Argument from Scripture: God's existence cannot be proven by the presence of the concept of God within the text of the Holy Scriptures
Does God exist? Some would argue that this is the most fundamental question posed by any religion. However, even this assertion is somewhat problematic, since this assumption of God as a unified, theologically cohesive being that intervenes, but sometimes does not intervene in worldly affairs is itself problematic and a cultural construction of the major Western traditions of religious thought. There are those who would appeal to scripture for a proof of God's existence, such as the Catholic theologian and saint Anselm, who said that because scripture and the human mind could conceive of a 'something greater' existing, therefore it must exist. In other words, because the higher ideal of God was recorded in the Bible, filtered through the less perfect collective consciousness of the human animal, some higher being must be manifest, and must be true.
But this premise quite simply, is unsound.
Assailants of this [Anselm's] argument should remember that all minds are not cast in one mould, and it is easy to understand how some can feel the force of arguments that are not felt by others." (Kent, 2004) In other words, many faith traditions of the world, as well as many nonbelievers disagree with the Bible. The existence of the word of God, as recoded within a specific set of texts and cultural constraints does not prove the existence of that being.
The premises of the existence of God in scripture thus presuppose because God is spoken of as such, such a higher power exists and all such contradictions that are manifest are simply indications and proofs of the lower state of human mentalities, in relation to the divine. The contrary or skeptical philosopher would have to note that fundamentally, the argument of God from scripture is tautological, assuming because God can do…… [Read More]
Privacy, Security, Whistleblowing
[Surveillance is a necessary evil to prevent terrorist attacks from happening.]A [For example, the secret "PRISM" effort saved New York City's subways from a 2009 terrorist plot led by a young Afghan-American, Najibullah Zazi.]
A = Main Argument
Surveillance is a necessary evil to prevent terrorist attacks
B = Level
The secret PRISM effort saved New York City's subways in 2009 from a terrorist plot.
Claim B. is Level 1 and supports Argument A, which is the main argument.
[Surveillance violates the right to privacy by citizens worldwide.]A [Of course, citizens already release their private data to government and companies alike, whether it be the tax office, health services or banks.]B [However, in all those cases, we can decide for ourselves which information is shared, so our privacy is not violated, whereas the government surveillance schemes sweep up information without our explicit permission.]C
C = Main Argument
Decide for ourselves what information to share + government surveillance sweeps without explicit permission.
B = Level 1
Surveillance violates the right to privacy by citizens.
A = Level 1
Citizens release private date to government and companies.
C is the main argument. The main argument shows that both Claim A and Claim B. occur independently at the same time. Neither Claim is dependent on the other, neither Claim restricts or facilitates the other Claim. Hence, both Claims are Level 1.
[Surveillance on the scale revealed by Snowden should be stopped.]A [Surveillance should be stopped because it can be abused by government to get back at its critics.]B [Given the past track record of U.S. Government, this is not entirely unlikely. For example:]C [Firstly, the department of Homeland Security did conduct in the past inappropriate surveillance of protesters associated with Occupy Wall Street.]D [Also, the Justice Department's inspector general found that the F.B.I. monitored a political group because of its anti-war views.]E [Finally, a former C.I.A. official says…… [Read More]
Death and Justice by Edward I. Koch. Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch defends his beliefs and convictions regarding capital punishment, and discuss why it is such a volatile issue facing our country. The article includes Koch's opinions refuting some of the most popular arguments against capital punishment.
Koch ends paragraph two with a question because he wants the reader to think about his statement. If he simply made a statement, perhaps the reader might not stop to ponder what he had said, but the question format creates a natural break in the reading, and makes the reader stop to think. Clearly, Koch saw this as a crucial way to begin his essay, and he wanted his readers to look into their own minds and delve into their own beliefs and prejudices about capital punishment. Ending this paragraph with a question is one way to get the reader to stop, perhaps reread the beginning of the essay, and think more about what they have read before they move on.
In paragraph eight, Koch wants to establish the person he is discussed is a vocal and well-known opponent of capital punishment; so early in the paragraph he calls Adam Bedau "one of the most implacable foes of capital punishment in this country" (Koch 562). Clearly, Koch is going to dispute some of Bedau's thoughts and ideas, and so, he creates a sentence early on that indicates he does not agree with Mr. Bedau, and that he will continue to disagree with him throughout this paragraph as a rebuttal to Bedau's beliefs. The idea that innocent people may be executed, as Bedau believes, is quickly refuted by Mr. Koch when he notes, "If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn't exist, government wouldn't function at all" (Koch 562). Clearly, Mr. Koch sets Bedau up effectively, and then takes down his argument with a logical and nearly refutable argument.
Koch…… [Read More]
Capital punishment is defined as the legal infliction of death as a punishment, or the death penalty. The United States is one of a decreasing number of countries who still practice capital punishment, using methods such as lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, and firing squad. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the first known execution in the United States was carried out in 1608. During the Revolutionary War, capital punishment was widely accepted. After war 11 colonies wrote new constitutions which all authorized capital punishment. In 1790, the First Congress enacted legislation that implemented capital punishment for the crimes of robbery, rape, murder, and forgery of public securities. During the nineteenth century there were 1,391 documented executions. The death penalty continued as an acceptable practice in the United States until 1967 when a national moratorium was enacted while the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the death penalty. In 1976 new death penalty laws in Georgia, Florida, and Texas were upheld by the Supreme Court and the moratorium was thereby lifted. Currently, there are currently over 3200 people awaiting execution in the 34 states that still practice capital punishment. However, the controversy over the death penalty still continues.
One of the most common arguments presented by proponents of the death penalty is that it deters crime and therefore saves lives. This argument is based on studies conducted by economists who compare the number of executions in different jurisdictions with homicide rates over time (Liptak). The results of these studies indicate that murder rates tend to fall as execution rates rise. Based on these studies, economists predict that for each inmate executed, 3 to 18 lives are saved. According to Liptak, economists believe this is simple economic theory: as the cost of an activity rises, the frequency of the activity will decrease. However, legal scholars doubt whether potential murderers are thinking rationally enough to consider the cost of their actions. Dr. Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University, a national expert on deterrence, concluded that "there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters murder more than a sentence of life without parole" adding on the disparities of the results of deterrent studies, "When hypothesized deterrent effects of executions are so unstable over time, one must reject a…… [Read More]
Human beings have kept animals in zoos for centuries, but only relatively recently have the ethical considerations of this practice been widely considered. At one extreme are those individuals and organizations that see no problem keeping animals in zoos and other attractions, in keeping with the long history of animal confinement in the service of human entertainment, and at the other extreme are those individuals and groups arguing that animals should not be kept in zoos out of ethical considerations. However, this dichotomy has been complicated in recent years as zoos have increasingly become some of the most important centers of animal conservancy efforts, forcing a reevaluation of the ethical status of zoos in regards to the animals they contain, and the potential benefit they provide. Examining the history of zoos, their potential for harm, and the ways they might better consider animal welfare reveals that not only is the practice of keeping animals in zoos ethically sound so long as the welfare of these animals is maintained, but that it is actually essential for zoos to continue and even expand their conservancy efforts, because only by treating the animals already in captivity better will these conservancy efforts begin to benefit animal populations as a whole, both in zoos and out.
Before addressing the contemporary state of zoos in regards to animal welfare, it will be useful to first consider the history of zoos in general, because this historical context will help demonstrate how zoos have always represented a balance between conservancy and entertainment, even as this balance has shifted dramatically in recent decades. The earliest recording of something like a zoo comes from wall sculptures found in the tomb "of Mereruka, son-in-law of Pharaoh Teti of the 6th Dynasty" of ancient Egypt, and date to roughly 2300 BC (Bostock 7). The sculptures feature "oryx, addax, and gazelle […] tethered next to their manger, and some are being fed by their attendants, others led by men holding their horns" (Bostock 7). That these sculptures represent something…… [Read More]
"Too Much Violence: Murdering Wives in Othello"
The Author's Argument
Othello according to the author is the renaissance play where the most heinous act of violence against women occurs. He says "of all the acts of violence against women represented on the English Renaissance stage…Othello's murder of Desdemona, followed quickly by Iago's murder of Emilia, is the most appalling" (366). Throughout the piece the author gives accounts of writers, critics and reviewers who do not seem to believe this, instead stating in one case that it is a shame that "the exigencies of the stage require the omission of the exquisite scene. Pechter sees the violence as a product of the times, but cannot excuse the fact that people not only want to see the scene, and believe that the scene is essential to the workings of the play. He is making the argument for the reader, but he may have some problems convincing people who want to see the Shakespearean works as they were written. The main argument is that the original scene is too violent mainly because it seems to relegate women to a secondary status, but also that it is wrong for reviewers to lament the fact that such an appalling scene is tampered with.
Main Points of Support
The author uses several excerpts from reviews to make his argument about the play and he also quotes noted critics. Pechter uses an argument from a 1610 review of the play to make his main argument. The reviewer said that the scene was beautiful and that it should remain because it was tradition, and "tradition was right" (367). Pechter responds to this by saying "Tradition, the nightmare of history registered in the weight of previous theatrical and critical response…… [Read More]
Legalization of Marijuana in Washington State
The legalization of Marijuana would allow for the government to have more regulation over the drug and its users. This of course does not come without rules and blankets like how cigarettes and alcohol come with warnings when purchased. If Marijuana were to be legalized, it can be sold with a list of active ingredients, purity levels and warnings like those of pharmaceutical drugs; this would let people know more about the drug. Marijuana does not have any harmful effects besides for the user, who is willing to accept those risks when in taking the drug. Countries that have legalized Marijuana, such as Amsterdam, have had positive results. The legalization of Marijuana has more benefits for the state of Washington than negative aspects.
The state of Washington has enacted laws on the legalization of medical Marijuana. This is due to modern research which suggests that Marijuana can help with the treatment of a lot of clinical applications, and can ease pain (Bock 2000, null7). Additionally, this treatment includes relief from nausea, glaucoma, spasticity and movement disorders. Because Marijuana is a very strong appetite stimulant, research suggests that it could protect the body from a variety of medical conditions such as some types of malignant tumors (Bock 2000, null7). This was effective on July 27, 2007, Chapter 69.51A RCW Amendments (Stiley and Cikuvitch, n.d.). The act states that only patients who are terminally ill, with the approval of a licensed physician can benefit from the medical use of Marijuana. Medical professionals are to exercise their best judgment in approving for patients who they believe would qualify as a benefactor of this drug. In the state of Washington, an individual caught with the possession of Marijuana which is less than 40 grams will be punished up to 90 days in jail, and will be fined up to $1,000, depending on the amount on person. A greater punishment is for those who are in…… [Read More]
Against Affirmative Action
Contrary to the common perception, not all opponents of "Affirmative Action" are white males. Many African-Americans are also opposed to its continued application. For example, Ward Connerly, University of California Regent is black and a leading opponent of Affirmative Action. He believes that:
Affirmative action is an undesirable "crutch" for the black people on which they have started to depend believing that it is not possible to achieve anything without this "crutch."
The original intent of Affirmative Action was to eliminate discrimination rather than having different standards for blacks and whites for university admissions and hiring in government jobs. Connerly views such "preferences" as discriminatory.
Affirmative Action poisons the relationships between different groups and builds resentment because of the wide-spread perception among the white males that it works to the advantage of the minorities at their cost.
Connerly believes that preferences in jobs and admissions unnecessarily marginalize blacks, Latinos, and females who lose their sense of accomplishment by the "stigma" of having been given something instead of competing for it fairly in a level-playing field. (Montgomery, "Poison Divides Us.")
Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, writing in the Cato Journal (Vol. 17, No. 1-Spring/Summer 1997) points out that:
It is ironic that initially, civil rights organizations fought against the use of race in hiring, access to public schools, and university admissions while today, they fight for the use of race in the very same areas.
He terms Affirmative Action a "zero-sum-game" and quotes the example of the UC, Berkeley's affirmative action program for blacks whereby blacks are admitted with average SAT scores of 952 compared to the average white score of 1232 and Asian student average of 1254. He points out that the admissions gains by blacks are exactly matched by admissions losses by white and Asian students, which virtually defines a "zero sum game."
Williams believes that a…… [Read More]
limiting free speech ID: 53711
The arguments most often used for limiting freedom of speech include national security, protecting the public from disrupting influences at home, and protecting the public against such things as pornography.
Of the three most often given reasons for limiting freedom of speech, national security may well be the most used. President after president, regardless of party has used national security as a reason to not answer questions that might be embarrassing personally or would show their administration as behaving in ways that would upset the populace. Although there are many examples of government apply the "national security" label to various situations, perhaps some of the stories that are associated with the Iran-Contra issue best display what government uses limitations on free speech for. In horrific tangle of lies double and triple dealing that resulted in the deaths of many Nicaraguans, the Regan administration sought to overthrow a popularly elected government because the new government wouldn't behave as the U.S. wanted it to. Our government didn't want to be seen as supporting terrorists so information was suppressed and events re-written to make it seems we were not part of the operations. Journalists were transferred away from the area because of articles they wrote, and government responded to open questions with lies in the name of national security. It is perhaps good to lie to a population that prides itself on believing in freedom for everyone.
The history of limiting freedom of expression to "protect the public from disrupting influences" is also as long as our history as a nation. The purposes of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 seem contradictory to the just achieved freedoms.
However, if it was the fear of the new government that criticism and dissent would threaten what they were trying to build, then the Act perhaps makes sense. Zinn…… [Read More]
War on Drugs
The concept of the 'War on Drugs' was first coined by President Nixon back in 1971 in an effort to discourage the illegal trafficking of drugs. The primary motivation for this was the way that many states were falling victim to the dynamics of the drugs and terrorism links prevalent in the region. There have many studies conducted that show various authentic connections between the drug business and how a majority of the money it produces is used to fund terrorism and destructive activities.
Throughout the late 19th century, numerous parts of the United States, from time to time, have faced numerous disruptions in their efforts for the peace process because of the growth of the drug industry. The entire debate on war in drugs now revolves around whether or not, certain drugs must be legalized/not legalized and their trafficking and distribution monitored. In a recent article, published in New York Times, the writer goes on to say that one of the major reasons that the war on drugs and drug addiction is general has played such a vital role in years is because of the inefficient prison systems in the country. The writer explains that the rigidity and inefficient monitoring in the prisons creates criminal traits in first-time offenders (The New York Times, 2011).
The article also claims that the structure of prisons and criminal law is not one that supports prisons to be filled with criminal who have committed serious offences and instead leads to common low-level criminals engaging in drug or alcohol abuse within the prisons and outside and thus being retained in prisons for offences in the similar domains. This, the articles claims, does cause a major dent in some of the minorities (like the African-Americans) who seem to develop the drug-abusive traits more quickly and are much more vulnerable…… [Read More]
There is no such thing as a time machine. Ancient history can only be understood by modern peoples through the cultural documentation that was left behind. Writings from the period of the New Testament exist but they do not provide information into every aspect of everyday life. Consequently, historians and scholars must analyze the documents that are in existence in order to gain a greater understanding into the world's past. One technique that makes it possible for current populations to understand ancient texts is the use of literary ethnography. This procedure is the endeavor to use qualitative means to learn about and to better understand various cultural documentation and ideology which mirror that culture's society. Particularly of importance to ethnography is the ways and means of knowledge acquisition of a culture and also the system of meanings and which dictate that culture, such as language and the roles of particular members of the population. What can be empirically correct or incorrect about a long-gone culture can be best determined by the use of ethnography. Certain components of literary ethnography are more useful in the interpretation of given texts than others. In order to understand the text of the New Testament, modern scholars should investigate argumentation exemplified in texts, the concept of providence in these same documents, and the concept of the simple life.
Argumentation is, by definition, the ways in which an individual, or a given collective body, tries to convince others of a point. In sociology, argumentation is the study of how humans should, can, and ultimately do reach conclusions and how they utilize logic to determine these conclusions. These are claims which must have a base or a premises on which to be justified, not merely a hypothesis without discernable evidence to support it. In Ancient Greece and Rome, students in the educational system had to be trained to argue and debate amongst themselves and also with their teachers. This was deemed important because it would allow them to question their authorities later on in their lives. People must be…… [Read More]
The art of argumentation is a style of reasoning with civility that is the foundation of discourse in business, public affairs, and group process. The emphasis on freedom of speech in a democracy is based on a civil society's need to resolve complex problems using discourse and argumentation instead of violence. In the interpersonal sphere, mastering the rhetoric of reasonable argumentation is an effective way to get people to listen to and respect what one says.
Americans are lucky to live in a society that offers its citizens freedom of speech. This freedom has, for decades, provided Americans with the right to have ideas that are originally and not necessarily "politically correct." However, in today's society, many people are joining a movement aimed at stripping us of freedom of speech in an effort to become more politically correct.
In Michiko Kakutani's essay, The Word Police (1996), the author discusses how language is used in society, and how people are placing such a strong emphasis on being "politically correct." Kakutani's article is somewhat humorous as she describes what conversations would sound like if everybody were completely politically correct in his or her language.
Kakutani talks about Rosalie Maggio's book, The Bias-Free Word Finder, a Dictionary of Nondiscriminatory Language, in which Maggio proposes changing the daily language of people simply because she believes that much of our language has negative connotations. Maggio thinks that the work "black" carries a negative connotation and suggests changing the term "blackball" to "ostracize," "black eye" to "mouse," "black sheep" to "outcast," and so on.
Words such as "ostracize" and "outcast" are already strongly used in the English language and it is ridiculous to insist that we change our language to exclude phrases that use "black" in them. For this reason, I must agree with Kakutani when she states that the fight for becoming a politically correct nation has become ridiculous. She uses humorous persuasion to help get her point across and the effect is very powerful.
Language is the human use of voice sounds, and written symbols that represent the sounds, arranged in combinations and patterns, to express personal thoughts and feelings. These thoughts and feelings give meaning and purpose to language. Gloria Naylor, author of Nigger: The Meaning of a Word (Goshgarian, 2001), says that "Words themselves are innocuous; it is consensus that gives them…… [Read More]
validity of the argument and the counterargument for corporal punishment on children and adolescents. The paper furthermore attempts to view this issue from the perspective of the adults administering and questioning this issues as well as from the perspective of the young people on the receiving end of punishment. In this way, the paper aims to provide holistic context by arguing for both sides of the issues from more than one perspective.
Corporal punishment is an issue that is debated often with respect to local and global issues. Corporal punishment is most often applied to children in the home and as part of their formal education. Corporal may be experienced in other institutions, including in situations where adults experience corporal punishment such as in the military, prison, fraternities, and in the home as part of domestic abuse. There is often a spectrum of perspective with regard to the issue of corporal punishment in general, but especially when considering children. There are countries and cultures that advocate its use in moderation (and relative excess), while there are other countries and cultures that are horrified and disgusted at the very idea. Then there are countries with exceptionally diverse populations relative to most countries in the world such as the United States of America, where the opinions regarding the use of corporal punishment on children and in the culture on a wider scale is as multiplicitous as the kinds of people found in New York City, the most diverse city in the country and as of 2012, in the top 10 most diverse cities in the world.
Sweden has a reputation throughout the continent of Europe as well as in the world in being relatively more progressive with regard to social issues and cultural institutions. This reputation holds true with respect to the issue of corporal punishment. At the turn of the 21st century, Sweden banned corporal punishment in parenting practice.
The ban had three primary objectives. First, it was intended to alter attitudes toward the use of physical force with children as a first step toward eliminating its use. It was expected that the law would…… [Read More]
In Response to Argument Against Abortion
I read your detailed and comprehensive essay detailing the arguments against abortion with a great deal of interest, and must profess a great deal of admiration for the strength of your convictions and the rational support you have mustered to their furtherance. Be that as it may, I must confess to you from the outset that I am writing to express certain confusions on my part regarding the clarity and, in some cases, the logical rigor of your arguments, which appears to waver at times under the force of your own certainty, rather than any argument or evidence marshaled against it. There are also instances where we differ in our understanding of the facts as they exist, and where appropriate I have referenced certain figures and other conclusions drawn in an effort to provide transparency as to how my thinking has been molded, in the hopes that you will reply in kind. In responding this way, it is my hope that a correspondence can develop that allows both of us to more fully understand our own and each other's ideas, whether or not this leads to any change of opinion or recognition of current inadequacies in the frameworks and facts by which we pursue our answers.
Part of the compelling nature of your argument is the clear distinction you draw between the religious/theological elements of your stance against abortion, and the medical or more scientific evidence and arguments you present. I will follow suit, addressing both classes of arguments in separate sections and indeed following the chronological course of your arguments as I come across points of confusion or disagreement. In this manner, it is hoped that a true dialogue will be developed rather than simply an ongoing trading of opposing statements.
Biblical Arguments Against Abortion
I should be forthright and tell you that I do not believe the Bible or any other religious text should be the basis for current laws or practices, nor should any system of morality be imposed on a…… [Read More]
In the Apology, Socrates is being placed on trial by three of his rivals for different activities that he is accused of being involved in. The most notable include: corrupting the youth of Athens and not supporting the same religious beliefs as everyone else. During the trial, his enemies are utilizing these charges to demonstrate how he knowingly engaged in these actions. They are demanding that he apologize for the crimes that he committed and begin to conform to the most common practices in contemporary society. (Plato, 2000) ("The Apology," 2012) ("Analysis of the Apology," 2010)
However, Socrates uses this as a forum to ridicule these individuals, question the legitimacy of the trial and to defend himself. This is problematic, as these cavalier attitudes will eventually lead to him being found guilty and sentenced to death. To fully understand what is taking place requires carefully examining his key arguments and how they influenced the jury. Together, these elements will highlight the way he presented his case and the lasting impact. (Plato, 2000) ("The Apology," 2012) ("Analysis of the Apology," 2010)
Main Arguments in the Apology
In the Apology, Socrates tells the jury how their minds have been influenced by his enemies. They are focused on destroying him at all costs and are jealous of his success. This is because he is more intellectual and sophisticated than they are. These individuals cannot stand the fact that he is wiser than them and wants to discredit him at any cost. (Plato, 2000) ("The Apology," 2012) ("Analysis of the Apology," 2010)
Evidence of this can be seen with Socrates saying, "There have been many who have accused me for many years now, and none of their accusations are true. These earlier ones, however, are more so gentleman; they got a hold of your from childhood, persuaded you and accused me quite falsely. They are saying that there is a man named Socrates. He is a wise man, a student of all things in the sky and below the Earth who make the worst arguments stronger." This is illustrating how Socrates believes that he is being framed by his enemies. These arguments are based upon the fact that he is questioning their views of the world…… [Read More]
Immigration between the Obama Administration and Congress:
United States immigration policy has been an issue of major political debates and controversies for several decades. The controversy surrounding the nation's immigration policy is partly because policymakers are increasingly considering the need to maintain global competitiveness through attracting top overseas talent against the need to curtail illegal immigration and secure the country's borders (Lee par, 1). In the past few years, the debate on immigration has focused on how to restructure a more bureaucratic visa application process and deal with millions of undocumented immigrants that are already living in the country. These initiatives have focused specifically on addressing young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States by their parents. In addition, the current focus on U.S. immigration policy looks at implementing policy at local level without endangering public trust across immigrant communities.
Obama Administration v. Congress:
As the controversy continues, the issue of U.S. immigration policy has attracted different arguments between the Obama Administration and the U.S. Congress. These differing arguments have had significant impacts on the country to an extent that federal legislation on comprehensive reform on immigration has slowed down in recent years. The slow pace of comprehensive reform has partly been influenced by these arguments though the Obama Administration and U.S. Congress have constantly showed willingness to adopt a bi-partisan approach towards immigration. The other reason for the slow progress is because the Obama Administration has leaned towards enforcement-based policies for preventing illegal immigration. On the other hand, states have adopted restrictive immigration policies, which have contributed to huge divisions between federal and state authorities.
One of the major arguments between the Obama Administration and the Congress on immigration surrounds the proposal by the government to adopt a comprehensive approach towards immigration reform. The Obama Administration has sought to achieve this objective through the enactment of the DREAM Act i.e. Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors legislation. The legislation has attracted considerable debates because it is geared towards providing a framework to citizenship for undocumented youth who were brought to the United States with their families or parents. While the bill passed the House in late 2010, it did not garner adequate votes and support to trounce a Senate filibuster. The Obama Administration has been pushing for the enactment of…… [Read More]
The case reveals how the police officers have obtained the cocaine evidence by searching a man house without a warrant making the man to be charged for possession of cocaine. Objective of this paper is to argue whether the cocaine evidence against the man is admissible since the police officers search the man's house and obtain the evidence without a warrant.
Argument in Favor of Prosecutor
A warrant refers to a legal order legally signed by a judge authorizing the police to search a specific location or private property of an individual. While the Fourth Amendment stipulates that a police officer requires a warrant to search a home or property of a private citizen, nevertheless, the prosecutor can argue that the police officers do not require a warrant to search the man house, thus, the evidence should be admissible.
The prosecutor can use the stop and risk theory to convince the judge to admit the evidence on the ground the police officers have already established a reasonable suspicion that the man is carrying out a criminal activity in possession and distributing of cocaine. Thus, the police have a reasonable believe that the man is carrying out a dangerous activity. See the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 in U.S. 1 (1968). Thus, the police have the right to search the man's home without a warrant. The prosecutor can also use the exigent circumstances theory to convince the judge that the police does not require a warrant to search the man's house because the time taken to obtain the warrant might be long enough to jeopardize the public safety, which can consequently lead to a loss of evidence. Typically, it is visible that the man will destroy the evidence or hide the evidence in another location before the police obtains the warrant. It…… [Read More]
1444 South Pinnacle Drive
Head of Political Science
1250 W Wisconsin Avenue
Dear Mr. McAdams,
REF: The Case against the Death Penalty
The death penalty is a form of punishment used to punish offenders for capital crimes or capital offenses such as treason, murder, and armed robbery. This form of punishment is used by states to execute people who are found guilty of various crimes that are commonly known as capital crimes or offenses. However, the use of this form of punishment varies across countries and states depending on the existing regulations that define the type of capital crimes that are punishable by the death sentence or penalty. In the past few years, capital punishment has become increasingly controversial and attracted several debates between proponents (like you) and opponents (like me). Following an analysis of arguments and counter-arguments, I hold the view that the death penalty is not justifiable and should be abolished mainly because it violates the fundamental human right of every individual i.e. the right to life.
Arguments to Support Personal Stance
As one of the proponents, your perspective on the use of the death penalty has been based on several arguments and claims. These arguments have been used as the premise for building the case for the use of this form of punishment regardless of the serious flaws that have characterized as reflected in trends and statistics in criminal justice. However, it is increasingly clear that the death penalty is unjustifiable and immoral because of several reasons including
Failure to Deter Crime
Mr. McAdams, your side of the view has always supported the death penalty on the premise that it helps in deterring would-be capital offenders from involvement in capital crimes or offenses. Generally, the modern society has always utilized punishment (whose extent is determined by the nature, extent, and severity of the crime) to dissuade potential criminals from engaging in illegal actions or activities. In light of this trend, the death penalty has been considered as the most suitable measure for preventing murders. In this case, if convicted murderers are executed for their offenses, would-be capital criminals will think twice before committing murder because of the potential of losing their own lives if they do so (Death Penalty Information Center, 2000).
However, recent statistics and trends in criminal justice indicate otherwise i.e.…… [Read More]
Theism or Atheism?
When humans consider the existence of God, they tend to look outward for evidence and inward for understanding. Humans must process both types of information through a filter that is based on an unwarranted confidence in human reasoning. Or, failing that, humans must fall back to rely on faith. The nature of faith may perhaps be characterized by an absence of definitive criteria other than the absolutes that are sometimes associated with faith. Consider the parameter suggested by the phrase: "Oh, ye of little faith" (Matthew 8:26). A believer can be described as having faith along a continuum: Great faith, little faith, no faith. However, if-then clauses are not attached to faith. It is generally not regarded as acceptable to claim that one will have faith, if something else -- whatever that concept of else may be. To qualify faith in this way transforms belief into bargaining: A person may promise to believe -- to have sufficient faith, going forward, to believe in God -- if only prayers are answered. To the contrary, belief that is grounded in human understanding is fraught with if-then qualifications. Accordingly, theism -- the belief in the existence of God -- can be defended from both a position of faith and a position of understanding.
St. Anselm argued that, "it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists" (St. Anselm, n.d.). Rather than conflate conceptualization by using "the word signifying it is conceived" with the phenomenon "when the thing itself is understood," St. Anselm determined that a lexicon may provide a definition, but it does not necessarily evoke understanding. True understanding, according to St. Anselm's argument, is dependent upon the reality of the thing -- the true existence of what is conceptualized. St. Anselm uses the word conceived, which be taken to be a birthing -- a coming into being -- than a perception of what might be. St. Anselm's assertions are derived from his faith, while Gaunilo argues from a position of evidence, insisting that, "the hypothetical excellence of this island exists as a real and indubitable fact, and in no wise as any unreal object, or one whose existence is uncertain, in my understanding" (Gaunilo, n.d.).
The overarching difficulty between the two believers -- St. Anselm and Gaunilo -- is that they argue from different…… [Read More]
Capitalism vs. Democracy
Curing Neoliberalism with Democracy
Pope Francis, never one to shy away from controversy, attacked contemporary forms of capitalism as not only exclusionary, but also deadly (Downie). To support his claim, Francis notes that the news media regularly report a meaningless one or two percent change in the Dow Industrials, but the death of a homeless person goes unnoticed; or that daily tons of food is thrown into the trash while millions starve. Although some liberty was taking in the paraphrasing of Francis' words, the point is the same; i.e., capitalism today, as it is being practiced, rewards the ruthless and powerful and marginalizes the rest. According to the author of the Washington Post article about Pope Francis' stinging criticism of neoliberalism, James Downie, what separates Pope Francis from earlier papal proclamations of capitalist evils is that Francis talks specifics, such as the destructiveness of trickle-down economics and the market economy. The main tenet of trickle-down theory, according to Downie, is that economic growth through a free market economy will eventually increase social justice and inclusion (para. 4). In addition, neoliberal proponents argue that the nation state should step aside and let the open markets determine our economic fates.
Thomas Pikatty explained in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century that historically, economic and social inequality and exclusion have always dominated, at least up to the end of World War II (241). During the 18th and 19th centuries, Western societies were stratified economically into incomes derived from capital or labor; the latter at a huge disadvantage. Inherited wealth was everything, since the amount of income that could be expected from labor alone, regardless of the profession, relegated laborers to a life of struggle near the edge of poverty. Increasing one's social status, therefore, could only be accomplished by acquiring a large dowry through marriage or inheriting a fortune. The moral implications of such a system, according to Pikatty, are the lack of economically meaningful work incentives. Instead, ruthlessness would…… [Read More]