Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?

Most of the time, someone is punished for their mistakes so that they would learn from them and not repeat them again. Punishments are given in various forms with varying degree of intensity in the world today. For example, in Arab countries, a small theft results in the immediate amputation of the thief’s hand as punishment while in countries like Africa, the punishment is given based on the believe that the thief will be burned when he puts his hand into a pot of boiling oil while the innocent would not be. Even if there are no standard punishments across the world for crimes, law and order is still maintained because the punishments seem to be working. Thus I agree that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified.

Punishments for the same crime are different in different countries because they are given according to how people of that nation would react to them. If people accept the public amputation of body parts as a form of punishment, it goes to say that they believe is the right form of punishment. Punishments exist to instill fear in future offenders so that they would not do it. Thus, any kind of punishment, regardless of its intensity is justified as long as it works - instills fear and prevents future crimes.

Some people might argue it not justified. There are basically two main reasons to this. They may feel that the offender is easily let off because his of her punishment is not severe enough or the punishment is too severe and unreasonable to the extent that it is unacceptable. For example, in some countries, public humiliation is given as punishment. Under it, a convict would be jailed for a few months, has to walk in public carrying a board indicating his crime and punishment for a fixed few hours per day for up to months or even years, has to give talks to other offenders and schools and managements of his experience so that these people would not repeat his mistakes. This kind of a punishment may seem so easy to people who want revenge. Furthermore, such a punishment works on the basis of shaming the convict. It would hardly be a punishment for him when he has got no shame about it.

Some people find the punishment of dipping hands into boiling oil and deciding the criminal based on it unreasonable and severe because in such punishments, not only the offender is punished but the innocent too is inflicted with pain as he too would have to dip his hand into the oil. Furthermore, such a punishment is given based on the beliefs of people about the oil not burning the innocent.

In some other countries, the punishment is given by the public and not by the court. For example, a shooter is allowed to be punished in a similar way by members of the family affected by him or her. As a result, the shooter shuts himself home for many years and lives in constant fear of being shot to death if he steps out of his house. However, this punishment may not be justified if it promotes the nature of seeking personal revenge in the people as personal revenge would not help to maintain law and order especially when the venom of seeking revenge flows from one generation to another.

Whatever it is, what is set out to be achieved must be achieved at the end of the day. Thus if punishments are given to prevent crimes, they must really be successful. This is a goal to achieve at the end of the day. The process of how it is achieved may vary among countries but as long as it works it is definitely justified to use any form of punishment to maintain law and order.

Can terrorism ever be justified?

Terrorism is the act of injuring or killing others, often innocents by armed people. They usually terrorize people to correct perceived wrongs against them. The terrorists usually carry out their deeds by claiming that they are at war with authorities and since they are too weak to take on the governments, they end up showing their frustration and wrath on the public. Thus the public who are not even involved in any of the terror activities are murdered for no reason.

Terrorism has been and is being practiced by groups of people fighting for various reasons. In the past, it was practiced by communist insurgents who wanted the fall of democracy and the implementation of communism in countries. Even in Singapore, terrorist activities were high in 1950 when the local Chinese formed communist groups fighting against the democratic system installed by the British. Thus in order to bring down democracy they tried to make the government look weak and incapable so that the people would resent the government and a communist system could take its place. The communist did this by placing mines at playgrounds, setting fires in villages, exploding bombs at crowded places and assassinating prominent figures all of which resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent people and children.

Despite the death they cause, most terrorist continue with their activities because they feel justified. They feel that they have a purpose for fighting and that over time the other people would also support them. For example, there is still on going terrorist attacks by Israelis on Palestinians and vice versa. The Palestinians who were driven out by the Israelis are convinced that every Palestinian, be it a woman, man children or elderly, is an enemy to them. They feel justified to kill them in order to get their homeland back.

Another well known terrorist group is the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers. They believe that they should have their own state carved out of the existing Sri Lanka. In order to achieve this, they feel justified to go to war. They carry out their terror activities on innocent villagers who do not even know what is going on. The terrorist are convinced that they are the wronged party and they are justified in doing anything to obtain their wants. In their own and their supporters’ eyes, they appear as heroes fighting for the people but the world accepts otherwise.

It is easy for anyone to justify what he or she strongly believes. In the case of the terrorists, they are convinced they have the right to kill people. Thus, the path they take to get their demands across is often unacceptable because it results in a great loss of properties and lives. Moreover by doing so, the terrorist up in a loss most of the time as the governments most likely do not give in to their demands and also people would resist them for killing innocent lives.

In all, terrorism can never be justified because no one has the right to kill anyone for any reason. Moreover the terrorists usually do not fight against organized groups like soldiers since they know they are too weak to defeat them. Thus they show their toughness on helpless people which can never be justified under any circumstances.

Reference: General paper essays by REDSPOT publishing.

Can death penalty be ever justified?

Death sentence is perhaps the most cruel form of retribution. It gives an individual no chance at all to reform and live life again. According to the Amnesty International, some 69 countries still impose death verdicts. Some of these countries are Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Singapore. About 128 countries have abolished death penalty. Thus it is obvious that the issue of death penalty is a subjective matter. However to me, death penalty can never be justified under any circumstance.

No one is perfect in this world thus every human commit mistakes. When this mistake is considered cruel and inhumane, the person maybe subjected to a death penalty issued by the court of Justice. What we must consider here is, is it not a cruel and inhumane act to kill a person in the name of law?

How many of us are aware that death penalty is issued on pregnant women and children in Iraq and on mentally ill people in the United States of America? Is it fair to punish these people so severely and refusing to give them another chance?

Death penalty denies a being of his rights and disrespects him. Death is just imposed on a person by a fellow human being without any thoughts for his family and friends. No human in this world has the right to control and suppress anyone for any reason because every individual has basic human rights reserved for him or her. Death penalty is the extreme form of suppression and an absolute denial of human rights to the convict. As an Archbishop once said “The abolition of the death penalty is making us a civilized society. It shows we actually do mean business when we say we have reverence for life."

Supporters of death penalty would argue that death penalty would instill fear of death in a person which would in turn stop him from committing any grave mistakes. Thus, death penalty in a way acts as a form of deterrence. However in Iraq, where death sentences have been given increasingly for the past two years, the extent of violence has increased rather than diminished, clearly indicating that the death penalty has not proved to be an effective deterrent.

Such countries still continue with death penalties to just get people who are considered to be unchangeable out of this world forever. This is just running away from reality.

By just killing people easily we are just putting a bad front to them. Moreover, in the past the issue of death used to be so scary and sympathizing. Now, life is not even respected.

People have become stone hearted that killing a life is no longer an issue of concern. When such kind of attitude prevails in people, it is illogical to expect them to not harm others.

Sometimes verdicts can be issued wrongly. Due to circumstances, a person might have been viewed as the criminal and thus when he is given a death penalty wrongly, it results in the atrocious death of an innocent. We are talking about LIFE here. Is it possible to regain it back once its gone? Can it ever be compensated when a life has been forgone wrongly? It can never be compensated with anything because life is priceless.

No matter what the reason might be, it is uncivilized and wrong to kill a person in the name of Law. Thus death penalty is unjustifiable.

Reference:http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE140142007&lang=e

Homosexuals, People like us.

The world has myriad types of people with different lifestyles, practices, customs and traditions. While we have learnt to accept them, we have not totally accepted a certain group of people yet. Homosexuals refer to couples of the same sex who have sexual desires towards each other. Homosexuals are still ostracized by most people because they are believed to go against the norm. Some people shun them away saying they are hedonistic and loose people with no family and children to take care of. It might be true that homosexuals do not have their own child, but some homosexuals in US adopt children thus having their own family to take care of. Homosexuals with no families contribute their valuable time in doing community services and helping the people in need which is something many heterosexuals fail to do. Moreover, not all homosexuals are loose and hedonistic. There are some who hold important job positions and responsibilities, contributing to the economy. Infact, it’s the heterosexuals who indulge in sexual behaviour publicly most of the time.

Homosexuals are normal people like everyone just with a different look to their sexual needs. They need not be chased away and driven to the margins of the society because of this. Criminalising the act of homosexuality exactly does this. It is a fact that HIV is prevalent among homosexuals than heterosexuals, criminalizing will not help the situation because “normal” people might be homosexuals behind closed doors too. The issue of health should be rather educated in them to improve the situation.

Some people might argue that decriminalizing the act of homosexuality will lead to more promiscuous behaviours in public and also gives gays and lesbians groups and lobbies a platform from which they can promote and champion their cause which could be harmful to the society. They might also become overt and push for further societal approval for their activities. This might be true but homosexuals are too much oppressed by the public and this will only make situations worse.

By accepting them, most likely, they will be more encouraged to conform to common social values, such as responsible sexual behaviour, as well as play a part in contributing to civic life. Thus there is no need to be fearful of them being harmful society. There is currently the Section 377 to send the signal that homosexuality is still unacceptable. If decriminalizing is seen more harmful then just let homosexuals be homosexuals. It is choice of lifestyle so let it be so and let them continue at the privacy of their homes without interfering with the laws.

Reference: ST forum page dated 3 May.