Can poverty be ever eradicated?

Whenever I come across pictures or stills depicting the suffering of people under the poverty line, it just brings tears to my eyes and reminds me of how fortunate I am to be who I am and where I am today. Sometimes, I would wonder if there are any ways to put off poverty and bring happiness and hope into these people’s lives. However, I personally believe that we can eradicate poverty although it’s a long way ahead and difficult to achieve.

To solve the problem of poverty we must think of the reasons behind it. Some of the causes of poverty include corruption, poor leadership and of course as what Kamala Sarup states the geographical location and technological accessibility of a country too.

If we observe the world carefully we will find that it’s in those countries where poor leadership and corruption are ripe does poverty prevails in. Corruption creates inequality and worsens the state of the poor. A wealthy person would easily have dealings under the table and get hold of opportunities which might have been otherwise available to the poor. As life’s opportunities are taken up by the rich, very little chances are given to the poor to progress in life. Even if they progress, it is very insignificant compared to the rate of progress seen in the rich. Since the progress in the poor never or rarely equates to the rich’s there will always be widening income gaps and poverty as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Poor leadership would also fail to eradicate poverty as its under the management of a nation that a country progresses. If the government leaders concentrate in filling up their pockets in lieu of the Nation’s surely the country will not get far. Furthermore, the ability to steer off the country from downfalls and to revive it when it falls into economic downfalls relies upon the capabilities of its leaders. As such the leaders of a Nation play a key role controlling its wealth.

The issue of corruption and poor leadership can definitely be tackled as we can see from living examples of countries like ours and Britain where the percentage of these detriments are very small and insignificant.

As stated, technological advancements are based on capital which is based on technology. This forms a vicious cycle disallowing the poor nations to penetrate it. However, this problem can be tackled. The nations of the world are obliged to help one another when in need because we are all interdependent. Thus if the richer countries help the poorer ones by giving financial aid, poverty can definitely be eradicated. Of course this would not prove to be successful in the long run as we cannot possible expect the richer nations to carry and share the burden of supporting the poor for lifelong. It is definitely more lucrative to teach man how to earn money and support himself than to support him for life. Thus even if countries help the nations in need by giving financial aid the poorer nations must be proactive in learning about ways to stay in good stead and be independent.

Of course those countries poised near landmarks and seas have an added advantage over countries not within the vincity of water bodies. For example, countries like Singapore is able to use its geographical location to its advantage by making it into an attractive port. This has helped the Nation to experience economic growth due to trade via the sea.

As such it is clear that though there are factors hindering the attempts to eradicate poverty and the issue seems to be a mix of unimaginable complexity and difficulties, it is certainly possible to save the poor from poverty if we all work together. Nations must, as promised, donate o.7% of their income to the welfare of countries with widespread poverty. However, we must not forget that every country, even if it is world powers like America, has its own set of poverty and this would give these nations a valid reason to use the promised money for their own welfare because to them they are experiencing poverty in their country too. Since, poverty is a relative concept it varies widely but I am sure we can clearly see which level of poverty or poorness is unacceptable and appalling and requires immediate attention from the world.

For now I start it, look at Nepal, Africa and Calcutta to get a real taste of poverty.

Are you for or against the death penalty?

Death penalty is perhaps the cruelest form of retribution in the world.
It is usually issued for First-class murders in most of the countries and can be often given for cruel rape cases involving child abuse. Though it may seem appropriate to punish by capital punishment for crimes like these, I personally disagree with the death penalty and reasons given to justify it.

A punishment is often given to deter more crimes and if a punishment fails to fulfill this criterion, can it be doomed as being ineffective? Well it can, because a punishment is not given to seek revenge or to vent our anger. It is given for the benefit of the society as a whole. According to Amnesty International, capital punishment does not deter crime as much as other punishments do.

In fact, in Iraq, where capital punishment is still in use, the number of deaths and homicides has increased largely compared to two years ago when the capital punishment was not in use yet. Supported by the passage, criminologists have shown, statistically, that in US states where convicts are executed, serious crimes have not diminished. Moreover, recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2006, 30 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975 and the second lowest rate in three decades.

From this it is clear that death penalty is failing to achieve concrete results.

Some people might argue that it is a beneficial trade off if by the execution of one we can save three lives. However, what we must ask ourselves is although in the short term it may be beneficial however in the long term death penalty will still fail to serve it basis for implementing- to deter crimes. Thucydides, in recounting the Athenians’ discussion of what penalty to impose on the rebellious Mytilenians, noted that “the death penalty has been laid down for many offenses, yet people still take risks when they feel sufficiently confident; it is impossible for human nature, once seriously set upon a certain course, to be prevented from following that course by the force of law or by any other means of intimidation whatsoever.” This clearly indicates that death penalty is not the way to go if we want to deter crimes.

Moreover, death penalty holds the serious danger of executing the innocent.

Since 1973, 124 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004, two in 2005, one in 2006 and one so far in 2007. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defense representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt. The state of Florida has the highest number of 22 exonerations.

Execution of the innocent is not only confined to the USA. It is found in almost all nations which still implement it. As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.

Of course some people would say that if that is the case, give the death penalty to only people convicted of murders and supported by strong evidences. What is more, it is unlikely that innocents will be executed now that we have sophiscated technologies like DNA finger printing in helping us to indentify convicts. But by doing this, are we near anywhere deterring crimes? It is more like seeking revenge using the law, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” it seems. Killing a life is an ungrateful and degrading thing to do. Doing it via the Law is not going to change it.

Reference: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

www.project-syndicate.org

The Morality of Capital Punishment by Gary S. Becker

Beyond the Death Penalty Debate by Antonio Cassese

‘I am a millionaire. That is my religion.’ To what extent has the pursuit of wealth become the modern goal? (2000)

Man is now looked upon with respect for the wealth he holds in terms of money, education and skills. All of which cost a lot of money to gain in the world today. It has become a honourable thing to pursue wealth and wealth alone. Though this mad craze for wealth started with the West ‘s conquests of the rest of the world, to rob them of their wealth when Industrial Revolution first sprang up, it has taken firm root all over the world as well.

A successful man can take any form. He could be a writer, a great sportsman, an artist and so on. However, most often the purpose of a person becoming successful as a sportsman, writer or artist is to enjoy the wealth such achievements will bring. The main distinction of Tiger Woods is the millions he earns, the main claim to greatness of Bill Gates is that he is a billionaire (although he is not the first in the list; second to Carlos Slim who is the current wealthiest man in the world) and the main thing we know about Stephen King is the millions he earns per book.

However, this was not the case just a century ago. Actors and sportsman and writers had to work hard to earn what is just sufficient for them. They did not have the excess money then like they do now to be arrogant and defiant of the rest of the world. Today when we mention a successful actor we mean he is paid several million dollars per movie and not so much that he moves us with his acting skills.

Politicians work hard to gain power. Some of them however, make all kinds of promises and buy votes for themselves in the prospect of striking it rich for themselves and for their families through politics. As such, working for the best of the countryman becomes a goal far below their list. Often politicians are voted in the believe that apart from enriching themselves they would do something for the nation too as opposed to the other candidates who come in pursuit for wealth only. The factor of enriching themselves is a given.

However, it can be argued that they were and they are stills souls in the world like Mother Theresa who abhor money and wealth. But it is clear that she and others like her are in a minority. For every story covering great souls who live beyond money, we can find a few articles on stars making it rich and even richer. It is surprising that a movie star can demand over 50 million dollars for a single movie. However, no one is disturbed by this trend. On the contrary, we are filled with admiration. Often stories of people like Mother Theresa are likely to be smothered among other “more important” stories.

It is therefore true that the pursuit of wealth has become the modern goal. Wealth is not meant by what one needs to live a good live. It refers to untold wealth, wealth more than one will ever need in a lifetime, more than even one can spend.

Sometimes we are prompted to ask. What about people who have worked solely for the benefits of the world? What happened to the spirit of adventure and the other values of man which made human race so great? What about the spirit of great inventors and explorers who pursued their interests for their own sakes rather than for wealth? Well such people are again a in a minority. The pursuit of wealth has overtaken all other pursuits.