The Nonconstructive Nature of Standardized Testing Essay

Standardized testing? Those two words are being heard by students all over the world and is beginning to be a repetitive non constructive assessment. This nonconstructive assessment has become relied upon by the school board to somehow grade the students accurately on a subject that is taught in a small window of time. This is a window that is a two week period and doesnt give teachers nor students enough time to learn or teach it. This is detrimental to the student body by not allowing a them to be properly +assessed. Throughout the last century, American education has used standardized testing to assess the aptitudes and achievement of our students. These tests have been used to make informed decisions about curriculum and†¦show more content†¦Standardized testing damages education for kids and young adults. Teachers and students feel a tremendous amount of pressure with high-stakes testing. It has caused kids to become overworked; burnt out on testing. The pressure felt by high-staked testing is greater in disadvantage schools and result in more drill and practice instruction. Legal precedent suggests that one can opt out on religious grounds. The 14th Amendment protects our rights to spiritual freedom, and this federal law supersedes state statute in regard to parental control over ones child. Do to the vast number of students who are opting out it has created an United Opt Out administration. Students who have not opted out are starting to revolt because they feel its unfair. Kansas, Alaska, Florida, Utah, Georgia, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Pennsylvania. All theis states withdrew the state standardized testing from their schools. Their reason is that the states have expressed concerns about the cost of the tests. â€Å"Smarter Balanced has estimated its test will cost $22.50 per student for the end-of-year exam and $27.30 per student including mid-year exam (Adrienne,n.p.).† Standardized testing evaluates a student’s performance on one particular day and does not take into account external factors. There are many people who simply do not perform well on tests. Many of these students are smart and understand the content, but it doesn’t show on the

A Discussion on the Thoughts and Philosophies of Pericles Free Essays

string(86) " the connection between the father and the son as both grow further towards maturity\." Introduction It is innate among humans to be fascinated by the different things that they particularly see around them (Durant, 1986, 10). It could not be denied then that through the years, this particular fascination within the different elements that could be seen in the human environment actually developed into the many discoveries and inventions that humans produced (Sternberg, 1989, 31). Through passing civilization of humans, it could be observed that the people were never contented with what they already have or what they have already accomplished. We will write a custom essay sample on A Discussion on the Thoughts and Philosophies of Pericles or any similar topic only for you Order Now This is especially true in terms of science and technology as well as in arts and literature (Ambuel, 2006, 15). It is indeed undeniable that people recreate the things that are already existent within their own society.   The fact that they have already been able to see what they could do regarding a certain type of field (Cooper, 1997, 18), they intend to even do better the net time that they deal with the same invention. Yes, humans never get tired of reinventing everything there is in the environment. Why is this so? Human intelligence has always been noted by philosophers as the primary factor that makes the human creation different from that of the other God-made creations. The humans’ ability to innovate their own achievements to even better results for the present generation to see, has particularly noted them to be those who are capable of reinventing themselves to be able to evolve from generations to generations. (Corlett, 2005, 17) To discuss this particular fact further, take an example of the human literature. It is overwhelming enough to see that the society today is already flooded by the many informations that are presented to humans through the printed pages of literature. More than that, the emergence of internet technology has paved the way even for amateur writers to make mention of their thoughts to the world for them to be appreciated and particularly affect other’s opinions as well (Cooper, 1997, 10). Literature before was primarily defined as an art of writing that follows certain rules that are strict enough to keep its standards within the classical range of reading. However, when the different generations along with the historical events covered the human generation’s development (Ambuel, 2006, 15), the art of literature became one of the major process by which humans intended to express their thoughts and their predicaments about the things that are going on in the world. As a result, more and more people joined the bandwagon of writing and began to share their thoughts to the world with regards the issues that primarily concern the human society today. (Bakalis, 2005, 17) This particular progress in literature has primarily been further fueled by the democratic arrangement of the major governments around the world, giving a chance for the freedom of human expression. It is through this that people became more aware of the world around them, they cared more than ever with the political agendas, the social issues as well as other informations that concern their interests (Cooper, 2005, 16). True, the changing situation in the society and the demand towards progress requires that human intelligence be perfected in a way that it particularly caters to the needs of the entire humanity. The human brain’s ability to store and restructure informations that were accepted by it through the years of an individual’s life is particularly a proof that the application of humans’ intelligence could still be perfected as generations are still to come along. (Allen, 2006, 18) In the same idea, both the philosophers Plato and Pericles believed that humans are indeed capable of being highly involved with developments as they are certainly given the idealism of becoming the best at anything. They use their instinct accompanied by their need of fulfilling what they particularly opt to find out about life as a satisfaction to their curious minds (Sternberg, 1989, 14). Although both philosophers believed in this particular through, they did have different approaches in presenting the truth about their claims (Cooper, 1997, 13). To understand the issue better, the thoughts and philosophies of both Pericles and Plato shall be discussed within the paragraphs that follow in two separate presentations. The Thoughts of Plato Plato has been widely known in the human history of philosophy as the establisher of the western culture. His succession on the position left by Aristotle and Socrates has noted him to be among the most intelligent people who have lived in human history (Corlett, 1997, 25). His special skills in literature and the mind boggling explanation of human philosophy has particularly allowed him to become one of the most sought after philosophers of the world. As a philosopher, Plato has been known for his ability to validate his claims through mathematical pattern of assumptions as he present his ideas through his writings (Corlett, 2005, 27). The possibilities and the calculation of how the human mind reacts to certain situations has been noted to be among the best expertise of Plato himself. As one of the foundations of human philosophy, Plato contributed so much on the knowledge of people at present. Plato has been known for the presentation of his thoughts through the use of dialogues. The conversations between people have been utilized by Plato as a way by which he could convey his ideas to the people. Moreover, the said dialogues discussed different issues of human elements that could noticeably be used to explain the different difficulties that could be considered when the topic about human behavior comes into attention. (Durant, 1986, 31) Among the consequential issues that his dialogues mainly cater to are that of the father and son relationship, the truth behind the human realism, and the ability of humans to perceive the truth from illusionary imaginations (Bakalis, 205, 93). On the first issue cited herein, the relation of father and son have always fascinated the mind of Plato as he tries to identify the connection between the father and the son as both grow further towards maturity. You read "A Discussion on the Thoughts and Philosophies of Pericles" in category "Essay examples" Among the answers he usually opt to discuss is that of the ways by which the values that the father implies on the son contribute to the personal growth and being of that particular individual. Most likely, Plato has long been trying to identify how the elements of fatherhood actually influence the acceptance of different individuals of the teachings, thus applying them as values for themselves to learn from and later on apply in their o wn systems of living. The second issue presented is on the realism of the human population. This particularly points out to the ability of humans to use their reasoning and their intelligent judgment of the things that they hear, they see, and they observe, thus defining on which one is actually true and which one is on the other hand imaginary. True, people have this particular ability of knowing what is real from what is not. However, the reasoning behind such ability is somewhat complex, and this is what actually moved Plato to identify the factors that affect the human judgment on such elemental factors in the human society. The third topic of attention is that of the imaginative abilities of humans. True, humans enjoy the fact that they are able to imagine different things as a part of their intellectual capabilities. When feeling down and depressed, people usually use their capabilities of imagining things to at least ease them from the truths of their present situation. However, although many consider imagination as gift, it could not be denied that the human ability of coming back to reality could still help them set their decision on which one is the real situation differentiating it from the imaginary elements that they themselves have created in their minds.(Ambuel,2006, 15) Through these thoughts, Plato also tried to imply on his writing the idea on the â€Å"real world†, whereas he refers to the present system of things to be just a shadow of the real world, referring to the people at present as those who are living in an imaginary world. True, this thought might seem quite confusing at some point. However, if closely observed, it could not be denied that the situation is quite obvious. It all boils down to the reality of the people. Because of the fact that humans are less able to become realistic with who they are, they are then consequently living their lives in an unrealistic world that makes it even harder for themselves to â€Å"zap† back into the real life that they ought to face. This is in correspondence to the doubts of humans as to why they are at times in trouble of finding what they really want out of living on earth. The Thoughts of Pericles Pericles has been known to be among the list of the most successful ancient politicians of the human history. This is most likely because of the skill that he himself has faced during his rule in Athens. Even when he was still on his way in being inspired in becoming an icon of the public, he knew that the responsibility that he was about to take was not that easy to fulfill (Corlett, 2005, 48). This is when he was actually able to take into consideration the understanding that he must gain with regards the philosophical make up of humankind. Dealing with people of different individualities naturally urged Pericles to search in an in-depth way on the beliefs and the elements that contribute to human behavior and development. Hence, he has also be fascinatingly interested in human philosophical education. As he progressed in the learning, he himself has been urged to bring out the best among the people that he led. Particularly referring to the ability of humans to speak out their minds for others to hear their thoughts, he implied amongst his people the importance of one’s ability to at least freely speak off their minds to the public (Cooper, 1997, 18). This, according to him, is one of the most important rights a person could have, a certain process by which an individual would be able to experience the reality of life that he is supposed to live with. Conclusion Yes, it is indeed true that the human intelligence continues to grow through the years of its history. With the contributed foundation by those who have led the way in understanding the human capability of thinking and acting upon what they believe in, the human society today is now more confident in what they believe in, more expressive of their thoughts and more imaginative on their ways of facing the truth of their lives. From the discussion presented above, it could be observed that Plato particularly proffered on discussion the abstract factors that contribute to the continuous improvement of human intelligence. Moreover, the said thought has been mainly established by the philosopher through explaining his claims using the different dimensions of math and human philosophy. Constantly referring to the ability of the mind to imagine and to bring its thought back to reality has noted Plato as one of the most remarkable philosophers who were able to unlock the truth behind human imagination. On the other hand, Pericles has been mostly focused on the ability of humans to disperse their thoughts and actually affect the society that they are living in. It is through their freedom of speaking their thoughts off to the public that they are able to make the necessary changes that they ought to contribute to their communities. Certainly, if observed closely, Percles’ and Plato’s belief on the capabilities of humans to use their capabilities well explains how the human intelligence is actually used in the systems by which the human civilization progresses towards modernity. As people are able to imagine and disperse their thoughts to others, they are able to make different, at times even great changes to the societies that they are living in. The thoughts of the two philosophers as discussed herein could be noted as one of the most important influence that they both have left the human society. REFERENCES: Robert J. Sternberg. (1989). Handbook of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. Allen, R.E. (2006). Studies in Plato’s Metaphysics II. Parmenides Publishing. ISBN 978-1-930972-18-6 Ambuel, David (2006). Image and Paradigm in Plato’s Sophist. Parmenides Publishing. ISBN 978-1-930972-004-9 Bakalis, Nikolaos (2005). Handbook of Greek Philosophy: From Thales to the Stoics Analysis and Fragments, Trafford Publishing ISBN 1-4120-4843-5 Cooper, John M. Hutchinson, D. S. (Eds.) (1997). Plato: Complete Works. Hackett Publishing Co., Inc. ISBN 0-87220-349-2. Corlett, J. Angelo (2005). Interpreting Plato’s Dialogues. Parmenides Publishing. ISBN 978-1-930972-02-5 Durant, Will (1986). The Story of Philosophy. Simon Schuster. ISBN 0-671-69500-2. Lawrence S. Cunningham and John J. Reich. Culture Values: A SURVEY OF THE HUMANITIES, volume one/sixth edition,   Library of Congress Control Number: 2005923993. How to cite A Discussion on the Thoughts and Philosophies of Pericles, Essay examples

Capital Puinishment Essay Example For Students

Capital Puinishment Essay Capital Punishment is an Unlawful and Ineffective Deterrent to MurderThe United States is one of the few countries left in the world to practice the savage and immoral punishment of death. Retentionists argue that the consequence of death prevents people from committing the crime of murder. It is proven that the death penalty does not deter persons from committing murder, nor does it serve as an example of the consequences of capital crimes to society. Furthermore, it is impossible to guarantee that the criminal justice system will not discriminate against or execute the innocent. Above all, the methods of execution are horrifying and barbaric, as well as the devaluing of a human life. We must realize that the life of a murderer is worth as much as the life of the victim. An indecent justice, one that takes human lives based on ideals of vengeance and violence, is an immoral system that is unacceptable. The most widely used argument in support of capital punishment is that the conseq uence of execution influences criminal behavior more effectively than imprisonment does (?Against the Death Penalty?). Although the argument may sound reasonable, in reality the death penalty fails as a deterrent. First, punishment can only be a useful deterrent if it is rational and immediately used. Capital punishment cannot meet those conditions. The number of first degree murderers who are sentenced to death is small, and of this group an even smaller number of people are eventually executed. Moreover, the possibility of increasing the number of convicted murderers sentenced to death and executed by requiring mandatory death sentences was declared unconstitutional in 1976 Jewett 2(National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty). Murder and other crimes of violence are not always premeditated. For example; gang violence, drive by shootings and kidnaping for ransom are serious crimes that continue to be committed because the criminal thinks he is too clever to be caught. Most cap ital crimes are committed during times of great emotional trauma or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking is in no doubt absent (NCADP). In such cases, a person will commit a crime of violence regardless of the consequences. The majority of the evidence shows that the death penalty is in no way more effective in deterring murder than life imprisonment. Evidence of past use of the death penalty establishes reasonable doubt that it does not deter murder, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. In a thorough report on the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that it is misleading to justify the use of capital punishment on such ?fragile? and ?uncertain? results (NCADP). Moreover, there are clinically documented cases that reveal the death penalty actually provoked the capital crimes it was intended to prevent (Mappes). These include cases involving the so-called ?suicide by execution syndrome? in which a person with a desire to die but also fears taking his own life will commit murder, believing the state will execute him. The use of the death penalty obviously guarantees that the criminal will never commit another crime, for the murderer is dead, but, there is no evidence that capital punishment deters another individual from committing murder (Glover 139). Furthermore, it is a high moral price to pay when studies have proven that few convicted murderers commit further crimes of violence. An alternative, one that is far less inhumane, is a policy of life imprisonment without the Jewett 3possibility of parole (139). It is commonly reported that Americans approve of the death penalty. But, more careful analysis of the attitudes of the public shows that Americans prefer alternatives to capital punishment (Smart). In fact, most Americans would oppose the death penalty if convicted murderers were sentenced to life without parole and required to make some form of financial restitution. I n a 1993 nationwide survey 77 percent of the public approved of the death penalty, but the poll dropped to 41 percent if the alternative is no parole plus restitution (Smart). Only a minority of the American public would favor the death penalty if offered alternatives. By law, the trial and sentencing of the accused must be conducted with the utmost fairness, especially when incorporating the irreversible sanction of the death penalty. Only 88 percent of all executions since 1930 have been for murder (Warner). It is evident that courts have sentenced some criminals to prison while putting others to death, which clearly demonstrates uncertainty, racial prejudices, and simply unfairness. In his article ?American Dilemma? (1944) Gunnar Myrdal reported that the ?South makes the widest application of the death penalty?, and sadly ?Negro criminals are in for much more than their share of the executions? (Warner). Recently a study of capital punishment showed that the current system is an outgrowth of the racist ?legacy of slavery? (NCADP). Between 1930 and 1996, 4,220 prisoners were executed and more than half were black. A disproportionately large number of African Americans have always occupied the nations ?death rows,? considering the percentage of African Americans in the overall population (Dieter 144). During the past century, blacks were more often executed for what were considered less-than-capital offenses for whites, Jewett 4such as rape and burglary (Dieter 145). Furthermore, a large percentage of the blacks who were executed were juveniles, and the number of executions without having ones conviction reviewed by a higher court was higher for blacks (NCADP). In recent years, there has been wide belief that racial discrimination is a thing of the past. However, since the renewal of capital punishment in the mid-1970s, approximately half of the death row population, at any given time, have been black (Smart). When those under the death sentence are examined more closely, it is apparent race is a factor after all. A statistical study of racial discrimination in capital cases in Georgia showed that those convicted of killing a white person were more likely to receive the death penalty in all indicted cases. Further evidence proved unfairness in capital cases as reported by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). The GAO review concluded that of the 28 studies there was a ?pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition? of the death penalty, and that the ?race of victim influence was found at all stages of the criminal justice system process (Dieter 144). One can conclude that in the courts of the nation, even today, the murder of a white person is treated much more severely than the murder of a black person. Therefore, it can be noted that our criminal system reserves the death penalty for those murderers (regardless of their race) who kill white victims (Dieter 145). Gender and socio-econ omic class also aid in the discrimination of those who will receive a death sentence. Only one percent of all those on death row were women, although women commit about fifteen percent of all criminal homicides (NCADP). Only 33 women, of whom 12 were black, have been executed in the United States since 1930. Fairness in capital cases requires most a competent counsel for the defendant. Yet, 90 percent of those on death row were unable to afford a lawyer when tried. The most common Jewett 5characteristics among death row defendants are poverty, lack of social community, and inadequate legal representation at trial or on appeal (NCADP). The above flaws in the actual administration of capital punishment are only one of the many clear reasons for abolition. In the judgement of the fair-minded and unprejudiced ?capital punishment is a power that cannot be exercised fairly and without discrimination? (Smart). Therefore, we cannot put human lives in the hands of a flawed system, for societ y will suffer the consequences, as well as the victims. Unlike all other criminal punishments, the death penalty is irreversible. Once a criminal is put to death no once can bring back the human life taken when a mistake is discovered too late. However, some supporters of capital punishment argue that its advantages are worth the sacrificing of innocent people, as well as the ideal that there is little chance that the innocent would be executed. Nevertheless, there is evidence showing that from the 1980s to the 1990s innocent people have been convicted of capital crimes as well as executed (?Against the Death Penalty?). Since the 1900s there have been an estimated four cases a year in which an innocent person was convicted of murder, in addition to the many that were sentenced to death (?Against the Death Penalty?). In many cases ? a reprieve or commutation arrived just hours, or even minutes before the scheduled execution? (?Against the Death Penalty?). Those wrongful convictions h ave occurred in almost every jurisdiction in the nation. Furthermore, despite the new death penalty statutes approved by the Supreme Court, the numbers of the wrongfully accused have not declined. Unfortunately, the innocent persons convicted of crimes they did not commit are not always saved from execution or released from their sentences. There are several other cases in which evidence that would have released the convicted was discovered after the execution. These examples explain why the judicial system cannot guarantee that justice will never make mistakes. To retain the death penalty Jewett 6and overlook the serious flaws in the system is unacceptable, especially since there are no strong overriding arguments to favor the death penalty (Glover 145-146). Among the flaws of the justice system, we must remember that the taking of a human life is immoral. The methods used to perform these violent executions are barbaric and unnecessary. But, prisoners continue to be executed in th e United States by any one of five methods; in a few jurisdictions the prisoner is allowed to choose which fate he or she prefers. The methods of capital punishment in use in 1997 included hanging, firing squad, electrocution, suffocation in the lethal gas chamber, and lethal injection (NCADP). The traditional execution by hanging is still used in a few states today. Death on the gallows can make for a slow and agonizing demise by strangulation if the drop is too short. Or, if the drop is too long, the head will be torn off. Two states still use the firing squad method, in which the condemned is hooded, strapped into a chair, and a target is pinned on the chest. Five marksmen take aim and fire (NCADP). During the twentieth century, electrocution has been the most widely applied form of execution in the United States, and still used in eleven states. The prisoner is placed in the death chamber and strapped into the chair with electrodes strapped to the head and legs. When the chair i s activated the body strains and jolts as the intensity of electricity is raised or lowered. It is not known how long the prisoner retains consciousness. In some cases, as with the electrocution of John Evans in Alabama, it takes more than one jolt of electricity to kill the prisoner. An eyewitness illustrated the ?barbaric ritual? in which it took three charges at thirty second intervals and ten minutes before doctors pronounced Evans dead (NCADP). The witness then went on to Jewett 7say that the officials were apparently embarrassed and one official remarked that the execution was ?supposed to be a very clean manner of administering death? (NCADP). The gas chamber was supposed to be a step ahead of the electric chair. In the gas chamber method, the prisoner is strapped into a chair with a container of sulfuric acid underneath. the chamber is then sealed and cyanide is dropped into the acid to create a lethal gas. As with electrocution, suffocation by inhalation of a lethal gas is not always a quick and clean way of death. In the case of the execution of Don Harding in Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that it took Harding more than ten minutes to die. The latest mode of infliction of the death penalty is lethal injection. Some believe that this method is more humane, although killing in itself is plainly inhumane (NCADP). The U.S. Court of Appeals stated that there is ?substantial and uncontested evidence?that execution by lethal injection poses a serious risk of cruel, protracted deatheven a slight error in dosage or administration can leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation? (NCADP). As with the other methods of execution, death by lethal injection does not always proceed smoothly as planned. In 1985 ?the authorities jabbed needles intoStephen Morin, when they had trouble finding a usable vein because he had been a drug abuser? (NCADP). In a 1988 case during the execut ion of Raymond Landry, ?a tube attached to a needle inside the inmates right arm began leaking, sending he lethal mixture shooting across the death chamber toward witnesses.? Adam Bedau writes that ?its veneer of decency and subtle analogy with life-saving medical practice no doubt makes killing by lethal injection more acceptable to the public? (NCADP). Jewett 8After witnessing an execution, Journalist Susan Blaustein said ?We have perfected the art of institutional killing to the degree that it has deadened our natural, quintessentially human response to death? (NCADP). Most people who observe an execution are mortified and disgusted. Public executions were common in this country during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. One of the last public executions occurred in Kentucky when 20,000 people gathered to watch the hanging of a young African American male (NCADP). It is that inhumane delight in brutality and pain that the supporters of death penalty have cause against, yet th ey are at the level of murder themselves. Society must insist that the law not encourage such violent crime, for when the government ceremoniously carries out the cruel execution of a prisoner, the violent side of human nature is being allowed. Cesare Beccaria, an Italian jurist said ?The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men?. Even if capital punishment was ?useful? it would still be an example of the very brutality and violence the death penalty is supposed to prevent (?Against the Death Penalty?). Such methods of human torture and killing is allowed by retentionists to be hidden in the system we call justice. Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Godberg wrote ?the deliberate institutionalized taking of human life by the state is the greatest conceivable degradation of the dignity of human personality? (?Against the Death Penalty?). Society not only suffers from the burden of dealing with those lives which have been lost to an immoral and brut al execution, but will also suffer from the great deal of tax dollars spent to put their unjustified ways into action. From the time of arrest to the point of execution, it can be estimated that a single death sentence costs between one to three million dollars per case (NCADP). Some studies have figures as high as seven million per case. Life imprisonment, including incarceration, costs roughly five hundred thousand dollars. The millions of dollars spent Jewett 9on the unnecessary killing of one individual cuts into funds for more important needs, such as public safety and education (NCADP). Justice often insists that the death penalty is the suitable punishment for brutal crimes. According to Bedau, ?by its nature, all punishment is retributive? (?Against the Death Penalty?). Therefore, a punishment can be satisfied without killing. Moreover, the death penalty could only be used for the crime of murder and not for any of the several other crimes that have recently been considered as capital crimes such as rape, kidnaping, treason, drug trafficking, and espionage. Execution is an unnecessary punishment for murder. Albert Camus wrote that ?for there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life? (Warner). It is also often argued that death is what murderers deserve, and that those who oppose the death penalty violate the ?eye for an eye? principle, the ideal of making the punishment fit the crime. If this rule means that punishments are unsuitable unless they are like the crime, then the principle is unacceptable. Such an ideal would mean that we must rape the rapists, torture the torturers, and inflict other degrading punishments on the convicted (Nathanson 133). We would have to betray traitors, and kill multiple murderers mu ltiple times, which are obviously penalties impossible to impose. Since we cannot reasonably punish all crimes according to this ideal, it is irrational to impose execution as a required punishment for murder. Criminals do deserve to be punished, and the severity of punishment should be appropriate to the harm they have caused the Jewett 10innocent. But the severity of punishment must have limits limits enforced by both justice and our common human dignity (Barzilai). Governments that enforce these limits do not use premeditated, violent homicide as a tool in society. There are people who have lost a loved one to murder that believe that they cannot rest until the murderer is executed, but not all of those inflicted with such a loss feel the same. Coretta Scott King said that ?as one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder and assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not remedied by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder ? (Barzilai). Victims to the loss of a loved one do not need to reduce themselves to the evil level of the murderer, but those families need to replace their anger and hate towards the criminal in a more healthy manner for both the offender and the survivors. Although it can be easier said than done, the right to live belongs to all of the members of society regardless of what crime one has committed. It is not the right of the government, nor the right of any individual to inflict such cruel and hateful punishments onto another human being. Beyond the statistics we can see a brutal and unnecessary punishment. There must be limits to the power that a government has, as well as the power individuals in a society have. We degrade the murderer, yet the supporters of capital punishment reserve the passion to kill. As sane people with a respe ct for human life and dignity, we must not turn into the vicious murderer some of us fight to kill. According to Stephen Nathanson, we must set an example of the behavior we find acceptable in society. He goes on to say that ?even though this person has done wrong and Jewett 11even though we may be angry, outraged, and indignant with him, we will nonetheless control ourselves in a way that he did not. We will not kill him? ( Nathanson 137). We must not contradict the principle that murder is wrong, including the murder of a criminal. We must not kill, nor must any government hold the power to take a human life, no matter what the crime. BibliographyWorks Cited?Against the Death Penalty.? Amnesty International. http://www.amnesty.org Dieter, Richard. ?The Practical Burdens of Capital Punishment.? The Encyclopedia of Ethics. Censorship of Media Violence Argumentative Persuas Essay New York: Macmillan, 1967. Glover, Jonathan. ?Deterrence and Murder.? New York: Garland, 1992. Mappes, Thomas A., and Jane S. Zambaty. Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. U.S.: McGraw, 1997. National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP). http://www.ncadp.org Smart, Christopher. ?Innocence Found on Death Row.? http://weeklywire.com Warner, Ralph. ?Killing Carelessly.? http://www.crimemagazine.com Government Essays