The term ‘leader’ is an often-used one today. Since the term ‘leader’ can range from anything from the leader of a small organizing committee in a school to the leader of a world-body, I will limit the discussion to leaders of nations. Most leaders have a vision - a greater long-term goal which they want to achieve during their term as leaders. Therefore, ‘good leader’ can be defined as one whose goals are not limited to his self or his nation but concerns the larger good - for the world as a whole. But is this view always true? With nations drowning in poverty, bleeding with foreign or civil war and failing socially, should their ‘good’ leaders have visions concerning the world such as world solidarity? Does the above statement disqualify leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King from the club of so called ‘good leaders’ since they largely aimed for the success of their nation? In my opinion, a good national leader should have global concerns but they should only come after his nation’s well-being and once the people of his nation achieve satisfactory level of standard of living. If the nation is suffering from domestic problems, then would be better to solve the problems at home first before showing your altruism abroad.
As mentioned above, one of my main reasons for disagreeing with the given statement is that in my opinion, for a good leader, urgent domestic concerns should take precedence over world issues. A leader is answerable to the people of his own nation since they are the one who elect him and entrust him the responsibility of taking care of their welfare. If the nation is suffering from problems like poverty, starvation and foreign dominance, then in my opinion, a good leader should envision and strive for the elimination of urgent domestic concerns. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the prime minister of Iran is a good example of a leader who is largely ignoring Iran’s domestic problems, like stagnant economy and socially downgraded status of women and is striving hard to glorify his country on the world stage. In my opinion, such a leader cannot be termed as a good leader since he is side-lining the problems of the very people who elected him to that post. In contrast, Nelson Mandela was a good leader. He successfully liberated his people from foreign domination and undemocratic practices and then came on the world stage to preach world solidarity and safeguarding of human rights. Thus, a good leader should strive to solve domestic problems before going global.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Mother of Revolution and Crime is Poverty. Do you agree with this statement?
O masters, lords and rulers in all lands
How will the future reckon with this Man?
How answer his brute questions on that hour
When whirlwind of rebellion shake all shores?
How will it be with kingdoms and with kings
With those who shaped him to the thing he is
When this dumb Terror will rise to judge this world,
After the silence of the centuries.
The above lines form the last verse of the poem “The Man with the Hoe” by Edwin Markham. In this poem the poet describes a painting by Jean Millet, of a labourer with a bent back, holding a hoe in his hand. The poet says that poverty and economic suppression is clearly visible on his face and then he goes on to ask as to what will happen when this man, who has kept quite for centuries will revolt against those who had subdued him.
Poverty is truly the mother of all crime and revolution. Human Beings have always longed for an economically stable and socially satisfying life. But today the condition of the world is such that economic satisfaction is a far off thing; today, many people are dying of hunger and poor sanitation. According to the World Bank report in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day.Under such conditions many people are forced to adopt illegal means of earning money; while the rest, after long periods of repression, revolt against the authorities. The French Revolution is the testimony to the above fact. The peasant class in France bach then were forced to pay a lot of taxes, resulting in an economically downtrodden peasant community. After years of suffering from extreme poverty, these people finally revolted against the rich clerics, resulting in the French Revolution, where most of the rich were beheaded on the gullitone. The more recent Jakarta Riots in 1998 also show how a economically supressed community ( the Indonesian Malays in the above case) may revolt against the more economically stable people(the Indonesian Chinese).
Not only this, Global Terrorism, which haunts the world today, is also a product of poverty. Many young men are lured into terrorism when the terrorist organisation which approaches them, gaurantees a good standard of living to their families. Furthermore many smugglers, prostitutes and drug traffickers are forced to take up such professions because of the tough economic conditions faced by them. For example in India, the underworld Don, Chotta Shakeel was a peasant’s son. After years of being financially suppressed, he broke away from poverty by joining many illegal organisations which were involved in smuggling, poaching and drug trafficking. The same person was later involved in the Bombay bomb blasts in 1992 which had taken the lives of many thosands.
This world is not short of examples when it comes to people who have taken up arms to fight poverty.
This is not the end of the story. In the past, wars have been fought to secure a stable living standard. We don’t have to look far into history. The most gory war of all times, World War II was fought because of the economic sanctions imposed on the losers of World War I, especially Germany, by the Treaty of Versailles. As a result of the World War I, Germany was forced to pay a huge war indemnity and many of its economically viable cities were taken away from it. This resulted in huge unemployment and poor economic conditions of the people. Very soon the Big Slump followed in which all the nations were adversely hit, with the most conspicious effect on Germany. With the coming in of Nazi rule, the Government took various measures to increase the economic well being of the people, one of them being territorial expansion. This policy lead to the World War II in which thousands of people were killed and millions rendered homeless. The root cause of all this was the poverty inflicted among the people of Germany after the First World War.
Thus we saw how poverty is truly the mother of all crime and revolutions. The is an urgent need today to address the problem of poverty before we may have more terrorist breeding among us and people preparing for revolt. If no solution is rendered to the problem of poverty, then there may well be a time when the prophesy of Markham may come true and the Man with the Hoe may “stand up to judge this world”.
How will the future reckon with this Man?
How answer his brute questions on that hour
When whirlwind of rebellion shake all shores?
How will it be with kingdoms and with kings
With those who shaped him to the thing he is
When this dumb Terror will rise to judge this world,
After the silence of the centuries.
The above lines form the last verse of the poem “The Man with the Hoe” by Edwin Markham. In this poem the poet describes a painting by Jean Millet, of a labourer with a bent back, holding a hoe in his hand. The poet says that poverty and economic suppression is clearly visible on his face and then he goes on to ask as to what will happen when this man, who has kept quite for centuries will revolt against those who had subdued him.
Poverty is truly the mother of all crime and revolution. Human Beings have always longed for an economically stable and socially satisfying life. But today the condition of the world is such that economic satisfaction is a far off thing; today, many people are dying of hunger and poor sanitation. According to the World Bank report in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day.Under such conditions many people are forced to adopt illegal means of earning money; while the rest, after long periods of repression, revolt against the authorities. The French Revolution is the testimony to the above fact. The peasant class in France bach then were forced to pay a lot of taxes, resulting in an economically downtrodden peasant community. After years of suffering from extreme poverty, these people finally revolted against the rich clerics, resulting in the French Revolution, where most of the rich were beheaded on the gullitone. The more recent Jakarta Riots in 1998 also show how a economically supressed community ( the Indonesian Malays in the above case) may revolt against the more economically stable people(the Indonesian Chinese).
Not only this, Global Terrorism, which haunts the world today, is also a product of poverty. Many young men are lured into terrorism when the terrorist organisation which approaches them, gaurantees a good standard of living to their families. Furthermore many smugglers, prostitutes and drug traffickers are forced to take up such professions because of the tough economic conditions faced by them. For example in India, the underworld Don, Chotta Shakeel was a peasant’s son. After years of being financially suppressed, he broke away from poverty by joining many illegal organisations which were involved in smuggling, poaching and drug trafficking. The same person was later involved in the Bombay bomb blasts in 1992 which had taken the lives of many thosands.
This world is not short of examples when it comes to people who have taken up arms to fight poverty.
This is not the end of the story. In the past, wars have been fought to secure a stable living standard. We don’t have to look far into history. The most gory war of all times, World War II was fought because of the economic sanctions imposed on the losers of World War I, especially Germany, by the Treaty of Versailles. As a result of the World War I, Germany was forced to pay a huge war indemnity and many of its economically viable cities were taken away from it. This resulted in huge unemployment and poor economic conditions of the people. Very soon the Big Slump followed in which all the nations were adversely hit, with the most conspicious effect on Germany. With the coming in of Nazi rule, the Government took various measures to increase the economic well being of the people, one of them being territorial expansion. This policy lead to the World War II in which thousands of people were killed and millions rendered homeless. The root cause of all this was the poverty inflicted among the people of Germany after the First World War.
Thus we saw how poverty is truly the mother of all crime and revolutions. The is an urgent need today to address the problem of poverty before we may have more terrorist breeding among us and people preparing for revolt. If no solution is rendered to the problem of poverty, then there may well be a time when the prophesy of Markham may come true and the Man with the Hoe may “stand up to judge this world”.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Racial Harmony Day
To what extent should the media and the people of a country be granted the freedom of speech and expression? Should this freedom be unbounded or should there be more emphasis on developing a sense of social responsibility? This is a heated topic of debate and often it is very difficult to come to a final unanimous agreement on the issue. But when we look into the context of Singapore, a multi ethnic, multi cultural society the scope of this debate is reduced to a great extent.
In order to analyze the above statement in the context of Singapore we need to know what would be an ideal state of affairs in Singapore. The forefathers of the nation wanted Singapore to be a country where there is peace and harmony among different races such that all the citizens are united and the nation as a whole is continually moving on the path of prosperity. They also wanted the establishment of a ‘democratic society which is based on justice and equality’. Now getting back to the former question of the extent of the freedom of expression, in my opinion the freedom of expression should be limited, such that there is no detriment to the interests of the nation as a whole. Individuals and media should realize that opinions expressed about anyone in this globalised world spread like fire and are subject to different interpretations by different individuals. As mentioned in the article by Szilagyi, the reason why the Danish newspaper published Prophet Muhammad’s cartoon was that it felt that there was a sort of regression in the free expression of media since the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gough in 2004. But the followers of Islam thought it as a mockery of their God and this lead to a bitter fight over this issue which resulted in the creation of even more tension between the West and the Islamic nations. Did this issue serve any purpose? Is this kind of freedom of expression of any significance? No, rather it serves as a hindrance in the establishment of a peaceful world for which humans long for. Similarly in the context of Singapore prosperity and peace is only possible if people are united. If the freedom of expression knows no bounds then there may be cases of racial abuse or religious conflicts among the people everyday.
Though it is true that restricting freedom of expression is not in lieu with the principles of democracy but at the same time we cannot expect a peaceful Singapore if people are free to express their opinions which, in many cases may be one sided and unevenly balanced. Furthermore there is a need to protect the rights of the minority community in Singapore. Justified restrictions on the freedom of expression would ensure that the minorities in Singapore are not subdued by those in majority. It should also be noted that some of the opinions of individuals and media coverage is only there to serve selfish interests such as political propaganda or gaining popularity. Such forms of expressions should be censored as they inflame religious or racial sentiments of different people leading to less unity and even revolt.
Thus in my opinion it is important that people and media have the right to express their opinions but at the same time it is even more important that the interests of the nation as a whole are not affected. The rights of the community should reign over the rights of individuals thus leading to the establishment of a more conducive environment for peaceful co-existence.
In order to analyze the above statement in the context of Singapore we need to know what would be an ideal state of affairs in Singapore. The forefathers of the nation wanted Singapore to be a country where there is peace and harmony among different races such that all the citizens are united and the nation as a whole is continually moving on the path of prosperity. They also wanted the establishment of a ‘democratic society which is based on justice and equality’. Now getting back to the former question of the extent of the freedom of expression, in my opinion the freedom of expression should be limited, such that there is no detriment to the interests of the nation as a whole. Individuals and media should realize that opinions expressed about anyone in this globalised world spread like fire and are subject to different interpretations by different individuals. As mentioned in the article by Szilagyi, the reason why the Danish newspaper published Prophet Muhammad’s cartoon was that it felt that there was a sort of regression in the free expression of media since the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gough in 2004. But the followers of Islam thought it as a mockery of their God and this lead to a bitter fight over this issue which resulted in the creation of even more tension between the West and the Islamic nations. Did this issue serve any purpose? Is this kind of freedom of expression of any significance? No, rather it serves as a hindrance in the establishment of a peaceful world for which humans long for. Similarly in the context of Singapore prosperity and peace is only possible if people are united. If the freedom of expression knows no bounds then there may be cases of racial abuse or religious conflicts among the people everyday.
Though it is true that restricting freedom of expression is not in lieu with the principles of democracy but at the same time we cannot expect a peaceful Singapore if people are free to express their opinions which, in many cases may be one sided and unevenly balanced. Furthermore there is a need to protect the rights of the minority community in Singapore. Justified restrictions on the freedom of expression would ensure that the minorities in Singapore are not subdued by those in majority. It should also be noted that some of the opinions of individuals and media coverage is only there to serve selfish interests such as political propaganda or gaining popularity. Such forms of expressions should be censored as they inflame religious or racial sentiments of different people leading to less unity and even revolt.
Thus in my opinion it is important that people and media have the right to express their opinions but at the same time it is even more important that the interests of the nation as a whole are not affected. The rights of the community should reign over the rights of individuals thus leading to the establishment of a more conducive environment for peaceful co-existence.
Monday, May 7, 2007
IRAQ WAR
Iraq war is described as one of the bloodiest and unjustified wars fought in the history of the world. It began with the invasion of the United States (with minor support from the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland) on the sovereign state of Iraq which was being then ruled by Saddam Hussein. The reason given by the U.S. to justify the attack was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and these weapons posed an urgent threat to the world community specially the U.S. But no such weapons have been found and the U.S. charges have been found baseless. The other justifications in favor of the war in Iraq include the links of Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda and the abuse of human rights by Saddam Hussein. The United States was successful in occupying Iraq but as time went on the condition in Iraq deteriorated with attacks by the militant groups and civil strife between the Shias and the Sunnis. Today Iraq is a vulnerable place with bomb blasts and terrorist attacks everyday day resulting in the killing of many innocent people everyday.
Now the question arises that is the war on Iraq justified? And if not then what was the main motive of the invasion of the U.S. on Iraq? U.S. said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but why have there no such weapons being found even after four long years of the invasion? Another reason given by the U.S. for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights. This is a fact that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights by mass slaughtering many Shias in Iraq. But was that the true reason as to why U.S. invaded Iraq? Today in many countries such as Sudan, Ethiopia human rights are being violated but why is the U.S. not invading these nations and trying to restore democracy there? In fact the U.S. is not even to ready to send its troops there for peacekeeping mission under the United Nations. U.S. said that it wanted to liberate Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam but why is that 82% of the Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately and 47%of them want to attack U.S.? Why is it that the invasion on Iraq by the U.S. has lead to the killing of more number of civilians than Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule ever killed in twenty years? These questions are hard to answer as the above justifications by the U.S. are wrong and the real motive for such cruelty something else.
The real motive of the U.S. President George W. Bush for attacking Iraq was the Oil which Iraq has been gifted with. It is not a new thing for the U.S. to attack the gulf countries for their Oil as in the same thing had happened in the First Gulf War also which was led by George W. Bush’s father, the former President of the U.S., George Bush.
Today Iraq lies in a state of anarchy. The insufficient measures taken by the U.S. for restoring peace after the war is to be blamed for it. Although lots of money has been spent in the war, lost of casualties have taken place, human rights have been violated and the people have been traumatized but the need of the hour is that thew U.S. tries torestore peace in Iraq so that people may live better lives.
Now the question arises that is the war on Iraq justified? And if not then what was the main motive of the invasion of the U.S. on Iraq? U.S. said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but why have there no such weapons being found even after four long years of the invasion? Another reason given by the U.S. for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights. This is a fact that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights by mass slaughtering many Shias in Iraq. But was that the true reason as to why U.S. invaded Iraq? Today in many countries such as Sudan, Ethiopia human rights are being violated but why is the U.S. not invading these nations and trying to restore democracy there? In fact the U.S. is not even to ready to send its troops there for peacekeeping mission under the United Nations. U.S. said that it wanted to liberate Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam but why is that 82% of the Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately and 47%of them want to attack U.S.? Why is it that the invasion on Iraq by the U.S. has lead to the killing of more number of civilians than Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule ever killed in twenty years? These questions are hard to answer as the above justifications by the U.S. are wrong and the real motive for such cruelty something else.
The real motive of the U.S. President George W. Bush for attacking Iraq was the Oil which Iraq has been gifted with. It is not a new thing for the U.S. to attack the gulf countries for their Oil as in the same thing had happened in the First Gulf War also which was led by George W. Bush’s father, the former President of the U.S., George Bush.
Today Iraq lies in a state of anarchy. The insufficient measures taken by the U.S. for restoring peace after the war is to be blamed for it. Although lots of money has been spent in the war, lost of casualties have taken place, human rights have been violated and the people have been traumatized but the need of the hour is that thew U.S. tries torestore peace in Iraq so that people may live better lives.
IRAQ WAR
Iraq war is described as one of the bloodiest and unjustified wars fought in the history of the world. It began with the invasion of the United States (with minor support from the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland) on the sovereign state of Iraq which was being then ruled by Saddam Hussein. The reason given by the U.S. to justify the attack was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and these weapons posed an urgent threat to the world community specially the U.S. But no such weapons have been found and the U.S. charges have been found baseless. The other justifications in favor of the war in Iraq include the links of Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda and the abuse of human rights by Saddam Hussein. The United States was successful in occupying Iraq but as time went on the condition in Iraq deteriorated with attacks by the militant groups and civil strife between the Shias and the Sunnis. Today Iraq is a vulnerable place with bomb blasts and terrorist attacks everyday day resulting in the killing of many innocent people everyday.
Now the question arises that is the war on Iraq justified? And if not then what was the main motive of the invasion of the U.S. on Iraq? U.S. said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but why have there no such weapons being found even after four long years of the invasion? Another reason given by the U.S. for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights. This is a fact that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights by mass slaughtering many Shias in Iraq. But was that the true reason as to why U.S. invaded Iraq? Today in many countries such as Sudan, Ethiopia human rights are being violated but why is the U.S. not invading these nations and trying to restore democracy there? In fact the U.S. is not even to ready to send its troops there for peacekeeping mission under the United Nations. U.S. said that it wanted to liberate Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam but why is that 82% of the Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately and 47%of them want to attack U.S.? Why is it that the invasion on Iraq by the U.S. has lead to the killing of more number of civilians than Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule ever killed in twenty years? These questions are hard to answer as the above justifications by the U.S. are wrong and the real motive for such cruelty something else.
The real motive of the U.S. President George W. Bush for attacking Iraq was the Oil which Iraq has been gifted with. It is not a new thing for the U.S. to attack the gulf countries for their Oil as in the same thing had happened in the First Gulf War also which was led by George W. Bush’s father, the former President of the U.S., George Bush.
Today Iraq lies in a state of anarchy. The insufficient measures taken by the U.S. for restoring peace after the war is to be blamed for it. Although lots of money has been spent in the war, lost of casualties have taken place, human rights have been violated and the people have been traumatized but the need of the hour is that thew U.S. tries torestore peace in Iraq so that people may live better lives.
Now the question arises that is the war on Iraq justified? And if not then what was the main motive of the invasion of the U.S. on Iraq? U.S. said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but why have there no such weapons being found even after four long years of the invasion? Another reason given by the U.S. for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights. This is a fact that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights by mass slaughtering many Shias in Iraq. But was that the true reason as to why U.S. invaded Iraq? Today in many countries such as Sudan, Ethiopia human rights are being violated but why is the U.S. not invading these nations and trying to restore democracy there? In fact the U.S. is not even to ready to send its troops there for peacekeeping mission under the United Nations. U.S. said that it wanted to liberate Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam but why is that 82% of the Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately and 47%of them want to attack U.S.? Why is it that the invasion on Iraq by the U.S. has lead to the killing of more number of civilians than Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule ever killed in twenty years? These questions are hard to answer as the above justifications by the U.S. are wrong and the real motive for such cruelty something else.
The real motive of the U.S. President George W. Bush for attacking Iraq was the Oil which Iraq has been gifted with. It is not a new thing for the U.S. to attack the gulf countries for their Oil as in the same thing had happened in the First Gulf War also which was led by George W. Bush’s father, the former President of the U.S., George Bush.
Today Iraq lies in a state of anarchy. The insufficient measures taken by the U.S. for restoring peace after the war is to be blamed for it. Although lots of money has been spent in the war, lost of casualties have taken place, human rights have been violated and the people have been traumatized but the need of the hour is that thew U.S. tries torestore peace in Iraq so that people may live better lives.
Censorship
Censorship is the act of withholding any information in the form of music, video or written texts from the public. Censorship may be the result of political, religious or social condition of the nation.-for example during the time of Hitler the newspapers were not allowed to criticize the government. Different nations have different definitions of censorship and so the censorship of media that takes place around the world is not uniform. For example the magazine Playboy is banned in India but in the United States it is legally available for sale to the common people. But the question arises how far s censorship justified and where do we the draw the line when it comes to censoring explicit materials.
Today most of the free thinkers and the so called politically aware people stress on the abolition of censorship completely. They reason that media should not be censored as it brings reality to the people and each person has the right to the freedom of speech and expression. For them democracy and non-censorship are two parallel things and the existence of one without the other is meaningless. Abolition of censorship is important in their eyes because it exposes the common people, especially children from the realities of the world. Withholding the truths of pornography and sex from the children would lead them to become curious on the subject and they may try to access it from illegal means. They think that hiding information would lead to no good and would only promote delusion and ignorance on the part of the common people.
But there is also ample evidence to prove the importance of censorship in this world. Censorship is important since it helps in maintaining peace in the world, as acts of violence and riots etc. which may disturb the religious sentiments of the people are generally censored. Furthermore media always does not bring truth to the people and many times they twist up simple issues and make them offensive in the eyes of the people resulting in wide public outrage. Censorship has also been proven as an important tool to preserve national security. Things which may leak important details about the security of the nation is banned from public view. Censorship is particularly important in those countries which is a place of various religions, castes, creeds and races because things that may be acceptable in one culture may be unbearable among others. So censorship plays an important part in promoting racial harmony and political stability which is very important for the growth and development of the nation.
Thus censorship has its own pros and cons. In my opinion a balance should be striked out between the two so that people are aware of what is happening around them but yet remain unaware of the wrong details conveyed by the media and also the peace and security of the nation is not hampered. As the ultimate goal of mankind is to live in harmony therefore some degree of censorship is important to reach this goal.
Today most of the free thinkers and the so called politically aware people stress on the abolition of censorship completely. They reason that media should not be censored as it brings reality to the people and each person has the right to the freedom of speech and expression. For them democracy and non-censorship are two parallel things and the existence of one without the other is meaningless. Abolition of censorship is important in their eyes because it exposes the common people, especially children from the realities of the world. Withholding the truths of pornography and sex from the children would lead them to become curious on the subject and they may try to access it from illegal means. They think that hiding information would lead to no good and would only promote delusion and ignorance on the part of the common people.
But there is also ample evidence to prove the importance of censorship in this world. Censorship is important since it helps in maintaining peace in the world, as acts of violence and riots etc. which may disturb the religious sentiments of the people are generally censored. Furthermore media always does not bring truth to the people and many times they twist up simple issues and make them offensive in the eyes of the people resulting in wide public outrage. Censorship has also been proven as an important tool to preserve national security. Things which may leak important details about the security of the nation is banned from public view. Censorship is particularly important in those countries which is a place of various religions, castes, creeds and races because things that may be acceptable in one culture may be unbearable among others. So censorship plays an important part in promoting racial harmony and political stability which is very important for the growth and development of the nation.
Thus censorship has its own pros and cons. In my opinion a balance should be striked out between the two so that people are aware of what is happening around them but yet remain unaware of the wrong details conveyed by the media and also the peace and security of the nation is not hampered. As the ultimate goal of mankind is to live in harmony therefore some degree of censorship is important to reach this goal.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
'The death penalty is murder and should be abolished' do you agree?
I completely agree with the above statement.The death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Capital punishment is wrong on moral and social grounds. Life is given to human beings by God and human beings themselves have no right to take it away. Humans are fallible and decisions made by human can go wrong. Taking a life away as a result of misjudgment is the worst tragedy that can ever take place in the life of a person.
And an eye for an eye does not solve any problem rather (if followed) it would leave the whole world blind. Giving death penalty is equivalent to stooping to the level of the criminal as one is willingly taking away the life of a person.
Furthermore capital punishment is subjected to various taboos such as racial discrimination, social and financial inequality, etc. Why is it that in many countries the blacks are given capital punishment for doing crime against a white but a similar crime done by a white against a black result in no such harsh punishments? Why is it that in many societies the rich and powerful are never capital punishments but it is the poor and the uneducated that suffer from such inhumane acts? Why is it that only 20%of the capital punishment has been given to women although 40%of social crimes are done by them? Why is that many of us still justify capital punishments although many serious criminals have reformed to become responsible citizens after counseling done by physcologists in the prison?
Today Singapore has laws which award death sentence to a drug trafficker. Is such a harsh punishment just? There also have been instances in which the criminal who was executed is seen as a martyr and there are copycat crimes arising from it.Along with that there are many terrorist who are undeterred from such punishment and take revenge by striking back with greater force. Capital punishment in this case is no long term solution to the problem but is an immediate answer to a wrongdoing.
But capital punishment has its own merits also. It is looked upon as justice by the family members of the victim. It sets an example of extreme punishment given to criminals committing severe crime, so that there is no repetition of such crimes again in future. Furthermore it also saves the taxpayers’ money, who would be paying for the criminal’s livelihood in prison.
Overall capital punishment has its own merits and demerits and it depends on the perspective of the person, whether he holds the merits more important or the demerits. But definitely capital punishment is not an easy topic to debate upon and the countries should consider both sides of the coin before taking any decision on it.
And an eye for an eye does not solve any problem rather (if followed) it would leave the whole world blind. Giving death penalty is equivalent to stooping to the level of the criminal as one is willingly taking away the life of a person.
Furthermore capital punishment is subjected to various taboos such as racial discrimination, social and financial inequality, etc. Why is it that in many countries the blacks are given capital punishment for doing crime against a white but a similar crime done by a white against a black result in no such harsh punishments? Why is it that in many societies the rich and powerful are never capital punishments but it is the poor and the uneducated that suffer from such inhumane acts? Why is it that only 20%of the capital punishment has been given to women although 40%of social crimes are done by them? Why is that many of us still justify capital punishments although many serious criminals have reformed to become responsible citizens after counseling done by physcologists in the prison?
Today Singapore has laws which award death sentence to a drug trafficker. Is such a harsh punishment just? There also have been instances in which the criminal who was executed is seen as a martyr and there are copycat crimes arising from it.Along with that there are many terrorist who are undeterred from such punishment and take revenge by striking back with greater force. Capital punishment in this case is no long term solution to the problem but is an immediate answer to a wrongdoing.
But capital punishment has its own merits also. It is looked upon as justice by the family members of the victim. It sets an example of extreme punishment given to criminals committing severe crime, so that there is no repetition of such crimes again in future. Furthermore it also saves the taxpayers’ money, who would be paying for the criminal’s livelihood in prison.
Overall capital punishment has its own merits and demerits and it depends on the perspective of the person, whether he holds the merits more important or the demerits. But definitely capital punishment is not an easy topic to debate upon and the countries should consider both sides of the coin before taking any decision on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)