In our society the death penalty has always been and always will be a debatable subject. In the short essay, “Death and Justice”, which can be found on page 534 of The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers, the author, Edward I. Koch, discusses his view on this truly touchy subject. He has worked in the public service industry for a large number of years and over those years he has heard the many differing opinions on the capital punishment controversy. While he has heard positive and negative things about the death penalty, he personally is in favor of capital punishment. To illustrate why he is in favor of the death penalty he discusses seven reasons why people tend to find the death penalty unfair. The first reason why people tend to find the death penalty unfair and wrong is because they consider the death penalty “barbaric”. While some may find it a barbaric practice, it tends to be one that is done as humanely as possible. Another reason why people dislike the death penalty is because America is currently the only major democracy that uses the death penalty. Also, people like to question what would happen if an innocent person was accidentally convicted and then put to death. Mistaken identity cases have happened before and without a true confession there seems to always be an element of doubt. Along with this doubt comes the idea that the death penalty actually cheapens the value of human life. If the government is so willing to put these convicts to death, won’t the value of life be lessened? The last three issues that many people have with the death penalty is that it is applied in a discriminatory manner, the bible is against it (Thou shalt not kill), and the fact that the death penalty is basically state-sanctioned murder. While these ideas are all very interesting, the author discusses his main reasons why all of these reasons lack real substance. He explains that the death penalty is only given to those who truly deserve it. If there was no death penalty how would these criminals know there is the harshest form of punishment waiting for them if they take the life of someone else.
While some may call the author’s opinion hypocritical and the wrong way to think, I personally agree whole heartedly with him. If someone decides to take the life of an innocent individual I believe that the government is totally right to take their life from them. While this may be considered an “eye for an eye” type of way to look at it, I believe it’s perfectly acceptable. If there was no death penalty wouldn’t this give criminals the okay to do as they please? There truly would be nothing stopping them other than the fact that they have to spend their life in jail. For all I know, these people wouldn’t mind spending their life in jail. I always think of it like this, if someone killed someone that I loved, I would want them to be killed as punishment. While some believe an “eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, I would rather have the whole world be blind than have these disgusting criminals literally getting away with murder.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Response to, "One Thing to Do About Food"
For the millions of Americans who are always on the go, fast-food is typically the easiest way for them to catch a bite to eat. While this food may be convenient and easy on the wallet, it is rarely very healthy. In one of the responses from the essay, “One Thing to Do About Food”, which can be found in The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers, the author, Eric Schlosser, discusses the hidden dangers of the fast-food, as well as processed foods. He stresses the idea that looks may indeed be deceiving, especially when it comes to the food that we eat. He claims that numerous nameable fast-food and also processed food chains use advertising that truly is not realistic. Skinny and attractive people who seem to be having fun have been known to sell these cheaply made and nutritionally disturbing items. He also explains that Americans tend to buy things without really doing their research on the products. In 2005, the United States House passed The National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. This act seemed to be a prime example of how food companies prefer to keep their consumers in the dark about what they are really selling. The author explained that if the Senate followed up on passing this act into a law, states would be prevented from having food safety or labeling requirements stricter than those of the federal government. State created laws that help keep people informed about what exactly is included in their favorite foods would all be virtually unheard of. Obviously this is all very troubling information. The author urges people to do more research about the foods that they buy before they buy them.
I found this essay to be rather interesting. Truthfully I rarely do my own research about what is really in the food products that I eat. I guess you could say that I have always thought that our government would create restrictions on food companies so that they wouldn’t be able to sell their products without a warning. Obviously I am just too trusting and would prefer to have someone else do all the research about such things, rather than having to do it all myself. Besides the fact that I don’t have the time to research every food item that I decide to eat, even if I did research the ingredients that are included, I probably wouldn’t know what to do with the information. How am I going to distinguish whether an ingredient that is included is harmful or harmless without doing even more research. There comes a point where it just seems like a never ending cycle and this should not be the case. Bottom line is that our government should be looking out for the welfare of the citizens of our country and we should expect nothing less than the absolute best in information about these types of issues.
I found this essay to be rather interesting. Truthfully I rarely do my own research about what is really in the food products that I eat. I guess you could say that I have always thought that our government would create restrictions on food companies so that they wouldn’t be able to sell their products without a warning. Obviously I am just too trusting and would prefer to have someone else do all the research about such things, rather than having to do it all myself. Besides the fact that I don’t have the time to research every food item that I decide to eat, even if I did research the ingredients that are included, I probably wouldn’t know what to do with the information. How am I going to distinguish whether an ingredient that is included is harmful or harmless without doing even more research. There comes a point where it just seems like a never ending cycle and this should not be the case. Bottom line is that our government should be looking out for the welfare of the citizens of our country and we should expect nothing less than the absolute best in information about these types of issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)