More clarity on the driving forces behind the need or want for pleasure is missing. Even though the writing expresses the various facets behind what comes together to make us want to look for pleasure, there is very little to say what makes one need pleasure, that could help to give more credibility to the writing.

If we are to accept the writers reasoning we will be able to infer that pleasure has many facets and that it is in fact possible to have too much pleasure to the point that it causes one pain. This can help a person realize that everything pleasurable may be okay as long as moderation is used. However, it is only okay if it does not cause harm to anyone else or at the expensive of another person.

The reading was informative, however I think more nonprofessionals' terms could have helped the writer to reach a broader base of readers. I think the author was correct as to the search for pleasure and the facets that affect that search. I also agree that if someone understands the basic premises underlying to pleasure one can have a better understanding of what role it plays in their lives.

The writer wants to discuss instinctually how man does not want to be bound by the laws of the rest of humankind, as well as how we seek to avoid punishment at all cost. The writer also discusses how punishment is useless, and how the different extremes of punishment affect people's reactions.

The questions that are addressed in the writing address how efficient punishment is. The writer discusses death in one section of the writing explaining how ones death is without purpose, that the death does not cause the effect that society is trying to evoke through sentencing someone to death. (Beccaria)

Information is given throughout the writing that discusses current and previous events and laws that date back to the Romans and how they continue to be ineffective, in essence showing that for centuries people have been sentenced to death etc. And it continues to have very little effect on others committing crimes.

One main...

On the other hand, the writer also shows that laws have continued to be ineffective in depleting the types of crimes that are committed.
One should understand that human emotion has continued to be the same since the Roman Empire, and this further helps the writer to get his point across to the reader. Human emotion continues to play an important role in how people feel about rules and regulations.

The author has covered all aspects of the research and the writing well, nothing appears to be missing. In addition, the content is well explained and organized, it is not too difficult to understand what the author is discussing, nor is it hard to interpret why he feels the way he does about the subject matter.

If one were to accept, the authors reasoning this would suggest that they too understand that there are inherent desires in mankind to be "above the law," to be held to a different and separate standard. In addition, accepting his reasoning would also suggest an understanding that criminal consequence does not change how others view consequences for their individual actions.

I think that the author makes some valid points considering the evidence he provides throughout the writing. It does appear that there are very few differences if any in the judicial system regarding crimes and the consequences, as well, as how society views those consequences. The writing really made me consider how we view right and wrong, and how it effects us individually.