View this PageEdit this PageUploads to this PageHistory of this PageHomeRecent ChangesSearchHelp Guide

Evaluation of this draft by terrak

Good opening paragraph. Thesis is easy to see and the argument is framed well.

Aren’t contempt And having no mercy almost the same thing?

Isn’t the threat of punishment a deterrent to do the crime? There are few crimes that the punishment is not well known on. The crimes with stricter punishments are also those more abhorred by society and therefore the punishments help to set a marker on the morality and views of the society.

Is punishment an assertion of truth to the person committing the crime? If so why are there repeat offenders? It would seem that only a successful rehabilitation would have had an assertion of truth to the individual. Punishment might be a reminder that the person is still responsible to the society, after all many people are “punished” worldwide for their religious views and I don’t think this punishment assets the “truth” to the individual.

Isnt mercy not giving someone what they deserve? To what degree is mercy (and rehabilitation) necessary and acceptable?

What are your other objections? Your stance on rehabilitation is clear but is pure punishment the way to go? What does this say about or morals and culture? Would it really work to stop crime? Why or why not?

Link to this Page