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

In tackling this question, it is vital to have a strong stand and to provide appropriate examples to justify our stand. The explanation of key words such as death sentence should also be explained with illustration of when it is issued. This would give a rough idea to the readers of the seriousness of issuing death sentence.

The author initially states that death sentence is justifiable on a practical basis but later on she says it is not justifiable. Although it seems contradicting, it shows how death sentence can and cannot be justified on a practical basis under various circumstances. Thus the issue of implementing death sentence is analysed well with examples. On dealing with what is meant by “justified” it is important to quote some issues to illustrate during when it can be justified and/or otherwise. For example, the death sentence can be justified if it can be a successful deterrent measure. However, it must be taken into account that a person planning to murder someone can be stopped by other things such as his values and conscience other than the fear of being hanged which is instilled by the death sentence. This is can be clearly seen from the author’s argument that crime rates have fluctuated greatly with and without the ban of death sentence.

Some people consider the death penalty unfair because it lacks uniformity in its implementation as said by the author. For example, killing someone may result in hanging of the guilty in Arab countries but for the same crime the punishment maybe less severe in more liberal countries like America. Furthermore, people who want revenge may support the implementation of death penalty. They might argue that it’s an eye for an eye. So there is nothing morally wrong in issuing death sentence. Like the author, it can be rebutted that we have no right to kill anyone let alone do it in the name of Law and that we have to respect basic human rights and respect life. This also depends on the type of crime and the criminal in concern. For example, if it is a hard core criminal who refuses to change and continues on with his atrocious behavior, then there is no point in letting him loose again by imprisoning him months or years. It is better to hang him to ensure the safety of others. Furthermore, if such hard core criminals are not punished severely it would just encourage low rated criminals to continue committing crimes.

I cannot agree that death penalty is justified on practical basis because it does not result in the society seeing lesser crime rates as argued by the author. This is because more than 80% of the countries have banned capital punishment like death penalty because it seems not to be working. Even in countries like Iraq where death sentence was re-implemented again, the crime rates have been increasing rather than diminishing clearly indicating that death sentence is NOT a successful deterrent measure.

Thus, death penalty is justified and not justified on practical and moral grounds depending on the circumstance.

Link :
http://sultanasperspectives.blogspot.com/

Social Responsibility VS Unlimited Freedom of Expression

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?

Singapore is more of a cosmopolitan country with people of different races and religions living
under one roof. As such, there are lots of differences in our beliefs, lifestyles, views and opinions. However we are able to appreciate the differences among us and create a single identity - Singaporean - which binds us together. Since the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, there have been no local demonstrations or racial riots like the ones of the past. However, we cannot refute the fact that people in Singapore are affected by religious conflicts happening elsewhere in the world. For example, the caricatures on Prophet Mohammed caused tensions in our homeland that the prime minister had to address the issue to reemphasize that we cannot afford any racial conflicts as they are detrimental to Singapore’s growth and prosperity.

Thus we can evidently see that issues, especially sensitive ones that deal with the uniqueness among us in our religion and race, affect us directly even if they occur in another part of the world. Therefore, we cannot afford to compromise with our peace and tolerance which is likely to happen if freedom of expression is allowed in Singapore regardless of any frontiers. We can conclude that Singaporeans are tolerant people but we cannot assume that they remain tolerant even in the face of tensions among us because Singapore has not met such difficult and critical situations since its independence. We can recall the imprisonment of two guys a few months ago for their remarks made against the Muslims in their blogs.

Why were the guys arrested? Why didn’t the government close its eyes to that incident by saying its freedom of expression? Why didn’t the media publish the remarks as well since we are talking about freedom of expression without limits in here? There is just one main reason for this which is Singaporeans should never involve in a mass suicide attempt by starting a racial riot. For this reason, the government in Singapore has a control over our freedom of expressions. If our words and actions are going to be national threats, we cannot expect the government to give us a green signal to carry on with our actions. Especially in our society, no matter how thickly bonded we might be, if a remark insults any group of people among us, its going to create troubles for our nation as a whole. Thus Singaporeans should adopt freedom of expression keeping in their minds their limits and the consequences of their actions. This is where social responsibility comes in.

Singaporeans should have social responsibility. They should not hold illegal discussions or make offending remarks publicly about any race or religion or about anyone for that matter. What I mean here by publicly is through the media. Media should also hold social responsibility in the sense that it should hold high-quality discussions with due respect for everyone. It should never take freedom of expression into its hands like the Danish paper which continued to publish the cartoons on Prophet Mohammed insisting that its publication was justified under freedom of speech principles without considering the consequences of its actions which aggravated the conflicts between Muslims and people of other races. Thus Singapore should adopt social responsibility in lieu of unlimited freedom of expression in order to maintain the progress of the nation.

Reference:Article entitled 'Free speech, Muhammad and the Holocaust' by Peter Singer

www.project-syndicate.org

Zsofia Szilagyi International Herald Tribune
Article entitled :Publishing those cartoons was a mistake
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2006

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.

Sectarian Wars - Sunnis Vs Shi’ites

Sectarian wars refers to armed conflicts between groups of people of the same religion with some beliefs and practices which separates them. Sectarian wars are quite common on a small scale but one war is taking over the Middle East and poses a danger to American peace and its government-stabilization efforts in Iraq. The sectarian war between the Sunnis and Shi’tes, both Islamic sects, dates back to A.D. 632. It has been continuing on and off till now and is now spreading like a venom throughout the Muslim countries. What cause are these people fighting for?

Lets take a peep look at the insights of this conflict.

Islam’s schism bagan in A.D. 632, immediately after the Prophet Mohammad died without naming a successor as leader of the new Muslim flock. Some of his followers believed the caliph should be passed down Mohammed’s bloodline, starting with his cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib. But the majority backed the Prophet’s friend Abu Bakr, who duly became Caliph. When Ali was murdered in A.D 661 and his succession of becoming the fourth Caliph was disrupted, the group formally split. Majority backed the claim of Mu’awiyah, Governor of Syria, and his son and were known as Sunnis. Ali’s supporters were eventually be known as Shi’ites . They agitated for Ali’s Son Hussein to be the caliph and he too was murdered when the two sides met on a battlefield near modern Karbala on Oct.10,680. The death of Hussein led shi’ites into believing that they were oppressed by the Sunnis. Since the Caliph was often the political head of the Islamic empire as well as its religious leader, imperial patronage helped make Sunni Islam the dominant sect. Thus the Shi’ites experienced political, social and economical inequality often reinforced by bloodshed till the fall of Saddam. Iraq’s first post-saddam election in January 2005 led to the Sunnis boycotting the poll and this allowed the Shi’tes to be swept into power. Some shi’ites avenged old grudges against Sunnis and Sunnis in their part hold bombing campaigns confirming their disapproval of their reduced status.

Although the concurrent battles between them seems nothing to the people there, the world tends to focus on the bigger picture. Shi’ites are now politically dominant in Iraq and Iran is the leading Shi’ite power. So most of the Arab countries blame Iran for the Sectarian war and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its sponsorship of shi’ite hizballah militia in Lebonon and its meddling with Iraq proves to the Arab nations that their old Persian (Shi’ites) rivals are determined to reshape the Middle East to suit their interest.

While Iraqis are caught up in their own battles, their children are carrying the hatred forward to the next generation. More and more differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites is poisoning the minds of the young. This is frightening and might be a possible cause for upcoming civil wars between Sunnis and Shi’ites in Iraq where almost every household has a AK-47.

The Sunnis and Shi’ites must reconcile before things really get out of hand. Any kind of peace programmes by the US will be unsuccessful in the long run as the minds of the people in Iraq is poisoned for seeking revenge. The interference of US militants has currently stopped the fights as the Shi’its know their troops are not prepared to handle American troops. But how long will this ‘peace’ last? Afterall, American troops will have to leave one day and that day will mark the start of another Civil war. Tensions and conflicts will continue to batter Iraq up if these people do not foresee the future.

Reference: TIME, March 12 2007 article on the Sunnis and Shi’ites.