Words include speeches and written material that can be used to inform or influence large masses. They have formed a critical role in influencing the course of history as they usually have the power to dictate and change the perception of ideas in a society. However, I feel that in modern day context, words have lost their impact as compared to the past to a large extent. This is due to changes in the susceptibility of people accepting information that is presented to them readily.
A picture says more than a thousand words. With easier excess to the internet for information, people are not easily convinced with plain words that are presented to them. The free excess to a library of information on the internet has led people to question the credibility of words said by either famous people or the news. During the Tibetan crisis, there was a public outrage over the issue that the BBC and other western media had manipulated reports so as to portray China negatively. Pictures were sent through emails to show some of the photographs that the Western media had taken were digitally enhanced to aggravate the tension between Tibet and China. Hence, it can be seen that written material has lost its value as pictures were used as evidence instead.
A change in the political situation around the world has led to words losing their impact. In today’s world, countries are embracing a democratic system instead of a monarchy system. This means that there is no supreme ruler in a country but rather is based on constant elections for a party to rule the constituent. Hence, words said by politicians have lots their impact as the words said by the political party do not have a significant impact as compared to a single ruler where his words are deemed as the absolute truth. Hence, words have significantly lost their impact in today’s world.
In addition, people are more educated and the standard of living has improved over the years. No longer are they easily influenced by speeches and written material.
On the other hand, influential people can use mere words to influence others.
For example, Oprah Winfrey who is one of the most influential women in the world, is being followed by people all around the world in her talk show.. Many believe that she has the power to cause enormous market swings and radical price changes with a single comment. An example would be during one particular talk show where she was discussing about mad cow disease with a guest. Winfrey then exclaimed, "It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!" Her comment subsequently sent cattle prices tumbling, costing beef producers some USD$12 million. Other examples which show that influential people can use mere words to impact others even in modern day includes quotes by people in the past which are still remembered and used by people today. For instance,Gandhi’s quotes on violence “An eye for an eye makes the world go blind” and “Hate the sin, love the sinner” are still being used. Hence, it is evident that words have not lost their impact in todays world.
Besides, words can also work concurrently with images to create an impact.
For example, the use of subtitles in news reporting in Singapore is complimented by the people due to the convenience it cause as people can now read off the subtitles instead of having to catch what the news reporter is reporting.
In conclusion, I feel that words have lost their impact in modern day context as compared to the past. This is mainly because the gerneral world population is better educated and have learnt to become critics themselves when judging a speeches and written work. Besides, the promotion of freedom of speech through the spread of democracy around the world has led words to lose their values as speeches and statements are constantly under fire by critics. This however is not possible in the past due to a more conservative society.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Words have lost their impact in today’s world. How far do you agree with this statement
Definition: Words= speeches and written material
Today’s world= Modern day
Lost their impact = losing their power to influence
Reasons to why words have not lost their impact in today’s world.
1) Influential people can use mere words to influence others.
- Example: Oprah Winfrey. One of the most influential women in the world, her talk show is being followed by people all around the world. Many believe that she has the power to cause enormous market swings and radical price changes with a single comment. One famous example would be during one particular talk show about mad cow disease with a guest, when Winfrey exclaimed, "It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!" Her comment subsequently sent cattle prices tumbling, costing beef producers some USD$12 million.
- Example: Quotes. Quotes by people in the past is still remembered and used by people today. Gandhi’s quotes on violence “An eye for an eye makes the world go blind” and “Hate the sin, love the sinner” are still being used.
2) Words can also work concurrently with images to create an impact.
- Example: Use of subtitles. For example, the use of subtitles in news reporting in Singapore is complimented by the people due to the convenience it cause as people can now read off the subtitles instead of having to catch what the news reporter is reporting.
Reasons to why words have lost their impact in today’s world.
1)
A picture says more than a thousand words. With easier excess to the internet for information, people are not easily convinced with plain words that are presented to them. The free excess to a library of information on the internet has led people to question the credibility of words said by either famous people or the news.
Example:
During the Tibetan crisis, there was a public outrage over the issue that the BBC and other western media had manipulated reports so as to portray China negatively.
2) A change in the political situation around the world has led to words losing their impact. In today’s world, countries are embracing a democratic system instead of a monarchy system. This means that there is no supreme ruler in a country but rather is based on constant elections for a party to rule the constituent. Hence, words said by politicians have lots their impact as the words said by this political party do not have a significant impact as compared to a single ruler where his words are deemed as the truth…….
3) People are more educated and standard of living has improved. No longer are they easily influenced by speeches……
Example Hitler reign.
Today’s world= Modern day
Lost their impact = losing their power to influence
Reasons to why words have not lost their impact in today’s world.
1) Influential people can use mere words to influence others.
- Example: Oprah Winfrey. One of the most influential women in the world, her talk show is being followed by people all around the world. Many believe that she has the power to cause enormous market swings and radical price changes with a single comment. One famous example would be during one particular talk show about mad cow disease with a guest, when Winfrey exclaimed, "It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!" Her comment subsequently sent cattle prices tumbling, costing beef producers some USD$12 million.
- Example: Quotes. Quotes by people in the past is still remembered and used by people today. Gandhi’s quotes on violence “An eye for an eye makes the world go blind” and “Hate the sin, love the sinner” are still being used.
2) Words can also work concurrently with images to create an impact.
- Example: Use of subtitles. For example, the use of subtitles in news reporting in Singapore is complimented by the people due to the convenience it cause as people can now read off the subtitles instead of having to catch what the news reporter is reporting.
Reasons to why words have lost their impact in today’s world.
1)
A picture says more than a thousand words. With easier excess to the internet for information, people are not easily convinced with plain words that are presented to them. The free excess to a library of information on the internet has led people to question the credibility of words said by either famous people or the news.
Example:
During the Tibetan crisis, there was a public outrage over the issue that the BBC and other western media had manipulated reports so as to portray China negatively.
2) A change in the political situation around the world has led to words losing their impact. In today’s world, countries are embracing a democratic system instead of a monarchy system. This means that there is no supreme ruler in a country but rather is based on constant elections for a party to rule the constituent. Hence, words said by politicians have lots their impact as the words said by this political party do not have a significant impact as compared to a single ruler where his words are deemed as the truth…….
3) People are more educated and standard of living has improved. No longer are they easily influenced by speeches……
Example Hitler reign.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?
Same- sex marriage has always been a controversial issue debated among societies. Currently, only 5 countries in the world allow same-sex marriages. They are Netherlands, Belgium, Massachusetts, USA, Canada and Spain.While marriage is usually a institution between one man and one woman, same sex marriage is not out of the norm in today’s society. Even amidst the public opposition, governments are undergoing federal laws and penal codes. Hence, there seem to be a vested interest in pushing the legalization of same-sex marriage. Therefore, is it a smart move to adopt this consideration in this rapid changing society?
Men fueled by testosterone, were the providers, the fighters , the strong and silent types who brought home dinner. Women, hopped up on estrogen ( not to mention the mothering hormone oxytocin) were the nurturers, the communicators , the soft, emotional ones who get the dinner on the table. But as society changed, the stereotypes faded.
People who are against same-sex marriage fear that by allowing same-sex couples to marry, it will lessen the validity of heterosexual marriage. They say marriage is union with the purpose of creating and raising children. They argue that children fare better in household headed by a man and a woman. This is because they feel that the common objection to same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is a result of naturally occurring sexual attraction that leads to procreation and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability.
In addition, some opponents object to same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds. Opponents often claim that extending marriage to same-sex couples will undercut the conventional purpose of marriage as interpreted by cultural, religious, and traditional understanding. Furthermore, opponents argue that same-sex marriage cannot fulfill common procreation roles, and/or sanctions a partnership that is centered around sexual acts that their respective religion prohibits. For example, James Dobson, in Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, states that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family, damage traditional family unions, and lead to an increase in the number of homosexual couples. Conservatives and some moderate Christians further claim that same-sex marriage goes against biblical teaching. As an example, there is the Bible verse Genesis 19:5 which refers to the behavior which biblically contributed to the destruction of the ancient cities Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus in religious countries, same sex marriage is considered a taboo.
On the other hand, there are people who support or are in agreement with same sex marriages.
Firstly , they feel that same-sex couples are able to give the optimum environment to raise children. This is because they feel that if murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought, much less a protest, by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Scientific evidences have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.
Besides, supporters of same sex marriages feels that this will cause a drop in divorce rates. On an international scale, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study, by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after
In conclusion, I feel that same sex marriages should gradually be accepted in society given the increasing trends of globalization. This is because there are not enough evidences that are concrete enough to support that same sex marriages promotes negative impacts to society. On the other hand, countries that have accepted same sex marriages have evidences to show that this will decrease social problems such as divorce rates. Thus, same sex marriages should be a practical consideration.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
BLOG TASK 1 for Term 3
"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle)Do you agree?
Since the medieval ages, crimes and revolution have plagues on societies and the government. A revolution is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. In this context, it is the uprising of the citizens against the state government. It usually encompasses violent confrontations in the forms of killings and riots, which will most likely instill fear into the hearts of the citizens. On the other hand , crimes are defined as deviant behaviour that violates prevailing norms, specifically, cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave. Poverty occurs when people are not meeting the basic survival or living needs such as food and water. In my opioion, I agree to a large extent that poverty is the key element leading to revolutions and crimes. However, there are other reasons for revolutions such as discriminations of races and for crimes , it can be due to anger, desire, excessive consumption of alcohol and drugs etc.
Poverty does lead to revolution. In the case of revolting against a political government, masses of people are usually involved. The rational of them participating in this phenomenon is due to the disatisfaction of their standard of living. For example, during the Ming dynasty , Li Zicheng lead a peasent revolution against the Ming dynasty. One of the greatest reason why he succeeded in conquering the Ming dynasty was because the people were living in poverty and famines had wiped up large population of their country men. Unhappy with the conditions of living, they began to join the peasent revolution. Since the government is unable to accomplish the job of ensuring the welfare of the people by securing economic stability and jobs, the people are not obliged either to continue allowing the present government to rule and hence, revolution would occur so as to remove the inefficient and welcome other reforms of new governments which hopefully they feel will change their lives for the better. Thus, it is apparent that the root of revolution is due to poverty.
In addition, poverty is usually seemed to be related to crime rates by the public. This is because when the basic needs of the people are not met such as food and lodging, they will resort to crimes such as theft and robbery in order to support their family or love ones. Also, due to poverty, families might not be able to send their children to school for education. Thus these minors will be uneducated and fall prey to bad influences. In the long run, they too may resort to crimes. Philadelphia had the highest murder rate among the nation's 10 largest cities in 2006 , and violent crime and property crime grew at a rate that exceeded the national average, according to FBI statistics. Criminologists say the crime is attributable to a complex mix of social and economic causes and one of the reason is due to poverty. Thus poverty is one of the major causes for crimes.
However, there are other reasons why people commit crimes. Some of the reasons are anger, desire, alcohol consumption and drugs. Crimes like rape, consumption of drugs and alcohol are not the results of poverty. Instead it can be due to the influence of bad company or even one who is unable to control his desire. If crime is caused by poverty, how does one explain the strange case of Michael Pickens? Cornwall, Connecticut police arrested Michael Pickens, son of billionaire T. Boone Pickens, for burglary after finding him hiding inside a fishing store and a cache of store items outside the shop. People are poorer in New Dehli than New York and were poorer during the Great Depression than during the 1970s. The crime rate is higher in New York than New Dehli and the crime rate was higher during the 1970s than during the Great Depression. Poverty is not the cause of crime, though crime can be the cause of poverty. Henceforth, poverty may not be entirely the mother of crime as stated, but only to a certain extent.
Revolution does not arise basically from poverty, as it is due to unhappiness and dissatisfaction of the government, which covers many areas which do not comprise only poverty. One of which may be racial, religious, gender or any form of discrimination which leads to revolution. For instance, the racial conflicts between the protestants and Catholics in northern Ireland has been a source of conflict for many decades, and Catholics have made many attempts to change the status quo by appealing to governments of both northern Ireland and Ireland mainland. When they do reach a boiling point, they would rebel against the government in fits of anger as they are being suppressed by a protestant government, henceforth compromising their human privileges and rights, as well as welfare and social security from riots and conflicts. People would rebel in order to change this.
In conclusion, I agree to a large extent that the mother of revolutions and crimes is due to poverty. However this is not always the case as there are reasons such as discrimination and unequal treatment which leads to revolution
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/7837957.html
WHY POVERTY NOT THE ONLY REASON
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16018582&BRD=1211&PAG=461&dept_id=169689&rfi=6
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2006/leftist_fallacy_386_poverty_causes_crime.html
"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle)Do you agree?
Since the medieval ages, crimes and revolution have plagues on societies and the government. A revolution is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. In this context, it is the uprising of the citizens against the state government. It usually encompasses violent confrontations in the forms of killings and riots, which will most likely instill fear into the hearts of the citizens. On the other hand , crimes are defined as deviant behaviour that violates prevailing norms, specifically, cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave. Poverty occurs when people are not meeting the basic survival or living needs such as food and water. In my opioion, I agree to a large extent that poverty is the key element leading to revolutions and crimes. However, there are other reasons for revolutions such as discriminations of races and for crimes , it can be due to anger, desire, excessive consumption of alcohol and drugs etc.
Poverty does lead to revolution. In the case of revolting against a political government, masses of people are usually involved. The rational of them participating in this phenomenon is due to the disatisfaction of their standard of living. For example, during the Ming dynasty , Li Zicheng lead a peasent revolution against the Ming dynasty. One of the greatest reason why he succeeded in conquering the Ming dynasty was because the people were living in poverty and famines had wiped up large population of their country men. Unhappy with the conditions of living, they began to join the peasent revolution. Since the government is unable to accomplish the job of ensuring the welfare of the people by securing economic stability and jobs, the people are not obliged either to continue allowing the present government to rule and hence, revolution would occur so as to remove the inefficient and welcome other reforms of new governments which hopefully they feel will change their lives for the better. Thus, it is apparent that the root of revolution is due to poverty.
In addition, poverty is usually seemed to be related to crime rates by the public. This is because when the basic needs of the people are not met such as food and lodging, they will resort to crimes such as theft and robbery in order to support their family or love ones. Also, due to poverty, families might not be able to send their children to school for education. Thus these minors will be uneducated and fall prey to bad influences. In the long run, they too may resort to crimes. Philadelphia had the highest murder rate among the nation's 10 largest cities in 2006 , and violent crime and property crime grew at a rate that exceeded the national average, according to FBI statistics. Criminologists say the crime is attributable to a complex mix of social and economic causes and one of the reason is due to poverty. Thus poverty is one of the major causes for crimes.
However, there are other reasons why people commit crimes. Some of the reasons are anger, desire, alcohol consumption and drugs. Crimes like rape, consumption of drugs and alcohol are not the results of poverty. Instead it can be due to the influence of bad company or even one who is unable to control his desire. If crime is caused by poverty, how does one explain the strange case of Michael Pickens? Cornwall, Connecticut police arrested Michael Pickens, son of billionaire T. Boone Pickens, for burglary after finding him hiding inside a fishing store and a cache of store items outside the shop. People are poorer in New Dehli than New York and were poorer during the Great Depression than during the 1970s. The crime rate is higher in New York than New Dehli and the crime rate was higher during the 1970s than during the Great Depression. Poverty is not the cause of crime, though crime can be the cause of poverty. Henceforth, poverty may not be entirely the mother of crime as stated, but only to a certain extent.
Revolution does not arise basically from poverty, as it is due to unhappiness and dissatisfaction of the government, which covers many areas which do not comprise only poverty. One of which may be racial, religious, gender or any form of discrimination which leads to revolution. For instance, the racial conflicts between the protestants and Catholics in northern Ireland has been a source of conflict for many decades, and Catholics have made many attempts to change the status quo by appealing to governments of both northern Ireland and Ireland mainland. When they do reach a boiling point, they would rebel against the government in fits of anger as they are being suppressed by a protestant government, henceforth compromising their human privileges and rights, as well as welfare and social security from riots and conflicts. People would rebel in order to change this.
In conclusion, I agree to a large extent that the mother of revolutions and crimes is due to poverty. However this is not always the case as there are reasons such as discrimination and unequal treatment which leads to revolution
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/7837957.html
WHY POVERTY NOT THE ONLY REASON
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16018582&BRD=1211&PAG=461&dept_id=169689&rfi=6
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2006/leftist_fallacy_386_poverty_causes_crime.html
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Research (case study)
Lookism
Lookism is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism
Ageism
Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism
Disablism
Disablism is used to discribe inherent discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disablism
Xenophobia
Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia
Somalis under siege in South Africa Written on Friday, 20 October 2006
Lookism is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism
Ageism
Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism
Disablism
Disablism is used to discribe inherent discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disablism
Xenophobia
Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia
Somalis under siege in South Africa Written on Friday, 20 October 2006
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Holiday blogging
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I feel that Szilagyi stand on social responsibility should be practiced instead. This is because although Singapore is a multi-racial country, there is still an underlying unspoken differences between races and religion. Therefore, I feel that freedom of expression can be practiced but only under one condition, which is social responsibility.
Whether we like it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another. .The central question in this debate is as simple as it is difficult. What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society - to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens (within the limits marked by law) or to protect the collective interests of society? Both these goals cannot be fully accomplished at the same time, and the two dominant philosophies of the press - the libertarian and the social responsibility theories - have come up with very different definitions of the media's main mandate.The former hails individual freedoms, even to the detriment of the quality of media output, while the latter places more emphasis on the media's responsibility in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights.Backers of the social responsibility theory now have a new powerful argument against the libertarians - that once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas.
Although it is clear now that Danish and Norwegian newspapers that originally published the cartoons had no intention of setting off mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East, the repercussions that were a result of this issue was tremendous. Riots and lost of lives were some of the consequences. Thus, although the Danish and Norwegian have this authority for freedom of speech, one must always consider the impacts of the intended actions. Therefore, I feel that that incident could be avoided if the Danish and Norwegian newspaper editors had practiced social responsibility.
On the other hand, I feel that if a country wants to progress efficiently, an open minded society must be in place. Therefore, I believe that freedom of expression is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.
In conclusion, I feel that the world is still at an amateur stage whereby freedom of speech can be practiced. Unless everyone around the world is educated and understands personal rights to freedom of speech, I feel that this act should not be practiced as it may bring in unnecessary problems. Otherwise, the day will occur only when Earth has obtained a Utopia stage before we can exercise freedom of speech.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I feel that Szilagyi stand on social responsibility should be practiced instead. This is because although Singapore is a multi-racial country, there is still an underlying unspoken differences between races and religion. Therefore, I feel that freedom of expression can be practiced but only under one condition, which is social responsibility.
Whether we like it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another. .The central question in this debate is as simple as it is difficult. What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society - to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens (within the limits marked by law) or to protect the collective interests of society? Both these goals cannot be fully accomplished at the same time, and the two dominant philosophies of the press - the libertarian and the social responsibility theories - have come up with very different definitions of the media's main mandate.The former hails individual freedoms, even to the detriment of the quality of media output, while the latter places more emphasis on the media's responsibility in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights.Backers of the social responsibility theory now have a new powerful argument against the libertarians - that once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas.
Although it is clear now that Danish and Norwegian newspapers that originally published the cartoons had no intention of setting off mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East, the repercussions that were a result of this issue was tremendous. Riots and lost of lives were some of the consequences. Thus, although the Danish and Norwegian have this authority for freedom of speech, one must always consider the impacts of the intended actions. Therefore, I feel that that incident could be avoided if the Danish and Norwegian newspaper editors had practiced social responsibility.
On the other hand, I feel that if a country wants to progress efficiently, an open minded society must be in place. Therefore, I believe that freedom of expression is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.
In conclusion, I feel that the world is still at an amateur stage whereby freedom of speech can be practiced. Unless everyone around the world is educated and understands personal rights to freedom of speech, I feel that this act should not be practiced as it may bring in unnecessary problems. Otherwise, the day will occur only when Earth has obtained a Utopia stage before we can exercise freedom of speech.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
BLOG TASK 3: The death penalty isn't a deterrent, it is murder. Do you agree?
Personally, i agree to this statement that the death penalty is not a deterrent but murder. In my own opinion , justice can not be served until the debate on capital punishment is resolved in which all states come to agree that the death penalty is not the best way to stop crime completely.
Many people who are against capital punishment are only thinking of the criminals and how cruel it is for them. But, should not they think of the families that are broken apart now because of the merciless acts of these criminals. One good example to support my stance is Susan Smith, the woman who drove her car off into a lake with her two children strapped to the seats. One must imagine what the children have felt when cold water started to fill the cabin of the car and then ultimately drown them. But yet, the hury rejected the death penalty and chose a life sentence instead. Was this fair for the two young children that lost their lives?
The death penelty serves as a deterrant to allow potential criminals of the consequences of commitng a heindous crime such as terrorist activities, first degree murder etc. It serves as an "eye for an eye" form of retributive justice which is a statement found in the Holy Bible. More importantly it gives Justice for the victim and assures public that the felon no longer poses a threat to society. Besides, it is more economically sound to execute the prisoner than keep in life incarceration. Unlike the Draconian code of ancient Greece who execute criminals irregardless of the nature of crime commited, modern day execution is given to criminals for commiting heindous crimes. Thus , execution is the extreme measure practiced for extreme crimes commited and should not be banned.
However , like two sides of a coin , when one supposes that capital punishment is morally justifiable, there are many good reasons to oppose it. These include the fact that those wrongly found guilty are sometimes sentenced to death and in all likelihood, some of them are executed. Also, death sentence have historically reflected racial bias, in that they are more likely to be imposed if a murderer's victim is white as opposed to nonwhite. Being subject to capital punishment often hinges on the quality of one's legal counsel, which itself depends on one's economic status. For example, the rich are able to engage in a professional lawyer to fight for themselves while the poor have to engage at best a social lawyer to fight for his or her case. This disparity is thus unfair.
Besides, some people will claim that humans should not play god. An example is Angel Nieves Diaz who was executed by lethal injection in Florida , USA, Dec 2006. This case was an incident whereby the injection went wrong and it took 34 minutes for the criminal to die. Thus, it comes to a question if man should have the power to kill someone else.
In conclusion, i feel that the the death penalty isn't a deterrent but rather it is murder. The law should not abuse its power and exercise the act of murdering a criminal. Instead, other means of mental torture can be practiced such as life imprisonment or pyschological means to allow the criminals to realise their mistakes.
Many people who are against capital punishment are only thinking of the criminals and how cruel it is for them. But, should not they think of the families that are broken apart now because of the merciless acts of these criminals. One good example to support my stance is Susan Smith, the woman who drove her car off into a lake with her two children strapped to the seats. One must imagine what the children have felt when cold water started to fill the cabin of the car and then ultimately drown them. But yet, the hury rejected the death penalty and chose a life sentence instead. Was this fair for the two young children that lost their lives?
The death penelty serves as a deterrant to allow potential criminals of the consequences of commitng a heindous crime such as terrorist activities, first degree murder etc. It serves as an "eye for an eye" form of retributive justice which is a statement found in the Holy Bible. More importantly it gives Justice for the victim and assures public that the felon no longer poses a threat to society. Besides, it is more economically sound to execute the prisoner than keep in life incarceration. Unlike the Draconian code of ancient Greece who execute criminals irregardless of the nature of crime commited, modern day execution is given to criminals for commiting heindous crimes. Thus , execution is the extreme measure practiced for extreme crimes commited and should not be banned.
However , like two sides of a coin , when one supposes that capital punishment is morally justifiable, there are many good reasons to oppose it. These include the fact that those wrongly found guilty are sometimes sentenced to death and in all likelihood, some of them are executed. Also, death sentence have historically reflected racial bias, in that they are more likely to be imposed if a murderer's victim is white as opposed to nonwhite. Being subject to capital punishment often hinges on the quality of one's legal counsel, which itself depends on one's economic status. For example, the rich are able to engage in a professional lawyer to fight for themselves while the poor have to engage at best a social lawyer to fight for his or her case. This disparity is thus unfair.
Besides, some people will claim that humans should not play god. An example is Angel Nieves Diaz who was executed by lethal injection in Florida , USA, Dec 2006. This case was an incident whereby the injection went wrong and it took 34 minutes for the criminal to die. Thus, it comes to a question if man should have the power to kill someone else.
In conclusion, i feel that the the death penalty isn't a deterrent but rather it is murder. The law should not abuse its power and exercise the act of murdering a criminal. Instead, other means of mental torture can be practiced such as life imprisonment or pyschological means to allow the criminals to realise their mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
