The death sentence can never be justified on either moral or practical grounds. How far do you agree with this?

The death sentence, or capital punishment, are dealt out to criminals who commit crimes of severe magnitude, for example, first degree murder. However, can one be sure that the criminal deserves the sentence, and that it is not given because of revenge? Do we really have the right to take away another person’s life?

For:
It is for the overall benefit of the society as it ensures that the criminal would do no more harm to society. By killing them, it is the surest way to ensure that no harm would be brought to society.

It is used as a means of deterrence to warn others not to commit the same crime. By using a criminal as an example, it implies that all those who commit crimes will meet the same fate. Thus, fear is used to keep crimes in check.

It is to give the kin of the victims a kind of closure, as an answer to their deaths. The kin of the victim will obviously want to see the criminal punished. Revenge is part of human nature, by seeing the criminal receive whatever they have dished out, it gives them a sense of closure to the death of their loved ones.

Against:
No one has the right to take away another person’s life. We cannot play god. Although we have the ability, we do not have the right to end anyone’s life. Thus, it is morally wrong to take away a life as we did not give it in the first place.

Everybody deserves a second chance. The crime may be committed in a moment of folly. Thus, they deserve a second chance through reforms. In this way, we would be able to reform the criminal and protect the society without going against Mother Nature.

However, if every criminal is to be sent for rehabilitation, there would be an enormous resources strain on the government. In Canada, correctional services expenditures totalled $2.8 billion in 2004/2005, up 2% in constant dollars from 2003/2004. Custodial services (prisons) accounted for the largest proportion (71%) of the expenditures, followed by community supervision services (14%), headquarters and central services (14%), and National Parole Board and provincial parole boards (2%). This figure does not include policing or court costs which bring the total expenditures up to more than $10 billion for the year. Thus it is more cost wise to kill the criminals and the resources could be better used elsewhere, for example, education.
As for the immoral taking of human life, it is to ultimately protect the lives of other people. As cruel as it sounds, the bigger picture must always be considered first. Thus, in order to protect the majority of the people, it is inevitable that a few lives have to be sacrificed in order to ensure the safety of the bigger community.
Thus, I do not agree with the statement that the death sentence cannot be justified. On the contrary, the death sentence should be justifiable as it contributes to ensuring the safety of the society. Therefore, no matter how cruel the death sentence sounds, it is the majority that we need to consider for.

Views on the punishment of a infamous criminal

Dennis Rader, also known as BTK (bind, torture, kill) a serial killer who terrorised the Wichita area from 1974 to 1991. He was never caught at that time. His downfall came when he resurfaced in 2004 after years of silence with a letter to The Wichita Eagle that included photos of a 1986 strangling victim and a photocopy of her missing driver's license. That letter was followed by several other cryptic messages and packages. The break in the case came earlier that year after a computer diskette the killer had sent was traced to Rader's church, where he once served as president. Dennis Rader wad charged with the murder of 10 victims attributed to BTK. The sentence, a minimum of 175 years without a chance of parole, was the longest possible that Judge Gregory Waller could deliver. Kansas had no death penalty at the time the killings were committed.
I feel that the criminal got what he deserves, although some may think that he may have been let off too lightly. This man deserves to be put away for life after all the hurt he has caused to the community. What makes it worse that he is clearly aware of what he was doing, and even enjoyed it. I believe that there is no hope of redemption for this man as he had willingly crossed the line. However, this man was ‘protected’ by the law from a harsher sentence as there wad no death penalty at the time the crimes were committed. This ‘loophole’ in the law should be removed as the criminals should be prosecuted by today’s law to ensure that it would be fair to the victims. The criminals should be prosecuted according to the ‘updated’ laws to ensure that they will be charged fairly, as the law at that time may not reflect the expectations of the modern times. Therefore, I feel that Dennis Rader deserves his life imprisonment sentence as he should put away so that he does not do anymore harm to the community. However, the kin of the victims may feel that only with the death sentence imposed, could this chapter draw to a close.

What are your views on capital punishment? In what circumstances (if any) can the death penalty be justified?

I believe that there are 2 different views on capital punishment. Some may argue that capital punishment is inhuman, and that people cannot and should not play god. However, the logic of governments is that, it will act as deterrence, as a warning to others. However, the effects are limited as those who often commit these serious crimes already now the consequences and are prepared to face them. Thus the question that arises is, is there any other way to punish the criminals? Prisons are built just for these circumstances. The purpose of prisons is to provide a place for the wrongdoers to reform. Therefore, instead of capital punishment, life imprisonment can be implemented. I believe that after the long years spent in prison, I believe that the person could change for the better. Furthermore, by keeping them in prison, it also prevents them from bringing more harm to society, which is what the death penalty aims to do in the first place. Another alternative would be caning. As everyone knows, caning is extremely painful and it leaves a scar for life. Thus, any those ex-criminals who want to commit crimes again will think twice about it as the caning experience will haunt them for life. All these coincide with the aim for deterring people from committing more crimes. If the same results can be achieved, why not use the methods that are less inhumane? Moreover, in the case of murder, by killing the criminal, it would still not bring the victim back to life, and if the judge sentences the criminal to death, would that not be the same as the murderer, taking lives away at their own will?
Therefore, I believe that the death penalty can only be justified in extreme circumstances. For example, mass murderers. By killing that many people, it shows that the person is beyond redemption, his sanity lost. People should all get a second chance, but they must show that they deserve it. Therefore, the death penalty should only be used for extreme cases, like mass murderers with disregard for human life, playing god themselves. However, it would be best if we do not resort to the death penalty at every available opportunity.

comments on child prostitution

Child prostitution, one of the most inhumane crimes around, but still exists in this world. It is utterly horrifying to believe that something like that still exists in the 21st century. However, this crime is not one that would be eradicated that easily. Even though the authorities are doing their best, it is not enough. Simply because there is a demand and market for it. As they say, money is the root of all evil. The syndicates responsible for this tends to earn a lot form this. Furthermore, corrupted authorities and often turning a blind eye to this as they would be bribed by the syndicates to allow them to continue their business. These people do not have any compassion at all. Even though some authorities are doing their best, it is not enough. There are just too many places for the lawbreakers to hide. In developing countries, it is even more difficult as the authorities do not have much control in the first place. Coupled with corrupted officials, it is nearly impossible to apprehend anyone. The problem of child prostitution are like cancerous cells, it is not enough to merely get rid of a few, they would eventually grow back. The only way is to destroy everything, once and for all. However, it is easier said then done. With the current resources, it is delusional to think that child prostitution can be eradicated. The sad truth is, this problem will still persist for many years to come.

comments on plastic surgery

Plastic surgery, a growing trend that is not only for the very affluent, but also for middle class people. As technology improves, people are offered the chance of improving their looks, with relative safety. Usually, plastic surgery is for those in the later stages of life. These people go for plastic surgery because they want to remain beautiful. However, a worrying trend of plastic surgery is also emerging. More and more youngsters are catching on to this trend. Form people as young as teenagers, whose most common request for plastic surgery is for double eyelids. The surprising thing is, most of their parents approve of it, even paying for their surgery fees. Does this mean that it is becomingly socially acceptable to go under the knife? In their search for the ‘perfect’ features, people are actually destroying their own identity, bit by bit. By sacrificing natural beauty for artificial beauty, people are actually creating a world where they look like replicates of each other. Granted, plastic surgery have its uses, like restoring the features of the result of a accident, giving the victim another chance at life without the community looking at him with apprehension and disgust. In conclusion people should be happy with what they have. By going under the knife, just because one is not happy with his own features, he is just another piece of artwork among a sea of them.

How ethical is youtube in its dealings in the media industry?

I believe that youtube is not entirely ethical in its dealings with the media industry, but they are not entirely to be blamed. It is the users who actually uploads the contents onto the websites, youtube just provides a medium for them to do it. Granted, there may be many clips which may have violated the copyright laws, youtube cannot be blamed entirely. One cannot expect youtube to catch all those who post copyrighted material, just like one cannot expect the police to be able to catch every criminal in the world. There is bound to be some who will manage to escape. Thus all the responsibility should not fall on youtube alone, rather, the users should also not be spared. Furthermore, it is a free world, people are allowed to do as they wish. The media industry’s goal is to spread their films so that as many people get to watch as possible, is that not what youtube is doing for them? After all by the time the videos are uploaded, people must have already saw them somewhere before, so they must have already profited from it, so why not share it with the world? Who knows, those who saw the videos might develop such an interest that they might just decide to buy a copy.

To what extent has the emergence of youtube changed our medium of entertianment?

I believe that the emergence of youtube has changed the perceptions of the common sources of entertainment. In the past, when people speak of medium of entertainment, the radio or television immediately comes to mind. Now, however, one’s first answer would most likely be youtube. Along with the internet, people nowadays are spending more time on the computer rather than in front of the television. With youtube, we can watch what we want, whenever we want. This is a huge difference with the television, where the programs are planned in advance. Thus we can see that youtube is gradually coming out to compete with the television as a major source of entertainment. With youtube, people have a variety of choices to choose from, making it more convenient for them. However, the conventional television programs cannot be discarded. There are many shows that are banned on youtube due to copyright issues or in the case of movies, too long to upload. Furthermore, the quality of the television shows are much higher than that on youtube. Thus youtube cannot completely replace the television, it is more like a complementary, offering more choices to the people. Maybe, in the future, youtube could become the leading source of entertainment, but now, it has to be contented with its supporting role. Thus it can be seen that youtube does not have such a major impact on our major sources of entertainment, yet.