The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The title is 'should corporal punishment be reintroduced?'
Its a piece of english coursework which i have rewritten 3 times. Although it isn't finished yet, I could still use some feedback on it.
People are killed everyday. Its a fact of life. There are always people who will bring harm to others. The world isn't perfect. But what would happen if some form of execution was reintroduced in Britain? Would this make the world a safer place? By deterring evil people, by threat of death? I think it would. Their are lots of benefits to executing a murderer, before they kill you. I will start by saying that some people cannot be helped. They are born evil and no push in the right direction can change that. But why should we constantly have to look over our shoulders in a dark alley? Or think twice about walking past nasty looking people? Everything would be so much better, if the electrice chair was warmed up once more.
A sick minded murderer would never have the opportunity to kill again.If corporal punishment was reintroduced. They would be sent to prison for whatever malicious crime and never be given another chance. This is why execution would be such a good idea. Suppose this; A madman hacks somebody up and goes to prison for just 8 years. Then he is release and wants to kill again. And he does, thanks to our corrupt useless justice system. Alot of suffering and sadness could have been avoided if this man had been executed for his first crime. Not just, pathetically being made to site in a room behind bars, for several years and get released by looking sorry in an appeal.
Any lunatic wouldn't contemplate murder if the consequences were harsher. Execution would probably act as a good repellant. People would eventually learn that murder was wrong and im sure this would make our prisons alot more spacious. Even people from unscrupulous, broken backgrounds wouldn't have the desire to kill, through fear of being killed themselves. Now matter how they are raised, no one wants to die, do they? Prison could be promoted. Things like television and magaazine advertisments could be implemented to warn people what would happen if they murdered anyone. I think corporal punishment would change the world for the better.
Their you have it. Please dont be to nasty about it. Say something nice or dont say anything at all. Although im welcome to constructive criticism.
Its a piece of english coursework which i have rewritten 3 times. Although it isn't finished yet, I could still use some feedback on it.
People are killed everyday. Its a fact of life. There are always people who will bring harm to others. The world isn't perfect. But what would happen if some form of execution was reintroduced in Britain? Would this make the world a safer place? By deterring evil people, by threat of death? I think it would. Their are lots of benefits to executing a murderer, before they kill you. I will start by saying that some people cannot be helped. They are born evil and no push in the right direction can change that. But why should we constantly have to look over our shoulders in a dark alley? Or think twice about walking past nasty looking people? Everything would be so much better, if the electrice chair was warmed up once more.
A sick minded murderer would never have the opportunity to kill again.If corporal punishment was reintroduced. They would be sent to prison for whatever malicious crime and never be given another chance. This is why execution would be such a good idea. Suppose this; A madman hacks somebody up and goes to prison for just 8 years. Then he is release and wants to kill again. And he does, thanks to our corrupt useless justice system. Alot of suffering and sadness could have been avoided if this man had been executed for his first crime. Not just, pathetically being made to site in a room behind bars, for several years and get released by looking sorry in an appeal.
Any lunatic wouldn't contemplate murder if the consequences were harsher. Execution would probably act as a good repellant. People would eventually learn that murder was wrong and im sure this would make our prisons alot more spacious. Even people from unscrupulous, broken backgrounds wouldn't have the desire to kill, through fear of being killed themselves. Now matter how they are raised, no one wants to die, do they? Prison could be promoted. Things like television and magaazine advertisments could be implemented to warn people what would happen if they murdered anyone. I think corporal punishment would change the world for the better.
Their you have it. Please dont be to nasty about it. Say something nice or dont say anything at all. Although im welcome to constructive criticism.
Page:
The title is 'should corporal punishment be reintroduced?'
Its a piece of english coursework which i have rewritten 3 times. Although it isn't finished yet, I could still use some feedback on it.
People are killed everyday. Its a fact of life. There are always people who will bring harm to others. The world isn't perfect. But what would happen if some form of execution was reintroduced in Britain? Would this make the world a safer place? By deterring evil people, by threat of death? I think it would. Their are lots of benefits to executing a murderer, before they kill you. I will start by saying that some people cannot be helped. They are born evil and no push in the right direction can change that. But why should we constantly have to look over our shoulders in a dark alley? Or think twice about walking past nasty looking people? Everything would be so much better, if the electrice chair was warmed up once more.
A sick minded murderer would never have the opportunity to kill again.If corporal punishment was reintroduced. They would be sent to prison for whatever malicious crime and never be given another chance. This is why execution would be such a good idea. Suppose this; A madman hacks somebody up and goes to prison for just 8 years. Then he is release and wants to kill again. And he does, thanks to our corrupt useless justice system. Alot of suffering and sadness could have been avoided if this man had been executed for his first crime. Not just, pathetically being made to site in a room behind bars, for several years and get released by looking sorry in an appeal.
Any lunatic wouldn't contemplate murder if the consequences were harsher. Execution would probably act as a good repellant. People would eventually learn that murder was wrong and im sure this would make our prisons alot more spacious. Even people from unscrupulous, broken backgrounds wouldn't have the desire to kill, through fear of being killed themselves. Now matter how they are raised, no one wants to die, do they? Prison could be promoted. Things like television and magaazine advertisments could be implemented to warn people what would happen if they murdered anyone. I think corporal punishment would change the world for the better.
Their you have it. Please dont be to nasty about it. Say something nice or dont say anything at all. Although im welcome to constructive criticism.
Its a piece of english coursework which i have rewritten 3 times. Although it isn't finished yet, I could still use some feedback on it.
People are killed everyday. Its a fact of life. There are always people who will bring harm to others. The world isn't perfect. But what would happen if some form of execution was reintroduced in Britain? Would this make the world a safer place? By deterring evil people, by threat of death? I think it would. Their are lots of benefits to executing a murderer, before they kill you. I will start by saying that some people cannot be helped. They are born evil and no push in the right direction can change that. But why should we constantly have to look over our shoulders in a dark alley? Or think twice about walking past nasty looking people? Everything would be so much better, if the electrice chair was warmed up once more.
A sick minded murderer would never have the opportunity to kill again.If corporal punishment was reintroduced. They would be sent to prison for whatever malicious crime and never be given another chance. This is why execution would be such a good idea. Suppose this; A madman hacks somebody up and goes to prison for just 8 years. Then he is release and wants to kill again. And he does, thanks to our corrupt useless justice system. Alot of suffering and sadness could have been avoided if this man had been executed for his first crime. Not just, pathetically being made to site in a room behind bars, for several years and get released by looking sorry in an appeal.
Any lunatic wouldn't contemplate murder if the consequences were harsher. Execution would probably act as a good repellant. People would eventually learn that murder was wrong and im sure this would make our prisons alot more spacious. Even people from unscrupulous, broken backgrounds wouldn't have the desire to kill, through fear of being killed themselves. Now matter how they are raised, no one wants to die, do they? Prison could be promoted. Things like television and magaazine advertisments could be implemented to warn people what would happen if they murdered anyone. I think corporal punishment would change the world for the better.
Their you have it. Please dont be to nasty about it. Say something nice or dont say anything at all. Although im welcome to constructive criticism.
I'm not being mean, but what year are you in?
Sorry, but an essay to me is not 300~ words. Maybe that's because I'm in Sixth-Form. :)
Sorry, but an essay to me is not 300~ words. Maybe that's because I'm in Sixth-Form. :)
the essay isnt finished yet. all courseowrk has to be 600 words long, and im in yr 10
Essay:
Reactions To Reform
The Intelligentsia
The name intelligentsia does not simply translate in any straight forward way. They were a group of intellectuals who felt Russia was incredibly backwards in comparison to the west and took much of their inspiration from the west. They were almost fanatical in their quest for the “truth”. They could be classified as extremists by their actions, and they believed stopping short of the logical conclusion was cowardice. In the 1850’s and 60’s their philosophical circles involved hundreds, their following wasn’t so great as they were some of the very few literate Russians with the intellectual means to voice their opinion. The vast majority of Russians were illiterate and therefore didn’t have the access to philosophical debate. Their lack of numbers made them all the more desperate when they faced disillusionment at their failure to politicise the masses (the people) and they came under increasing threat from the authorities. This desperation made them all the more dangerous.
Some of the most influential members of the Intelligentsia in the 1860’ were Bakunin, Chernyshevsky and Herzen.
Bakunin was almost an anarchist and thought his own belief of the superiority of the simple peasant should be followed.
Herzen was in exile in London but edited an influencial periodical, The Bell. He was intent on modernising Russia and this meant overthrowing the existing political and social system. He also believed in the superiority of the peasant. At times he seemed to back to Tsar and at first congratulated him on emancipation. Within months, however, he changed his mind and began to bitterly criticise him. When Bakunin advocated anarchy, Herzen promoted a type of socialism based on the Mir. He said “Russia will never make a revolution just to get rid of the Tsar and replace him by Tsar-representatives, Tsar judges and Tsar-policemen.”
Chernyshevsky was probably the most influencial of the three, he was a student of revolution and placed his with in the people. The contributed to The Contemporary and strongly believed in individual freedom. He vied for self-governing rights but was arrested in 1862. He wrote the book, What is to be Done?, which enjoyed considerable popularity especially with the young and educated. Lenin took the title for one of his own major works, which shows long term significance.
In May 1862 a number of pamphlets were issued including the very radical Young Russia. In June the same year a series of fire in St Petersburg broke out and destroyed over 2000 shops. It was never proven it was intentional but it was rumoured either Poles or Radicals were responsible. The fires seriously worried the Tsar and the authorities. The Polish revolt in 1863 led to a growth in nationalist feeling and a decline in radicalism. The zemstva in St Petersburg called for the establishment of a central Zemstva office The Tsar felt unable to comply and said, “I would sign any constitution you like, if I felt that this would be for the good of Russia. But I know that, were I to do so today, tomorrow Russia would fall to pieces.” There was a gradual growth in revolutionary activity however it was still largely peaceful in form. Between 1869 and 1872 a successful group of young revolutionaries known as the “Chaikovsky Circle” established themselves in St Petersburg. They were dedicated to putting forward propaganda but its members did not believe the peasants were ready for an uprising yet. They founded a secret press and began to distribute pamphlets and banned books using a “to the people” approach called for by Herzen. Finally in 1877 a new radical organisation, Land and Liberty, was formed.
Growth of the Revolutionaries
Up until now the revolutionaries has enjoyed little success. The government decided to prosecute revolutionaries held in prison from 1874, this is just what they wanted – nation-wide publicity. The defendants took the opportunity to make long and embittered speeches about the government and criticising the regime. In the end a large amount of the revolutionaries were acquitted and those who were prosecuted got very light sentences, this came as a shock to the Tsar.
The day after the sentences were announced (January 24th) Vera Zasulich fired a revolver as General Trepov and seriously wounded him. Trepov had ordered imprisoned students to be flogged for refusing to salute and Zasulich took matters into her own hands. She was brought to trial and argued she had acted out of a deep sense of moral outrage. She made a great impression on both jury and public alike and in April she was acquitted against all evidence. When she was released there was tumultuous applause from the spectators who represented a cross-section of Russian society. Furthermore the large crowds waiting outside prevented her from being re-arrested, allowing her to slip away into exile in Switzerland. This case made the government look incapable and weak.
The government followed this up by issuing an announcement stating all cases of resistance, rebellion and assassination attempts on the lives of officials would be dealt with by special courts instead of risking the open courts. In the summer, political prisoners went on a hunger strike causing some of them to die. In reprisal for their deaths General Mezentsev, head of the Third Section in the city was killed in broad daylight in the middle of St Petersburg. Land and Liberty issued a pamphlet entitled A Death For A Death.
If not actually behind the revolutionaries, the mass of the people were either apathetic or sympathetic to them. Even some zemstva were involved in secret negotiations with Land and Liberty to try and bring pressure to bear to achieve constitutional reform. 1878 was something of a watershead and between 1876 and 1879 there was a great change in the attitudes and expectations of the people. It shifted from the Tsar being respected and applauded to Russia sowing an extremely hostile frame of mind towards the government and the realisation that the governmental structure of the country required reform at both central and national level.
Alexander II’s liason with Catherine Dolgoruky was by now public. From the start of their relationship in 1866 it had caused him severe problems. He was old enough to be her father and he had several children by her. Critics saw their relationship as indecent and unbecoming and lost him public respect. Towards the end of his reign she became his closest advisor as she possessed an acute political mind and was of liberal persuasion.
The Final Act
In April 1879 without the consent of Land and Liberty, another unsuccessful attempt was made on the Tsar’s life. This split the Land and Liberty into two groups, The Black Partition Group and The People’s Will (Narodnya Volya), the latter group favoured terrorist methods. The People’s Will was lead by an able ands clever leader who managed to place a spy into the Third Section of the city which enabled him to outmanoeuvre the nation’s security police. The People’s Will tried to blow up the Tsar’s train when he was returning from Crimea, however he missed one bomb by taking a different route to what The People’s Will were expecting, another bomb failed to detonate and the final bomb blew up, but under the wrong train. The Tsar escaped injury and the terrorists evaded capture. The Third Section still had little idea who the leading figures of The People’s Will were. Mikhailov, leader of The People’s Will, did not give up. He infiltrated the Winter Palace with a carpenter who blew up the dining room in February 1880. However the Tsar was not inside, he was awaiting a late dinner guest, but the explosion killed 40 Finnish soldiers. There was almost no public reaction and such attempts had become commonplace.
Catherine Dolgoruky, the Tsar’s lover, encouraged him to try and win back the hearts of the people. He appointed General Loris, an intelligent and dynamic man, to head the commission. Loris immediately replaced a number of ministers and embarked on a deliberate policy of compromise to reasonable opinion. Political prisoners were released , press restrictions were relaxed and the zemstva were allowed to express themselves.
A member of the Narodnya Volya (People’s Will) was captured and tricked into revealing many secrets. Numerous arrests followed and the terrorist organisation was reduced to very few. Plans were set for a final attempt on the Tsar’s life but on 11th March 1881 Zheliabov, the remaining leader of the terrorists, was captured. On 12th March, Loris visited the Tsar to outline his plans for constitutional change and implored him not to go to Sunday parade the next day. The following day the Tsar signed the constitutional proposals that brought administrative reform and elected representatives chosen by the people. However the Tsar went to the parade as he felt he would be failing the people if he didn’t. On the way home a bomb was thrown at his carriage killing his escort Cossacks The Tsar got out to investigate when another bomb was hurled which blew both of his legs off. He was taken back to the palace by his brother Michael to die.
On the very day Alexander II gave approval to the called of elected representatives, the very thing that had been demanded for so long was the day terrorists finally succeeded in ending his life.
The Significance of Alexander II
Some say he was a Tsar-Liberator, others argue he opened the flood-gates to revolution. He did, however, implement more far-reaching reform than any of his predecessors. He abolished serfdom, renewed the legal system and brought about fair trials. He abolished corporal punishment, modernised the army and the economy, censorship was limited and education and individual freedom were promoted. In many ways he was a constructive reformer. If Alexander had being a more charismatic figure and had been able to carry the people with him, it is possible events may have taken a different turn. However he WAS an autocrat and the task of reforming an autocrat is the most difficult of all.
Thats an essay - what the HELL was yours?
Reactions To Reform
The Intelligentsia
The name intelligentsia does not simply translate in any straight forward way. They were a group of intellectuals who felt Russia was incredibly backwards in comparison to the west and took much of their inspiration from the west. They were almost fanatical in their quest for the “truth”. They could be classified as extremists by their actions, and they believed stopping short of the logical conclusion was cowardice. In the 1850’s and 60’s their philosophical circles involved hundreds, their following wasn’t so great as they were some of the very few literate Russians with the intellectual means to voice their opinion. The vast majority of Russians were illiterate and therefore didn’t have the access to philosophical debate. Their lack of numbers made them all the more desperate when they faced disillusionment at their failure to politicise the masses (the people) and they came under increasing threat from the authorities. This desperation made them all the more dangerous.
Some of the most influential members of the Intelligentsia in the 1860’ were Bakunin, Chernyshevsky and Herzen.
Bakunin was almost an anarchist and thought his own belief of the superiority of the simple peasant should be followed.
Herzen was in exile in London but edited an influencial periodical, The Bell. He was intent on modernising Russia and this meant overthrowing the existing political and social system. He also believed in the superiority of the peasant. At times he seemed to back to Tsar and at first congratulated him on emancipation. Within months, however, he changed his mind and began to bitterly criticise him. When Bakunin advocated anarchy, Herzen promoted a type of socialism based on the Mir. He said “Russia will never make a revolution just to get rid of the Tsar and replace him by Tsar-representatives, Tsar judges and Tsar-policemen.”
Chernyshevsky was probably the most influencial of the three, he was a student of revolution and placed his with in the people. The contributed to The Contemporary and strongly believed in individual freedom. He vied for self-governing rights but was arrested in 1862. He wrote the book, What is to be Done?, which enjoyed considerable popularity especially with the young and educated. Lenin took the title for one of his own major works, which shows long term significance.
In May 1862 a number of pamphlets were issued including the very radical Young Russia. In June the same year a series of fire in St Petersburg broke out and destroyed over 2000 shops. It was never proven it was intentional but it was rumoured either Poles or Radicals were responsible. The fires seriously worried the Tsar and the authorities. The Polish revolt in 1863 led to a growth in nationalist feeling and a decline in radicalism. The zemstva in St Petersburg called for the establishment of a central Zemstva office The Tsar felt unable to comply and said, “I would sign any constitution you like, if I felt that this would be for the good of Russia. But I know that, were I to do so today, tomorrow Russia would fall to pieces.” There was a gradual growth in revolutionary activity however it was still largely peaceful in form. Between 1869 and 1872 a successful group of young revolutionaries known as the “Chaikovsky Circle” established themselves in St Petersburg. They were dedicated to putting forward propaganda but its members did not believe the peasants were ready for an uprising yet. They founded a secret press and began to distribute pamphlets and banned books using a “to the people” approach called for by Herzen. Finally in 1877 a new radical organisation, Land and Liberty, was formed.
Growth of the Revolutionaries
Up until now the revolutionaries has enjoyed little success. The government decided to prosecute revolutionaries held in prison from 1874, this is just what they wanted – nation-wide publicity. The defendants took the opportunity to make long and embittered speeches about the government and criticising the regime. In the end a large amount of the revolutionaries were acquitted and those who were prosecuted got very light sentences, this came as a shock to the Tsar.
The day after the sentences were announced (January 24th) Vera Zasulich fired a revolver as General Trepov and seriously wounded him. Trepov had ordered imprisoned students to be flogged for refusing to salute and Zasulich took matters into her own hands. She was brought to trial and argued she had acted out of a deep sense of moral outrage. She made a great impression on both jury and public alike and in April she was acquitted against all evidence. When she was released there was tumultuous applause from the spectators who represented a cross-section of Russian society. Furthermore the large crowds waiting outside prevented her from being re-arrested, allowing her to slip away into exile in Switzerland. This case made the government look incapable and weak.
The government followed this up by issuing an announcement stating all cases of resistance, rebellion and assassination attempts on the lives of officials would be dealt with by special courts instead of risking the open courts. In the summer, political prisoners went on a hunger strike causing some of them to die. In reprisal for their deaths General Mezentsev, head of the Third Section in the city was killed in broad daylight in the middle of St Petersburg. Land and Liberty issued a pamphlet entitled A Death For A Death.
If not actually behind the revolutionaries, the mass of the people were either apathetic or sympathetic to them. Even some zemstva were involved in secret negotiations with Land and Liberty to try and bring pressure to bear to achieve constitutional reform. 1878 was something of a watershead and between 1876 and 1879 there was a great change in the attitudes and expectations of the people. It shifted from the Tsar being respected and applauded to Russia sowing an extremely hostile frame of mind towards the government and the realisation that the governmental structure of the country required reform at both central and national level.
Alexander II’s liason with Catherine Dolgoruky was by now public. From the start of their relationship in 1866 it had caused him severe problems. He was old enough to be her father and he had several children by her. Critics saw their relationship as indecent and unbecoming and lost him public respect. Towards the end of his reign she became his closest advisor as she possessed an acute political mind and was of liberal persuasion.
The Final Act
In April 1879 without the consent of Land and Liberty, another unsuccessful attempt was made on the Tsar’s life. This split the Land and Liberty into two groups, The Black Partition Group and The People’s Will (Narodnya Volya), the latter group favoured terrorist methods. The People’s Will was lead by an able ands clever leader who managed to place a spy into the Third Section of the city which enabled him to outmanoeuvre the nation’s security police. The People’s Will tried to blow up the Tsar’s train when he was returning from Crimea, however he missed one bomb by taking a different route to what The People’s Will were expecting, another bomb failed to detonate and the final bomb blew up, but under the wrong train. The Tsar escaped injury and the terrorists evaded capture. The Third Section still had little idea who the leading figures of The People’s Will were. Mikhailov, leader of The People’s Will, did not give up. He infiltrated the Winter Palace with a carpenter who blew up the dining room in February 1880. However the Tsar was not inside, he was awaiting a late dinner guest, but the explosion killed 40 Finnish soldiers. There was almost no public reaction and such attempts had become commonplace.
Catherine Dolgoruky, the Tsar’s lover, encouraged him to try and win back the hearts of the people. He appointed General Loris, an intelligent and dynamic man, to head the commission. Loris immediately replaced a number of ministers and embarked on a deliberate policy of compromise to reasonable opinion. Political prisoners were released , press restrictions were relaxed and the zemstva were allowed to express themselves.
A member of the Narodnya Volya (People’s Will) was captured and tricked into revealing many secrets. Numerous arrests followed and the terrorist organisation was reduced to very few. Plans were set for a final attempt on the Tsar’s life but on 11th March 1881 Zheliabov, the remaining leader of the terrorists, was captured. On 12th March, Loris visited the Tsar to outline his plans for constitutional change and implored him not to go to Sunday parade the next day. The following day the Tsar signed the constitutional proposals that brought administrative reform and elected representatives chosen by the people. However the Tsar went to the parade as he felt he would be failing the people if he didn’t. On the way home a bomb was thrown at his carriage killing his escort Cossacks The Tsar got out to investigate when another bomb was hurled which blew both of his legs off. He was taken back to the palace by his brother Michael to die.
On the very day Alexander II gave approval to the called of elected representatives, the very thing that had been demanded for so long was the day terrorists finally succeeded in ending his life.
The Significance of Alexander II
Some say he was a Tsar-Liberator, others argue he opened the flood-gates to revolution. He did, however, implement more far-reaching reform than any of his predecessors. He abolished serfdom, renewed the legal system and brought about fair trials. He abolished corporal punishment, modernised the army and the economy, censorship was limited and education and individual freedom were promoted. In many ways he was a constructive reformer. If Alexander had being a more charismatic figure and had been able to carry the people with him, it is possible events may have taken a different turn. However he WAS an autocrat and the task of reforming an autocrat is the most difficult of all.
Thats an essay - what the HELL was yours?
*looks at Green Ferocity's essay*
Hmm, quite good.
*looks at Para's essay*
Wow!
*looks back at Green Ferocity's entry*
*sniggers*
Hmm, quite good.
*looks at Para's essay*
Wow!
*looks back at Green Ferocity's entry*
*sniggers*
Ok I'll go through it with you dude:
>People are killed everyday. Its a fact of life.
There isnt much need for two such short sentences, join them. "its a fact of life that people are killed each day."
> There are always people who will bring harm to others.
Isnt that obvious by your above statement?
> The world isn't perfect.
Can you write a sentence with more than 5 words in?
> But what would happen if some form of execution was reintroduced in Britain? Would this make the world a safer place?
Good, good.
> By deterring evil people, by threat of death?
You cannot deem them evil, and the last part of the sentence doesnt make sense. Try, "Would the threat of death deter people from comitting malicious crimes ? "
> I think it would.
Evidence....
> Their are lots of benefits to executing a murderer, before they kill you.
There* not 'their' - and, actually... just leave this sentence out.
> I will start by saying that some people cannot be helped.
Expand this into a hypothesis (a theory/general idea)
> They are born evil and no push in the right direction can change that.
Change the word "evil"
> But why should we constantly have to look over our shoulders in a dark alley?
Very good, the "we" is inclusive
> Or think twice about walking past nasty looking people?
you shouldnt judge people on looks, it makes you as bad as them and also ruins your premise for the essay.
> Everything would be so much better, if the electrice chair was warmed up once more.
Heh
> A sick minded murderer would never have the opportunity to kill again.
Well, yes, they would. Theyd just have more heightened seriousness of consequences.
> If corporal punishment was reintroduced. They would be sent to prison for whatever malicious crime and never be given another chance.
No, if it was introduced theyd get mashed up for the crime. Remove the full stop after introduced
> This is why execution would be such a good idea.
in your opinion.
> Suppose this;
change to "look at things in this scenario" or "for example"
> A madman hacks somebody up and goes to prison for just 8 years. Then he is release and wants to kill again. And he does,
join the sentences.
> thanks to our corrupt useless justice system.
It's not corrupt at all, it's effective - it is just perhaps outdated.
> Alot of suffering and sadness could have been avoided if this man had been executed for his first crime. Not just, pathetically being made to site in a room behind bars, for several years and get released by looking sorry in an appeal.
Yeah, and talk about how jail time makes some people more angry at society and heightens the chances they'll strike again. Especially in the cases of rapists and killers.
> Any lunatic wouldn't contemplate murder if the consequences were harsher. Execution would probably act as a good repellant. People would eventually learn that murder was wrong and im sure this would make our prisons alot more spacious. Even people from unscrupulous, broken backgrounds wouldn't have the desire to kill, through fear of being killed themselves.
Good. Change the "any" to "many" and lunatic to plural
> Now matter how they are raised, no one wants to die, do they?
"No matter" - good hypothetical question.
> Prison could be promoted. Things like television and magaazine advertisments could be implemented to warn people what would happen if they murdered anyone. I think corporal punishment would change the world for the better.
Expand the conclusion a little more.
:; Hope I helped ::
>People are killed everyday. Its a fact of life.
There isnt much need for two such short sentences, join them. "its a fact of life that people are killed each day."
> There are always people who will bring harm to others.
Isnt that obvious by your above statement?
> The world isn't perfect.
Can you write a sentence with more than 5 words in?
> But what would happen if some form of execution was reintroduced in Britain? Would this make the world a safer place?
Good, good.
> By deterring evil people, by threat of death?
You cannot deem them evil, and the last part of the sentence doesnt make sense. Try, "Would the threat of death deter people from comitting malicious crimes ? "
> I think it would.
Evidence....
> Their are lots of benefits to executing a murderer, before they kill you.
There* not 'their' - and, actually... just leave this sentence out.
> I will start by saying that some people cannot be helped.
Expand this into a hypothesis (a theory/general idea)
> They are born evil and no push in the right direction can change that.
Change the word "evil"
> But why should we constantly have to look over our shoulders in a dark alley?
Very good, the "we" is inclusive
> Or think twice about walking past nasty looking people?
you shouldnt judge people on looks, it makes you as bad as them and also ruins your premise for the essay.
> Everything would be so much better, if the electrice chair was warmed up once more.
Heh
> A sick minded murderer would never have the opportunity to kill again.
Well, yes, they would. Theyd just have more heightened seriousness of consequences.
> If corporal punishment was reintroduced. They would be sent to prison for whatever malicious crime and never be given another chance.
No, if it was introduced theyd get mashed up for the crime. Remove the full stop after introduced
> This is why execution would be such a good idea.
in your opinion.
> Suppose this;
change to "look at things in this scenario" or "for example"
> A madman hacks somebody up and goes to prison for just 8 years. Then he is release and wants to kill again. And he does,
join the sentences.
> thanks to our corrupt useless justice system.
It's not corrupt at all, it's effective - it is just perhaps outdated.
> Alot of suffering and sadness could have been avoided if this man had been executed for his first crime. Not just, pathetically being made to site in a room behind bars, for several years and get released by looking sorry in an appeal.
Yeah, and talk about how jail time makes some people more angry at society and heightens the chances they'll strike again. Especially in the cases of rapists and killers.
> Any lunatic wouldn't contemplate murder if the consequences were harsher. Execution would probably act as a good repellant. People would eventually learn that murder was wrong and im sure this would make our prisons alot more spacious. Even people from unscrupulous, broken backgrounds wouldn't have the desire to kill, through fear of being killed themselves.
Good. Change the "any" to "many" and lunatic to plural
> Now matter how they are raised, no one wants to die, do they?
"No matter" - good hypothetical question.
> Prison could be promoted. Things like television and magaazine advertisments could be implemented to warn people what would happen if they murdered anyone. I think corporal punishment would change the world for the better.
Expand the conclusion a little more.
:; Hope I helped ::
I thought those single sentances were written for effect, to sort of drill it in.
I thought it was well written as it expressed your view, even though I'd disagree with it. If you're looking for more topic to fill up another 300 words then you could go for the flaws of capitcal punishment, take a look at the other side of the story.
This would suggest that you've put real thought into the pros and cons of both sides, rather than just thinking down one line.
But either way. :-)
I thought it was well written as it expressed your view, even though I'd disagree with it. If you're looking for more topic to fill up another 300 words then you could go for the flaws of capitcal punishment, take a look at the other side of the story.
This would suggest that you've put real thought into the pros and cons of both sides, rather than just thinking down one line.
But either way. :-)
Wakka wrote:
> *looks at Green Ferocity's essay*
>
> Hmm, quite good.
>
> *looks at Para's essay*
>
> Wow!
>
> *looks back at Green Ferocity's entry*
>
> *sniggers*
And I'm sure you're a fantastic essay-writer yourself.
I'm not being sarcastic. I've seen your stories and if those are anything to go by, your essays must seriously rock. Really.
> *looks at Green Ferocity's essay*
>
> Hmm, quite good.
>
> *looks at Para's essay*
>
> Wow!
>
> *looks back at Green Ferocity's entry*
>
> *sniggers*
And I'm sure you're a fantastic essay-writer yourself.
I'm not being sarcastic. I've seen your stories and if those are anything to go by, your essays must seriously rock. Really.
Sarcasm, the tool of the embittered and witty :-D
Well, i'll not comment on the style of the essay or anything as i've yet to get it right.
But i'd just like to comment on the question its about, should we re-introduce capital punishment?
I say no. It doesn't really work. I point at places like Texas, they have it, and it doesn't deter people, at least not enough to make a difference. Even in Saudi Arabia, where the death is especially brutal, and it still doesn't deter people.
Also, what would be bad enough to justify it, murder? Well, i think its about 70% of murders are crimes of necessity, e.g. battered wifes etc...
Plus, if a person is sentanced to death, and its carried out, but then new evidence is found, well, its just too late, not to mention the law system is far from perfect.
There are other reasons, but i can't be bothered to put them, but all in all i say no.
But i'd just like to comment on the question its about, should we re-introduce capital punishment?
I say no. It doesn't really work. I point at places like Texas, they have it, and it doesn't deter people, at least not enough to make a difference. Even in Saudi Arabia, where the death is especially brutal, and it still doesn't deter people.
Also, what would be bad enough to justify it, murder? Well, i think its about 70% of murders are crimes of necessity, e.g. battered wifes etc...
Plus, if a person is sentanced to death, and its carried out, but then new evidence is found, well, its just too late, not to mention the law system is far from perfect.
There are other reasons, but i can't be bothered to put them, but all in all i say no.
Page: