Month: January 2018

Punishment should fit the crime. To what extent do you agree?

To make the punishment fit the crime in today’s world is virtually impossible as there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes fair punishment for a crime. The judgment of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly among societies. Countries are often concerned when their citizens are subjected to foreign laws considered barbaric by their own country. Countries beleaguered by specific crimes have tough laws to eradicate crimes common to their society. Views on crime and punishment are perpetually shifting. Advocates of human rights vilify any laws that are perceived to curb an individual’s rights. Many see harsh punishment as counterproductive and increasing calls are being made for countries to practice restorative justice as opposed to retributive justice.

While laws are the bedrock of all societies, each country is a sovereign entity and draws up its own laws and statutes based on religious codes, historical practices or its particular circumstances. Anyone who transgresses the law cannot claim ignorance and is beholden to obey the law or receive his just deserts. In theory, a penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate to the level of wrongdoing. In reality, a misdemeanour in one society can constitute a crime punishable by death in another. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has often been berated for stoning to death women convicted of adultery. In most societies, adultery is not a chargeable offence. In Singapore, the consumption of drugs is an offence unlike countries such as Portugal, Spain, and Italy. Thus fitting the punishment to the crime varies across countries.

A good fit between punishment and crime could be possible to a certain extent if a country has a robust judicial system where laws are carefully deliberated and there is a general consensus that the punishments are consistent with the nature of the crimes. The perpetrator should have access to adequate legal aid to ensure that all facets of the case are examined. Astute and impartial judges, beacons of justice and morality, must ensure that sentencing is fair based on the stipulated range of penalties prescribed for a particular offence. If it is felt that the punishment does not fit the crime, the wrongdoer has to recourse to make an appeal. In Singapore, the Supreme Court hears appeals from the High Court and State Courts. The Penal Code is revised from time to time to keep pace with social and political changes against a backdrop of increasing technological advancements that breed new and increasingly complex online crimes.

Fitting the punishment to the crime is also clearer in cases where an obvious infringement has been made. This is generally true for banal crimes which do not affect others or society directly. A person caught speeding, littering or shoplifting would normally accept the punishment considered fit by society. It can be difficult to mete out punishments for complex crimes which involve several parties with varying levels of complicity. Crimes against humanity such as the battering of a maid provoke the ire of the citizens who demand balefully that the perpetrators receive just punishment for their cruelty. In India where rape is rife, public outcry can influence the penalty handed down to the culprit. Animal rights groups belabour the fact that greater punishments ought to be exacted for cruelty to pets and animals. Crimes of passion which are not premeditated are particularly complex and fitting the punishment to the crime requires careful consideration.

The arbitrariness of fitting the punishment to the crime is increasingly obvious in a globalized world where the dissemination of world news takes place at a rapid pace. Crimes and their resultant punishments often provoke anger or ridicule from the online international community. While Singapore has rigorous legal systems and structures and is noted for its incorruptibility, it is often belittled for being a ‘fine’ city which imposes fines for littering, the sales of chewing gum, eating on the metro, smoking in non-designated areas and jaywalking. People mostly in the developed world are befuddled that flogging practised in ancient times, is still being practised in many Asian and Middle-Eastern countries. Many feel that such punishments are dehumanizing and do not fit the crime of any nature.  Caning in countries such as Brunei, Singapore, and Malaysia dates back to British colonial rule. The jail and caning of two young Germans for trespassing and spray-painting a metro train in Singapore received criticism from the online community. From Singapore’s standpoint, the sentence is not baseless. Given the size and fragility of its state, there can be no compromise on safety and security. A strong deterrent has to be set against trespassing and the defacement of property.

World norms are changing. Murderers are a bane in any society. While it would seem fair and fitting that a person who willfully takes the life of another is punished by forfeiting his own life, about a hundred countries have abolished the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment state baldly that many innocent people are executed due to unfair and discriminatory practices. Many criminals are from economically and socially backward sections of society and do not have access to good lawyers and a fair trial. We often read of lawyers who find loopholes in the law to exonerate their clients. Many bemoan the fact that there have been cases in countries, however, have retained the death penalty for drug trafficking to send a strong deterrent signal to would-be traffickers and protect its citizens from the ill effects of drug consumption. When Indonesia executed eight convicted drug traffickers in 2015, it provoked a backlash in Australia, Brazil, and Nigeria were seven of them hailed from.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that fitting punishment to a crime is both a Science and an Art and that it is not possible to have an exact fit. Judges and juries cannot baulk from the grave responsibility of ensuring that the punishment fits the crime as best as it can. Laws and punishments are necessary. Without them, there would be bedlam.

Preference for male babies makes a society weak. Discuss.

• Female infanticide has existed for thousands of years
• in Greece (200 BC) authorities did not oppose the killing of handicapped, female and unwanted children
• preference for male babies still persists in areas of South Asia, Middle East and Africa.
• is it justified in a modern, globalised world?
• parents in rural China have a preference for male babies as they are seen as a ‘pension’ for their old age. Similar ideas are found in parts of India and Pakistan where labouring in the fields ensures some income for families
• huge sums (dowries) have to be found to ‘get rid of daughters’ by marriage
• preference for male babies has led to sex-selection; abortion which targets female foetuses almost exclusively and general neglect of girl children
• all this has led to a distorted gender imbalance, e.g. a recent report claimed that some 110 million Chinese males will not be able to find a wife

A sample intro. Add your own scope and thesis.

The gender preference for children has been largely based on two theoretical frameworks that have little to do with each other. One is gender discrimination, and the other is parental investment. Gender discrimination approach focuses on the preference of boys over girls. This is primarily studied in Asian countries. Where parental investment is concerned, no clear factor emerges on why some parents prefer girls over boys, sociologists have opined that care in old-age could be a driving factor for some parents.

Sample paragraph.

Son preference remains common in countries from East Asia to South Asia, extending even to the Middle East and Africa. But what is largely forgotten is that increased levels of crime, anti-social behaviour and violence are statistically proven to come mostly from males. One may be tempted to say that while parents want a male child, they are unable to raise a male child that is worthy of worship.

History is irrelevant for modern times. Discuss.

• an understanding and appreciation of history can be a pointer to future events
• ignoring history runs the risk of shutting eyes to the future
• those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it
• we can learn to understand change and how our society has evolved and will probably evolve
• history can be one-sided since it is often written by winners in conflict or those in power
• history is irrelevant since it did not stop wars, financial crises or even pandemics
• history is irrelevant in a VUCA world; brings up many questions.

Check out this other essay on history.

A suggested intro. Add your own scope and thesis

Historians do not perform heart transplants, improve highway design, or arrest criminals. In a society that quite correctly expects education to serve useful purposes, the functions of history can seem more difficult to define than those of engineering or medicine. History is in fact very useful, actually indispensable, but the products of historical study are less
tangible, sometimes less immediate, than those that stem from some other disciplines.

A suggested paragraph

History offers a storehouse of information about how people and societies behave. Understanding the operations of people and societies is difficult. An exclusive reliance on current data would needlessly handicap our efforts. How can we evaluate war if the nation is at peace-unless we use
historical materials? Some social scientists attempt to formulate laws or theories about human behavior. But even these recourses depend on historical information, except for in limited, often artificial cases in which experiments can be devised to determine how people act. Major aspects of a
society’s operation, like mass elections, missionary activities, or military alliances, cannot be set up as precise experiments. Consequently, history must serve, however imperfectly, as our laboratory, and data from the past must serve as our most vital evidence in the unavoidable quest to figure out why our complex species behaves as it does in societal settings. This, fundamentally, is why we cannot stay away from history: it offers the only extensive evidential base for the contemplation and analysis of how societies function, and people need to have some sense of how societies
function simply to run their own lives.

Does it answer the question?

‘Increasing life expectancy is always a desirable goal.’ do you agree?

Medical advancements have led people to lead longer lives. Specific diets, medicines and procedures are leading people to live longer but are also reducing the quality of life. Countries like Japan and Singapore have the highest number of ageing population which can cause problems economically. It is often seen that people with longer lives die lonely, this has significantly been seen in countries like Japan, Sweden and the UK. Keeping all these points in mind it can be contended that increasing life expectancy is not always a desirable goal.

Economically, higher life expectancy is considered as a marker of Social welfare. In many countries people believe that higher life expectancy is the indicator of a better and well-equipped healthcare system. For example, in Singapore the healthcare system is efficient and there are policies to take care of the elderly. This is also evident from the fact that Singapore topped the world in life expectancy in 2017 with an expected lifespan at birth of 84.8 years. On the other hand poorer countries have lower life expectancy because of poorly managed Healthcare systems, lack of access to clean water, food and sanitisation. Thus, higher life expectancy is desirable and necessary because it is an important indicator of the economic strength of a nation.

However, higher life expectancy also means that the healthcare systems and infrastructure are burdened. Higher life expectancy means that there is a need for additional medical professionals, equipment and facilities to take care of the ageing population. This leads to burdening of human resources and finances which are allocated to take care of people with longer lives. In order to raise the funds for these services to be provided, the working citizens of the country have to bear the expenses in form of taxes. Apart from raising funds for better healthcare, governments also need to introduce policies and programmes for the overall wellbeing of the ageing population. This is seen in Singapore where the government introduced the Merdeka Generation Package aimed at citizens born in the 1950s, to provide them with better peace of mind over future healthcare. Government schemes and packages like these ease the financial burden of medical costs for the elderly but put significant strain on the working younger generations. Thus, increased life expectancy is undesirable to a certain extent because it puts strain on the healthcare systems and the financial budget of a country.

However, it cannot be denied that longer life expectancy provides people with an opportunity to fulfil their life long dreams and spend time with loved ones. Today people are preoccupied with earning money and half their lives are spent in this pursuit. A longer life gives people the chance to experience whatever they have missed in their early years. Today many elderly can pursue additional skills like playing the piano or a guitar. Similarly, they can enrol themselves in online courses to learn skills that are required in a technologically advanced world. Thus, longer life expectancy gives us a chance to experience life in unique and diverse ways.

Longer life expectancy however does not mean that people have a better quality of life. Many elderly who have a longer life live a life that is of poor quality. Elderly people who live longer do not necessarily live meaningful lives as most of the time they are extremely sick and spend their end days either bed ridden or in a hospital. In such circumstances, the elderly are also considered a burden by society. This can be evidently seen in countries like India where many children abandon their parents or send them to old age homes. The separation of the elderly from their families leads them to live sad and lonely lives. Thus, increasing life expectancy can lead to painful and sorrowful lives which are spent in isolation and abandonment.

Longer life expectancy also makes people take life for granted. If people have shorter lives they may value it more and rush to complete tasks that are meaningful. A longer life expectancy can also lead to boredom and cynicism. The knowledge that our lives are limited gives us the motivation to pursue better things in life like creativity and nobility. Thus, increasing life expectancy is undesirable because it gives our life little purpose.

In conclusion, though longer life expectancy might be desirable in economic terms, it is overall undesirable to have a longer life expectancy because it leads the elderly to live lives that are spent in isolation, abandonment, and poor circumstances. Instead, life even if short, should be meaningful and provide purpose to people.