xaero Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 This was the issue topic I came across in the Princeton Review Online test. I think its a little too concise. Feel free to express your views on it.......... [}:)] "A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor." A generic trait of humankind is to presume the righteousness of an action by the response evoked by the fellow human beings. Consequently, an unjustified act, unless censured, does not convey its implications to the perpetrator. Civil rights and social benefits provide the means for man to exercise his thoughts and actions in a constructive manner. Freedom of speech and action are popular catch words of democracy, for instance. A perpetrator of a crime say a murderer, unless appropriately punished, puts such privileges to bad use, thus adversely affecting his fellow men, physically and mentally. Unless the person's rights are apprehended, such a perpetrator would not cease to exercise his whims and fanices, thus blackening the primary intention of public rights. A person who breaches the moral code of conduct is usually aware of his misdeeds. This indicates the mental disposition of the person to commit such acts and his defiance towards morality and justice. Depravation of rights and benefits has proved to be the most effective measure for such henious acts. The recent scandal on the medical front involving a veteran medical practitioner, Harold Shipman, in the United Kingdom, wherein the doctor used his professional practice to his advantage to kill his patients and appropriate their wealth is despicable. The doctor has been deservedly stripped of his degree and his practice has been terminated. Voices have been raised for the upliftment of criminals and wrong doers. Rehabilitation programs and educational facilities are popularized in many countries of the world. Although such actions tend to gain consideration on humanitarian grounds, statistics show little amelioration on the part of those convicted. Criminals, once emancipated from the hand of law, have returned to their corrupt ways in more than one instance. Caution is adviced in such means of rehabilitating the perpetrators. A distinctive characteristic feature of man is learn better through action rather than words. Punitive actions exercised on a criminal convey the true consequences that may follow for such an act. Not only the wrong doer but also the entire human race is educated in the process to uphold the ideas of morality and righteousness and abstain from unjustified acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synthia Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Hi, First thing is I don't actually understand ur essay. Too redundant as fr as I see it! What are trying to say in the ist para? I think u should have given more examples to state ur point. Of course,the medical front scandal is given but a few more would better justify ur position. Don't get offended by my way of lambaste as u always call it!:) Hey, I also think that on the fair side, ur vocab is good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaero Posted September 17, 2002 Author Share Posted September 17, 2002 Hi, I'm perplexed as to why the essay is so inscrutable. I've summarized these points: 1)How a man judges his action i.e. why a man 'knowingly commits a crime '. 2)Revoking rights of the criminal is the best way to stop him 3)An example to support the same 4)Questioning the counter arguments for my views 5)Why the method works well for entire human race Also, would u mind suggesting more examples? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitika_d Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Every society has a punishment code for offenders which varies with the degree and intention of the committed crime.The term CRIME brings with it several definitions ranging from innocuous shop lifting to a string of brutal murders.Also it differs in its aftermaths with loss of life being far more serious than the loss of property ,environment pollution and likes.It is the very flexibility of the term and the nimbleness of the punishments attached to each crime that adds to its complexities. Petty thefts like shoplifting are crimes but their extent might effect just a small percent of society,that too on a very small monetary scale.Violating the rules of mother nature and other Environment crmes like pollution are different altogether in the sense that they effect the surroundings in a more subtle but dangerous way.Such crimes warrant strict rules and fines . Crimes of medium intensity include perjuries where a person might be speaking a lie and ruining the life of an innocent victim.But still such crimes include the sort of punishment lesser in content and form than that of a hardcore criminal. If we pick up the far end nuance of this spectrum,we find terrorism-the extremist movements which has engulfed more or less every country and has its noxious effects felt all over the world.We all are familiar with the 9/11 disaster and its still haunting repercussions .Such crimes are unpardonable and what a person recieves as a punishment is still less than what he should. The intent of person committing the crime also determines what degree of punishment he should get.For eg. intent of murder without any pragmatic results is enough to send a person to jail whereas,a murder committed in ones self defense is relatively less grave .A person may commit perjury under pressure from sources giving threat to his own life.In such times,it is the society and judiciary who has to do the understanding. Though the social contract is broken during crime a person does knowingly,but the degree and intention of the crime should be taken into account before divesting the criminal of his/her civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labour.Such an extreme verdict is not applicable or even fair to the society esp. in a democracy,besides,it also violates human right.If the extent of punishment is such severe in all cases,petty criminals would be embittered and will eventually resort to more violence-perpetuating the very antithesis of the objective of punishment.The punishment thus delivered to a criminal should be in sync with the degree and intent of his/her crime for it to be effective and serve its purpose,that is to restrain the spread of evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaero Posted September 21, 2002 Author Share Posted September 21, 2002 hi nitika, Good essay there. I somehow feel you have holistically dealt with one point (what kinda crimes must be punished with what intensity) with ur 2,3,4 paras augumenting for the 5th para, with a conclusion in 6th para. This could be acceptable, but actually I thought we were required to come up with more discrete points than just hone in on one. Well this's just whats in my mind. What say you??? and hey, would you please say something abt my story before expressing your views. That way I would learn better where I'm going out of place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitika_d Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 hi xaero! actually i read ur essay before but couldnt follow it. actually i feel u r hiding beneath a lofty vocab. though that is what i consider ur best point usually. in para 1 usage of 'generic'??i im not sure if its right.its-related to a genre or group.is 'generic trait' ok?i have just heard about generic art. in para 2 usage of-apprehended is not clear.its meant to be feared?just check out. in 2nd last para-amelioration i think is used with of i.e. amelioration of a disease. anyway,i think u r better at vocab. than me,so correct me wherever necessary-i might also learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaero Posted September 23, 2002 Author Share Posted September 23, 2002 Hi Nitika, I'm seeing trouble. Are my essays too extravagant and flowery? Well, I've begun to suspect if I'm able to convey my intentions or not. Please reply. As for the usages of words, here is what Oxford clarifies - generic - characteristic of a large group or class (of entire human race, this is what I mean) apprehend - (has 2 meanings) - Lay hold upon, seize or grasp physically amelioration - The action of making something better; the condition of being made better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitika_d Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 hi xaero. barrons has this meaning of apprehend-arrest (for'seize or grasp physically)u have reffered to 'rights' being seized.that is not 'physical'.it is a 'criminal'that is apprehended. amelioration is used in context of something made lighter,u have not specified in ur sentence what is being made lighter.(crime) amelioration on part of those--CONVICTS BEING REHABILITATED. a person is still thinking of a criminal,not a rehabilitated criminal in this line. statistics show little crime amelioration on part of those convicts who are rehabilitated. similarly ur 1st para (esp 2nd line)seems incompletely expressed and ur meaning is obscured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saptarshi Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Hi all, This is Saptarshi..requesting ur comment on the issue essay.. "A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor." essay Society is the organisation made by human on the basis of some principle and contracts that ensures peaceful and prosperous advancement of the human community.These social contracts defines a healthy way for the peaceful mutual interaction for the people leaving in the socity.So any person who knowingly commits a crime breaks these social contracts and should be stripped of all the civil rights and the right to benefit from his own labor for the betterment of the society. An act of crime to an individual sometimes causes irrepareable damage to the person and its the responsibility of the society to see that his grevances and complains are taken care of.Otherwise the tendency of revange in the mind of the victim can cause more social disorder and can be detrimental to the overall moral of the society.So for the sake of the society it is very much necessary that the wrong doer is significantly punished. Secondly if an instance of criminal act is not treated strictly it can encourage further possibility of such crime.In civilized world the society imposes some rules to restrict the aboriginal instincts of human being that drive a person to commit crime so an action of the above mention kind is very much necessary to remind the people of their social responsibility. Finally a word of caution should also be told.The action of taking of all the civil rights from a person who commits a crime is an examplary punishment for the wrong doers but it should always be ensured before sentencing such punishment that no innocent person becomes the victim of it.A highly efficient body of people who are good judges of human charecteristics should be convinced before declaring a person as criminal.Otherwise this can again be detrimental to society and people will lose faith on social machinery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
getusoon Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 um...saptarshi...dat was very well written but mayb a bit short. Or dunno maybe mine is too long! @nikita - perhaps one more separate point needed but otherwise gr8 language and all that! this is my essay...please go through and comment...thanks a lot... The topic at hand addresses a very serious and a very complex issue in perhaps too simple a manner. Crime, in any form, is a blot on society, and it is undoubtable that in any form, it does merit some sort of chastisement. In the given scenario, the statement above suggests that criminals be stripped of civil rights entirely. Perhaps this is a bit peremptory. This issue merits a careful look into the various forms of, and reasons for, crime and punishment before we can fully decide. Crimes occur in numerous forms every day. Though the word "crime" encompasses them all, their degree of seriousness varies to an enormous extent. One cannot bracket a pickpocketer in a bus and a deadly serial killer in any way save that they are both labeled 'criminals'. Barring civil rights and removing benefit of labour for a petty criminal would, actually, be counterproductive. A petty criminal takes to crime mainly because he has very few other options. Such measure would be equivalent to limiting his options even further. Knowing that he cannot benefit from an honest living anyways, he would probably sink deeper into the world of crime. Another pertinent question that must be raised is - is the stripping of a criminal's civil rights justified in any case. Let us quickly review what the basic civil rights of any state generally are. Generally the right include ensuring the person's physical integrity and safety, the right to freedom of speech, to life and liberty, right against discrimination, and the right to pursue happiness. Stripping any human being of these rights makes us as evil, as bigoted, as any criminal. If a criminal in jail does not have the right to security, for example, his jailers are perfectly free to beat him up every day and not flout a single law! A final pressing concern here does not relate to the direct consequences that such a law might have. Rather, a deeper and more perplexing issue comes to the forefront. What are we actually trying to do away with while dealing with crime - is it crime itself or is it the criminal? In the long run, we look forwards towards a world with no criminals – not a world with more criminals and harsher punishments being meted out to them. Increasing the brutality and severity of punishment is not the means to this end. A criminal will redeem himself only if he sees that he does indeed have a chance for a better life after his punishment, and removing his civil rights (or the right to benefit from labour) does not indicate this in any way. So while punishment for crime is indeed necessary, the form of it should ensure that a criminal is given at least an iota of chance to redeem himself. If not, the system has no benefit to either the criminal or to common society. If we seek to truly redress crime, what methods we should use remain debatable but removing one's rights is certainly not the bets of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justo Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Hi All, "A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labour" I think this is a complex topic and I don't understand it fully. Does it mean that everybody who commits a crime should be stripped of all their civil rights and their rights to benefit from their own labour regardless of the nature or severity of the crime they commit? Is this seizure of entitlement to civil rights or the right to benefit from ones own labor meant to be perpetual for each and every crime? I am unable to offer constructive comments on the previous posts because I am failing on the first and basic requirement to writing a successful issue essay; taking apart the issue. For instance how would one phrase the opposing view? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shalom Ichthys Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 I think you may give your own definition of the terms you find recondite. In the end, it's not a test of professional knowledge, but how you can build up your argument based upon your perspective on the issues! Given the extremist view of the proposition, an alternative view is to probe into the continuous spectrum of penalty. How about a partial retention, versus the all-or-nothing approach? How to parameterize the escalating severity of trespassing against the proportional deprivation of civil rights? All these are leave for your pondering and scribbles. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shalom Ichthys Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 A considerably fluent essay, highly construed in legal cognition given a good scaffold of logic. I suppose it’d be better to differentiate between civil rights and economic rights, as “or” connote either or both. The social contract is well defined, and the resumption of illicit behavior deals a good blow to the retentionist. However, the link is kind of loosened between rehabilitation programs and the retention of civil rights. Are they explicitly complimentary, or substitutive in one way or the other? Bear in mind not to leave the readers convoluted. The last paragraph appears consummate, though it’d be better to contextualize abidance by social contract in the prevailing legal systems. Profoundness in itself is purposeful only if the mechanism in itself is feasible. To this end, I would suggest the author to think how the deprivation of rights would progress our mankind, or vice versa. It’s my heuristic rule not to jump over, but to build up the brick-and-mortar of my prose stepwise. Last but not least, mind the subtle difference between “advice” and “advise”, in noun and verb form respectively. Caution is adviced in such means of rehabilitating the perpetrators. My 2 cents; hope the author won’t mind my being a bit austere! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.