I agree with Szilagyi’s views that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. Freedom of speech may be an essential aspect of democracy, however censorship should still be practiced to a certain extent. Szilagyi’s article is spot-on in pointing out the fact that the media cannot control how the public chooses to construe their messages and often they only subscribe to the views that serves their own agendas. Because of Singapore’s multiculturalism, it is especially susceptible to conflicts between the various races and religions. Therefore, we cannot permit total freedom of expression because there would definitely be someone who would abuse this right. Hence, censorship should still be practiced.
In his article, Singer says that “By contrast, freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” I disagree with this statement. If we do allow that to happen, there would not be any human progress. Instead, there would be social regression as misunderstandings and conflicts would arise between the offending and offended parties. As Szilagyi mentions, “Whether we like it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another.” Any comment on others may be misconceived as a personal attack on them, eventually leading to divisions within the society. In Singapore, we cannot have that happening as that would be suicidal to the well being of the nation. Perhaps a point could be taken from the racial riots that occurred in the 1964, where mass violence was caused by insensitivities towards other races.
A cohesive society is the basic foundation of the success of Singapore. The lack of it would have been detrimental to our economic development. Therefore, I conclude that more emphasis should be placed on responsibility rather than freedom.
Nicholas stepped on your garbage at
9:09 PM
0 comments
Death penalty: “the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences.” (source: Wikipedia). Examples of such crimes are treason and murder.
Let me present why some people believe in and support the employment of the death penalty. It has been argued that the death penalty is the most effective way in ensuring justice. Statistics in the United States have shown that the homicide rate has an inverse relationship with the number of executions – meaning that when one increases, the other plummets and vice versa.
And why do others oppose the use of capital punishment? The most fundamental argument for this is the barbaric and vicious nature of the punishment, with some claiming that it “violates the right to life”. Sometimes, the innocent are mistakenly put to death. It is also alleged that it does not act as a huge deterrence to violent crime.
I believe that the use of the death penalty should be continued.
It is true that there is a possibility of innocents being implicated. However, the chances of that happening are insignificant or even negligible. This is because the court has to be absolutely convinced of the guilt of the offender before they even consider a death penalty. With the advancements in technology today, the chance of it has further diminished. We cannot permit hundreds of offenders to get away with lenient punishments due to the extremely small prospect of this occurrence as that would be an injustice towards the victims and their loved ones. Besides, if by any chance an innocent gets executed, it is not the death penalty that needs to be scrutinised but the foibles within the legal system. Also, hundreds and thousands of people die a year due to road accidents and botched surgical operations, but do people demand for the obliteration of cars or surgeries? Nope, and hence the same should apply for the death penalty.
Another reason people have put forward for the abolishment of the death penalty is that it violates human’s rights to live. I disagree with this viewpoint to a large extent. Does a soldier killing an enemy in order to defend his country constitute to murder? The same applies for the death penalty. Also, abolitionists often put these barbaric and brutal criminals on the same pedestal as the innocent. I do not subscribe to this notion. We, as inculpable civilians, have the right to live. On the other hand, those inhumane villains do not, as they contribute to the society in a detrimental way and their subsistence on this world would only deprive others of this basic right.
Another argument for the abolishment of the death penalty is the conviction that it is wrong for the state to execute these offenders, as it would be guilty of the same crime. If that were the case, then it would be wrong also to fine thieves, as the state would also be guilty of stealing. It would be wrong to put kidnappers in prison, as it would also be guilty of restricting their liberty. We cannot say that the state is guilty of the same crime by implementing the death penalty because their rationale for doing so does not share the same malicious principles and intentions of the murderer. It is used to discourage and warn would-be lawbreakers of the repercussions of committing violent crimes, and that if one does not heed this warning then he or she must be prepared to face the music.
Perhaps what would be the most ridiculous opposing argument would be that the death penalty should be abolished, as it would not bring the victim back to life. However, putting them in prison would not be capable of doing that either. But the death penalty does not aim to fulfil this objective. Its purpose would be to accord the utmost respect to life; whereby the price one has to pay for robbing others of their lives would be the highest – life itself.
Therefore, with the reasons stated above, I conclude that the death penalty should not be discontinued.
Sources:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/
http://www.yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Nicholas stepped on your garbage at
6:22 AM
5 comments
nothing to read here.
Nicholas stepped on your garbage at
8:30 AM
0 comments
