Home / 未分類 / This page shows a essay that is whole a typical example of how exactly to structure your content

This page shows a essay that is whole a typical example of how exactly to structure your content

This page shows a essay that is whole a typical example of how exactly to structure your content

Example essay that is academic

Example essay that is academic The Death Penalty. This essay shows many important features which commonly come in essays.

If the death penalty be restored in britain?

The restoration of this death penalty for serious crimes is a concern of debate in britain due to the rise that is recent violent crime. The reasons, effects and answers to the problems of violent crime throw up a number of complex issues that are further complicated by the way that crime is reported. Newspapers often sensationalise crime in order to increase circulation and also this makes objective discussion more difficult. This essay will firstly examine this topic by taking into consideration the arguments put forward by those in favour associated with death penalty after which by taking a look at the arguments opposed to the concept.

The primary arguments in favour of restoring the death penalty are the ones of deterrence and retribution: the theory is the fact that individuals will be dissuaded from violent crime when they know they will face the best punishment and that people should face the exact same treatment which they gave out to others. Statistics show that whenever the death penalty was temporarily withdrawn in Britain between 1965 and 1969 the murder rate increased by 125% (Clark, 2005). However, we need to consider the possibility that other reasons might have result in this rise. Amnesty International (1996) claims that it’s impractical to prove that capital punishment is a greater deterrent than being given a full life sentence in prison and that “evidence….gives no support towards the evidence hypothesis theory.” It seems at best that the deterrence theory is yet to be proven. The thought of ‘retribution’ is an interesting one: there was a basic appeal in the easy phrase ‘the punishment should fit the crime’. Calder (2003) neatly summarises this argument when https://essay-911.com he says that killers give up their rights once they kill and therefore if punishments are too lenient then it demonstrates that we undervalue the ability to live. There are some other points too in support of the death penalty, one of these simple cost that is being. It is obviously far cheaper to execute prisoners promply as opposed to feed and house them for many years on end.

The arguments from the death penalty are mainly ethical in their nature, it sends out the wrong message to the rest of the country that it is basically wrong to kill and that when the state kills. Webber (2005) claims that the death penalty makes people believe that ‘killing people is morally permissable’. This really is an interesting argument – could you teach children not to ever hit by hitting them? Wouldn’t this instead suggest to them that hitting was indeed ‘permissable’? Addititionally there is the fact that you could execute people that are innocent. Innocent people can always be released from prison, but they can’t ever be cut back through the dead. When people have already been killed there is no potential for rehabilitation or criminals trying to make up for crimes. Because of this reason capital punishment has been called ‘the bluntest of blunt instruments’ (Clark, 2005).

In summary, the arguments put forward by those who support or are against the death penalty often reflect their deeper principles and beliefs. These beliefs and principles are deeply rooted in life experiences and also the real way people are brought up and generally are unlikely to be swayed by clever arguments. It really is interesting that in this national country most people are in preference of the death penalty yet parliament will continue to oppose it. In this situation it might be argued that parliament is at the forefront in upholding human rights and continues to broadcast the message that is clear killing is definitely wrong.

You should be in a position to note that this essay is made from:

An introduction in three parts:
1. A sentence saying why the topic is relevant and interesting.
2. A sentence (or two) mentioning the down sides and issues active in the topic.
3. A plan associated with the essay.

Main paragraphs with:
1. A topic sentence which gives a idea/argument that is main informs us what the complete paragraph is approximately.
2. Evidence from outside sources which support the argument(s) put forward when you look at the topic sentence.
3. Some personal input from the author analysing the points put forward into the topic sentence and the outside sources.

A conclusion:
Summarises the main points and gives a remedy into the question.

いいね ! しよう

About tkq


Check Also

Can dogs get high? And let’s say they are doing?

Can dogs get hi …