical sport and things are expected to get rough now and again. But nobody likes to see a player get seriously hurt during or after a brawl (Ruth 1). Revising the rule calls for imposing correct restrictions that if a player gets out of line or intentionally hurts another player, then â€Å"he must be put in his proper place.† John Buccigross says he finds it hard to believe that hockey fans merely go to the games and watch it because of the expected fights, which if they do happen is usually short lived (1). He goes on to suggest that to avoid head and face injuries, hockey players should wear full facial protective gears. Buccigross also pointed out that enforcers within the games are needed to protect the star players who play in order to win the game. He likewise states that even if the NHL bans fighting in the games, there would still be fights due to the tensions and expectation of the players. Rick Sadowski of Rocky Mountain News similarly commented that there will always be fighting in hockey games even if the league officials impose sanctions like automatic

Severity of Sanctions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Severity of Sanctions - Essay Example The implications of these two philosophies are quite different. Retribution focuses on the criminal's behaviour and stresses the need to punish him in proportion to the extent of damages caused or loss suffered. Conversely, the utilitarian stance focuses, not on the criminal, but on society as a whole with an aim at reducing crime and thereby ensuring the safety of society. Whilst both of these models are described in their pure theoretical form, in reality most cultures adopt a blended version of both. However, before we begin to fully examine the effectiveness of deterrence, an understanding of it is necessary. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. Specific deterrence is aimed at eliminating the future criminal activity of the person being incarcerated or punished in order to avoid future punishment for repeating a similar crime whilst general deterrence's goal is reducing crime unilaterally by stopping others from committing like crimes for fear of receiving like punishment (Palmer 2005, p. 25). While it is impossible to argue that capital punishment is not a totally effective means of ensuring specific deterrence, its effectiveness as a deterrent to others is not so definitive. This leads us to the debate of the severity of sentencing and its effects on deterring criminal behaviour. Feinberg views punishment i... Instead of acting as a deterrent to preventing future criminal activity sentencing is merely a punishment and has nothing to do with deterring crime; rather its effectiveness as a specific deterrent only lasts as long as the prison sentence itself. In his explanation of the phenomenon of punishment Feinberg states: Punishment is a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and indignation, and of judgments of disapproval and reprobation, on the part either of the punishing authority himself or of those 'in whose name' the punishment is inflicted. Punishment, in short, has a symbolic significance largely missing from other kinds of penalties (1994, p. 74). He elaborates in greater detail by stating that greater than disapproval, punishment is, in effect, society's method of 'getting back' at criminals and further showing its "vindictive resentment" (1994, p. 76). From his position it is clear that criminal sentencing is not deterrent in intent; rather it is retributive in nature. Von Hirsh and Ashworth take a similar stance but further elaborate on what they view to be the causal effects of this 'vindictive resentment'. In their theory politicians use the public's fear of crime and criminals to create a heightened state of panic amongst the public. With this increased sense of fear and outrage the brunt of the retributive wrath falls upon those least able to defend themselves. Clearly seeking neither retribution nor deterrence, the political overtones and the media frenzy caused results in a public outcry for justice. As public sentiment grows more fearful and resentful, the severity of punishment rises proportionally. The sentence no longer deals with the specific nature or severity crime itself, but rather focuses