Brittany+Swanson+6-A.B.

Roosevelt Student: 6-A.B.


 * Letters of Introduction ( **due 01.21.11 **) **

Dear Ashlin,

Hello! My name is Brittany Swanson and I will be your writing partner from Drake this semester. I am a senior Theatre Design and Technology and Writing double major from Blaine, MN. At Drake I have been involved in numerous organizations and activities including Student Activities Board, Residence Hall Association, Alpha Phi Omega - a national service fraternity, and many Drake theatre productions. I have worked as a Resident Assistant at Drake for three years now and really enjoy getting to know people and being a resource for students.

From what I understand about my course, English 177, I will be giving you feedback on your writing this semester. I look forward to working with you and watching you grow as a writer because I believe doing so will help me improve my own writing. I hope my comments will be insightful and provide you with an opportunity to develop and improve your writing.

To be honest I know virtually nothing about teaching writing, so please bear with me as I develop my skills while I try to help you improve yours. If you have any questions, or would like to know more about me or our class, please let me know - I’d be happy to share.

I look forward to working with you this semester!

Sincerely,

Brittany

Dear Brittany,

As you know, my name is Ashlin. I am a junior at Roosevelt High School, currently enrolled in the AP Language and Composition class. I am interested in all kinds of art: drawing, painting, sclupting, stained glass, and photography, to name a few. Hence, my favorite class in school is art (and photography). Oh, and AP Lang, of course! When I'm not at school i like hanging out with my friends and spending time with my family. Although, school can keep me pretty busy, along with my job. I am pretty quiet at school, I get good grades, but when I'm with my friends I am fairly outgoing. But I like to meet new people, so I am excited to participate in this program.

Writing to me can come as a bit of a challenge, however I discover new things with each time I write. I have developed my writing a lot this past semester and I hope to continue to develop through this program. I don't really know what my strengths would be in my writing, I guess you'll find out when I submit my essays. As for things I need to work on, I would say there's always room for improvement, so everything! But I think I could definitely use help on developing ideas throughout my essays and working on new vocabulary. I don't know what I want to do with my future yet, but almost every career path includes writing abilities. Even to get a job you need to be able to write a resume and cover letter. So hopefully I will figure out what I want to do soon...

I am excited to work with you and be a part of this program! I think this could benefit me in so many ways. It could improve my writing and also give me an idea of what college english classes are like. I am usually not worried, just nervous going into something new. Once we get deeper into the program I'm sure I will really like it.

Thanks for all of your help and feedback, and I'm looking forward to talking with you in the future.

Sincerely, Ashlin

Thanks for your letter of introduction. I look forward to submitting my first essay and receiving your feedback.


 * Rough Draft - Definition ( ****RHS** due 01.27.11; **171** due 01.28.11 **) **

 Justified Human beings are not perfect; far from it. As humans we are spoiled by bias and opinions, which can be hard to stray from. In human society, as we make mistakes, it is our instinct to try and clean up the messes that are created. Justice could be defined as fair, but with human error, the definition is blurred by each person’s judgment. With that, justice can only be defined as the human interpretation of fair. To understand justice, ethics and morality must be taken into account. Before a person can be tried for a crime, they must commit the crime, or at least be suspected of committing the crime. One must ask himself, was the crime justified to begin with? As discovered before, this is a matter of interpretation, and each person has a different opinion. However, when viewed on a larger scale, most crimes can be defined as non-ethical based on a general acceptance of what is moral. Before justification is delivered, one must endure a trial. This could be an actual trial in a courthouse, but most of the time justice is not served in a courthouse. The process any man goes through to decide justice is a trial. Through this process the man is weighed on the scale of morality, laid out for all to see who he really is. Similar to other parts of justice, and decisions made here are merely speculation compared to what is truly moral, but who is to say? The final conclusion comes down to judgment. The fate of the man on trial is determined based on whether his crime was justifiable to those around him. The fault of human ways can only be displayed through the fault of human deliberation. Who are we to judge as peers? With our strive for perfection, true justice is pushed aside and makes way for a sloppy excuse for a balanced world. Justice is a confusing concept, and the only way to define it is to use human interpretation. Through this what is truly fair may be lost. In a perfect world justice would be determined by stronger forces, karma. Everyone would get what they really deserve and we wouldn’t have to worry about it. Without human justice, however, society would be chaotic, and aloof.

Dear Ashlin,

I think you bring up some really interesting points in your paper. I especially like your differentiation between “true justice” and “human justice” and how you point out humanity’s imperfections right away at the beginning by saying, “we are spoiled by bias and opinions.” I also think your attention to different people’s perceptions of justice and the rights we have to judge one another are powerful parts of your essay. Some things you might want to consider as you revise your paper are: Another thought I had while reading your paper was about the relationship between individual morality and group morality. You say, “The fate of the man on trial is determined based on whether his crime was justifiable to those around him.” Are there situations where just one person tries another? Can that be justice - if it is just one person’s opinion? Do you think group morality is a suitable substitute for “true morality”? I hope this is helpful. Also, in the future if you have any specific questions about your writing or concerns you are having feel free to write them in at the bottom of your paper and I will try to answer them as best I can. I look forward to meeting you in a few days. Have a lovely weekend!
 * Reading your paper out loud. I find that this helps me double check to make sure there aren’t any odd-sounding phrases or unclear sentences.
 * Making an outline of you paper. This is my thesis, these are my main points, and here is my support. Visually seeing the structure of a paper can be really helpful to make sure you are saying everything you can/want to.
 * Look at the sentence, “Similar to other parts of justice, and decisions made here are merely speculation compared to what is truly moral, but who is to say?” at the end of the third paragraph. What are the other parts of justice, besides the trial?
 * <span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">In the next paragraph you say, “The fault of human ways can only be displayed through the fault of human deliberation.” Do you mean that humans expose themselves based on the way they judge others? Is judging others justified?
 * <span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Later in that same paragraph you write, “With our strive for perfection, true justice is pushed aside and makes way for a sloppy excuse for a balanced world.” I took this to mean that as humans we desire a just world, but because of our faults we have failed to achieve true justice. Do you think we excuse injustices because we believe we live in a ‘just’ world?

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Sincerely, <span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Brittany


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Revision - Definition ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 01.31.11; **171** due 02.01.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

<span style="display: block; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">Justified <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Human beings dwell far from perfection. Bias and opinions flood our minds, making them difficult to stray from. In society, as we make mistakes, our instinct to clean them up presents itself. Human error blurs each person’s judgment, so //justice// strays further away from a synonym of fair. Receiving deserved punishment or reward defines genuine //justice//. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">The perception of //justice// changes from generation to generation. Upon asking a boy in the sixth grade, he replied that //justice// is men or women being tried by a jury in a court of law. This, of course, illustrates the American Justice System. Through each generation the passing down of ideals spreads “what is right” like wildfire through the minds of the innocent, arresting them from forming individual opinions. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">To understand //justice//, one must take into account ethics and morality. Before a trial can occur, a person must commit the crime, or at least endure suspicion of committing a crime. A juror must ask himself if the crime seems justified to begin with. As discovered before, this remains a matter of interpretation, and each person has a different opinion. However, when viewed on a larger scale, most crimes classify as non-ethical based on a general acceptance of principles. Through this trial the jury weighs a man on the scale of morality, laid out for all to see the real him. Decisions made here are merely speculation compared to what is truly moral, but according to whom? The true integrity of our court system must undergo scrutiny in order to improve. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">The final conclusion comes down to judgment. The determination of the man’s fate befalls on whether his crime proves justifiable to those around him. The service of //justice// of those in everyday life grows to be most apparent through judgment. Every judgment made reflects individual endeavors for righteousness. The fault of human ways manifests itself through the fault of human deliberation. As peers, how can we judge others’ errors while looking through a dense fog of predisposition? Through our strive for perfection, we lose true //justice// and gain a sloppy excuse for a balanced world. According to that, defined //justice// appears as the human interpretation of fair. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">The confusion drawn from //justice// staggers the mind, and human interpretation obstructs our capability to define it. Through this we may lose grasp on right and wrong. When consulting a mother about her take on justice, the woman commented that Karma is the only true justice. In the Buddhist concept, Karma determines all punishments and rewards, keeping the human element in the matter dormant. With this, there is no need for human judgment. The world remains balanced through self-stabilization. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">While many do not practice Buddhism, a higher power or force balancing the world has been a universal concept since the beginning of time. Humans cannot judge each other due to equality in race, so the duty passes to an omniscient authority. Through Karma, people receive the supreme punishment or reward without individual influence. To many, we can only acquire fairness through this practice. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">If //justice// is receiving deserved punishment or reward, then the meaning of it varies from person to person. Some believe the court system embodies //justice//, while others believe the court system looks away from real //justice//. As humans, our prejudice nature hinders our ability of distinguishing unadulterated right and wrong. However, on the road to finding the real meaning of //justice//, we must have something to control the chaos. A world without a justice system screams pandemonium in our precarious ears. As we carry on in our imperfect universe, we must attempt to inform society of pure, untainted //justice//.

Dear Ashlin,
=== I’m trying something new with my response this time around. I just started writing comments the first time I read your paper, responding to it as I read it, and then went back and tried to make the comments more helpful. I ask a lot of questions just to get you thinking about other things. I do not, by any stretch of the imagination expect you to answer/address all, or even most of these comments/questions. I just started going, and in an attempt to be as helpful as possible thought I would just leave everything I had to say and let you decide what is helpful and what is not. If this way of responding doesn’t work for you or stresses you out (there are a lot of words - I’m sorry) just let me know, and let me know which comments were most helpful and I’ll try to stick to those the next time around. ===

<span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Justified
=== Human beings dwell far from perfection. Bias and opinions flood our minds, making them difficult to stray from. **[Look carefully at this sentence, what is ‘them’ referring to? Is it bias and opinions or our minds? I think you mean bias and opinion, but it’s unclear to me.]** In society, as we make mistakes, our instinct to clean them up presents itself. **[With two prepositional phrases “in society” and “as we make mistakes” it is difficult for me as a reader to understand what you’re saying. Try breaking this sentence down to its base form (subject-verb) and then rewriting it so the sentence is clearer.]** Human error blurs each person’s judgment, so //justice// strays further away from a synonym of fair. **[So, human error causes justice to be unfair? Perhaps defining justice as fair first might make this more clear.]** Receiving deserved punishment or reward defines genuine //justice//. **[As a whole this is an interesting paragraph however I’m not sure I’m following your thought process here. I could see how all of these things are connected (people are imperfect and therefore cannot attain genuine justice, no matter how hard they try), but I’m not sure my impression is correct. Try to see if you can find a way to make this connection more direct.]** === === The perception of //justice// changes from generation to generation. **[Is it a perception or a definition? I take “generation to generation” to mean people from different time periods, but I think you mean people of different ages.]** Upon asking a boy in the sixth grade, he replied that //justice// is men or women being tried by a jury in a court of law. This, of course, illustrates the American Justice System. Through each generation the passing down of ideals spreads “what is right” like wildfire through the minds of the innocent, arresting them from forming individual opinions. **[Does “what is right” mean morality? Can individuals form their own morality?]** === === To understand //justice//, one must take into account ethics and morality. Before a trial can occur, a person must commit the crime, or at least endure suspicion of committing a crime. **[Is it more important that a crime occurs before the trial or before justice can be achieved? Or are the two interchangeable? If so you might want to make that more explicit.]** A juror must ask himself if the crime seems justified to begin with. **[What is the relationship between justice and being justified?]** As discovered before, this remains a matter of interpretation, and each person has a different opinion. **[Has it been discovered?]** However, when viewed on a larger scale, most crimes classify as non-ethical based on a general acceptance of principles. Through this trial the jury weighs a man on the scale of morality, laid out for all to see the real him. Decisions made here are merely speculation compared to what is truly moral, but according to whom? **[What is the connection between ethics, morality and justice? Does moral = just?]** The true integrity of our court system must undergo scrutiny in order to improve. **[So review also equals justice? Is that the kind of improvement you mean?]** === === The final conclusion comes down to judgment. The determination of the man’s fate befalls on whether his crime proves justifiable to those around him. The service of //justice// of those in everyday life grows to be most apparent through judgment. **[What do you mean by service? I’m not sure I understand. Do you mean the attempt to attain justice?]** Every judgment made reflects individual endeavors for righteousness. **[Is righteousness also equal to justice?]** The fault of human ways manifests itself through the fault of human deliberation. **[I’m still not sure what you mean here.]** As peers, how can we judge others’ errors while looking through a dense fog of predisposition? Through our strive for perfection, we lose true //justice// and gain a sloppy excuse for a balanced world **[Interesting connection]**. According to that, defined //justice// appears as the human interpretation of fair. === === The confusion drawn from //justice// staggers the mind, and human interpretation obstructs our capability to define it. Through this we may lose grasp on right and wrong. **[So our individual definition of justice determines our morality?]** When consulting a mother about her take on justice, the woman commented that Karma is the only true justice. In the Buddhist concept, Karma determines all punishments and rewards, keeping the human element in the matter dormant. **[This is helpful, I’m glad you define karma]** With this, there is no need for human judgment. The world remains balanced through self-stabilization. **[Good. It’s nice that you tie this back to what you’ve said previously.]** === === While many do not practice Buddhism, a higher power or force balancing the world has been a universal concept since the beginning of time. Humans cannot judge each other due to equality in race, so the duty passes to an omniscient authority. **[Race might not be the best word... perhaps you mean species?]** Through Karma, people receive the supreme punishment or reward without individual influence. To many, we can only acquire fairness through this practice. **[So is justice is beyond human capabilities then?]** ===

If //justice// is receiving deserved punishment or reward, then the meaning of it
=== varies from person to person. Some believe the court system embodies //justice//, while others believe the court system looks away from real //justice//. As humans, our prejudice nature hinders our ability of distinguishing unadulterated right and wrong. However, on the road to finding the real meaning of //justice//, we must have something to control the chaos. **[to find the meaning, or to find justice itself]** A world without a justice system **[is a system of justice, put in place by humans - with all of their imperfections, justice?]** screams pandemonium in our precarious **[precarious?]** ears. As we carry on in our imperfect universe, we must attempt to inform society of pure, untainted //justice//. **[How? Does informing them allow us to get closer to attaining it?]** ===

Brittany,
=== Thanks so much for reviewing my paper. Your comments really help me because they make me think about my own writing as a whole connected idea, as opposed to paragraph 1, paragraph 2, etc. I like that you ask many questions about the concepts because it is my job as a writer to inform you, and when you don't understand, then I haven't done my job. I definitely do not think it's too wordy (: the more the better! Again, thanks for your input. I think I can use it to make a really great paper! ===

Ashlin
<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Here it is in all its entirety!
 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">FINAL - Definition ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 02.02.11; **171** due 02.04.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

<span style="display: block; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">Justified <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Human beings dwell far from perfection. Bias floods our minds, making our opinions difficult to stray from. As society is filled with mistakes, our instinct to clean them up presents itself. This exemplifies human //justice//, in attempts to create a fair world. However, human imperfection blurs each person’s judgment, so //justice// strays further away from a synonym of fair. To even begin to define //justice//, we can open a dictionary, keeping in mind even dictionaries are susceptible to human error. Receiving deserved punishment or reward defines genuine //justice//. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">The perception of the concept of //justice// changes from person to person, from generation to generation. Upon asking a boy in the sixth grade, he replied that //justice// is men or women being tried by a jury in a court of law. This, of course, illustrates the American Justice System. Through each generation the passing down of ideals spreads “what is moral” like wildfire through the minds of the innocent, arresting them from forming individual opinions. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">To understand //justice//, one must take into account ethics and morality. Before a trial can occur, a person must commit the crime, or at least endure suspicion of committing a crime. A juror must ask himself if the crime seems justified to begin with. Crime seems justified when it demonstrates //justice// in the situation. As stated before, this remains a matter of interpretation, and each person has a different opinion. However, when viewed on a larger scale, most crimes classify as non-ethical based on a general acceptance of principles. Through this trial the jury weighs a man on the scale of morality, laid out for all to see the real him. Decisions made here are merely speculation compared to what is truly moral, but according to whom? //Justice// cannot exist without morality, as humans cannot exist without stabilization. Similar to other aspects of our culture, the true integrity of our court system must undergo scrutiny in order to eliminate immorality. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Drawing the final conclusion comes down to judgment. Determination of man’s fate befalls on whether his crime proves justifiable to those around him. Continuation of judgment establishes an apparent method through which //justice// is served in everyday life. Every judgment made reflects individual endeavors for righteousness. The fault of human ways manifests itself through the fault of human deliberation. True //justice// cannot be achieved through minds clouded by opinion. As peers, how can we judge others’ errors while looking through a dense fog of predisposition? Through our strive for perfection, we lose true //justice// and gain a sloppy excuse for a balanced world. According to that, defined //justice// appears as the human interpretation of fair. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">The confusion drawn from //justice// staggers the mind, and human interpretation obstructs our capability to define it. Through this we may lose grasp on right and wrong. When consulting a mother about her take on //justice//, the woman commented that Karma is the only true //justice//. In the Buddhist concept, Karma determines all punishments and rewards, keeping the human element in the matter dormant. With this, there is no need for human judgment. The world remains balanced through self-stabilization. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">While many do not practice Buddhism, a higher power or force balancing the world has been a universal concept since the beginning of time. Humans should not judge each other due to equality in body and mind, so the duty passes to an omniscient authority. Through Karma, people receive the supreme punishment or reward they deserve without individual influence. To many, we can only acquire fairness through this practice. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">If //justice// is receiving deserved punishment or reward, then the meaning of it varies from person to person. Some believe the court system embodies //justice//, while others believe the court system looks away from real //justice//. As humans, our prejudice nature hinders our ability of distinguishing untainted right and wrong. However, on the road to finding the real //justice//, we must have a system to control the chaos. A world without a justice system screams pandemonium in our insecure ears. Informing brings us one step closer to attaining, so as we carry on in our imperfect universe, we must attempt to inform society of pure, unadulterated //justice//.

<span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 15px/normal 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Justified

Human beings dwell far from perfection. Bias floods our minds, making our opinions difficult to stray from. As society is filled with mistakes, our instinct to clean them up presents itself. This exemplifies human //justice//, in attempts to create a fair world. However, human imperfection blurs each person’s judgment, so //justice// strays further away from a synonym of fair. To even begin to define //justice//, we can open a dictionary, keeping in mind even dictionaries are susceptible to human error. Receiving deserved punishment or reward defines genuine //justice//. **[This paragraph shows so much improvement from your last draft. Nicely done. You really help guide me as a reader to what your main argument is going to be and set up the rest of your paper.]** The perception of the concept of //justice// changes from person to person, from generation to generation. Upon asking a boy in the sixth grade, he replied that //justice// is men or women being tried by a jury in a court of law. This, of course, illustrates the American Justice System. Through each generation the passing down of ideals spreads “what is moral” like wildfire through the minds of the innocent, arresting them from forming individual opinions. To understand //justice//, one must take into account ethics and morality. Before a trial can occur, a person must commit the crime, or at least endure suspicion of committing a crime. A juror must ask himself if the crime seems justified to begin with. Crime seems justified when it demonstrates //justice// in the situation. **[This definition helps me better understand your argument. Good.]** As stated before, this remains a matter of interpretation, and each person has a different opinion. However, when viewed on a larger scale, most crimes classify as non-ethical based on a general acceptance of principles. Through this trial the jury weighs a man on the scale of morality, laid out for all to see the real him. Decisions made here are merely speculation compared to what is truly moral, but according to whom? //Justice// cannot exist without morality, as humans cannot exist without stabilization. Similar to other aspects of our culture, the true integrity of our court system must undergo scrutiny in order to eliminate immorality. **[This is also much clearer. Thank you!]** Drawing the final conclusion comes down to judgment. Determination of man’s fate befalls on whether his crime proves justifiable to those around him. Continuation of judgment establishes an apparent method through which //justice// is served in everyday life. Every judgment made reflects individual endeavors for righteousness. The fault of human ways manifests itself through the fault of human deliberation. True //justice// cannot be achieved through minds clouded by opinion. As peers, how can we judge others’ errors while looking through a dense fog of predisposition? Through our strive for perfection, we lose true //justice// and gain a sloppy excuse for a balanced world. According to that, defined //justice// appears as the human interpretation of fair. The confusion drawn from //justice// staggers the mind, and human interpretation obstructs our capability to define it. Through this we may lose grasp on right and wrong. When consulting a mother about her take on //justice//, the woman commented that Karma is the only true //justice//. In the Buddhist concept, Karma determines all punishments and rewards, keeping the human element in the matter dormant. With this, there is no need for human judgment. The world remains balanced through self-stabilization. While many do not practice Buddhism, a higher power or force balancing the world has been a universal concept since the beginning of time. Humans should not judge each other due to equality in body and mind, so the duty passes to an omniscient authority. Through Karma, people receive the supreme punishment or reward they deserve without individual influence. To many, we can only acquire fairness through this practice. If //justice// is receiving deserved punishment or reward, then the meaning of it varies from person to person. Some believe the court system embodies //justice//, while others believe the court system looks away from real //justice//. As humans, our prejudice nature hinders our ability of distinguishing untainted right and wrong. However, on the road to finding the real //justice//, we must have a system to control the chaos. A world without a justice system screams pandemonium in our insecure ears. Informing brings us one step closer to attaining, so as we carry on in our imperfect universe, we must attempt to inform society of pure, unadulterated //justice//.

Dear Ashlin,

I must say I am impressed with how you’ve come along through the drafts of these definition papers. I can see you’ve grown as a writer and that is really exciting! This final draft is a solid paper. You’ve developed your thoughts and made your connections explicit and understandable. This paper is ordered and has a logical flow. I think if you take a look back at your first draft and compare it to this one you will be pleasantly surprised to see the change in your thinking and writing. Overall, nicely done. I look forward to continuing to watch you grow this semester.

Sincerely,

Brittany

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Well, I was gone sick from school today, so I don't know what the format is supposed to be for these reflections, but I figured it was better to write something rather than nothing//.// I'll start by saying your comments and critiques really helped me by getting me to think about my writing as a whole. Also, talking to another student about my writing was beneficial because it was easier to make a connection with my ideas and your ideas (as opposed to talking to a parent). Overall, I think my idea flow has improved, but I'd also like to improve more on expanding my thoughts and really trying to get my point across. Working with you has been fun and thanks so much for helping me. I look forward to submitting other work to you.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">REFLECTION #1 ****<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 02.08.11; **171** due 02.11.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

Dear Ashlin,

Glad to hear my responses have helped you. I hope I can continue to get you thinking about your writing as we move forward to other assignments. Its also good to hear that you feel you can relate to me and that you feel I am understanding you. I agree that in this assignment you really developed your ideas and presented them in a logical order. In the future I will try to push you more to expand on your ideas and I will continue to let you know when your ideas are unclear to me. I too have enjoyed this experience thus far and also look forward to continuing to work with you.

Thanks,

Brittany

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">I'm having troubles coming up with a good concept for my classification/division paper. Part of it is I don't know how I should classify justice. So, I'm just going to post some of my ideas and hopefully when I get a better grasp on classification and division I can go from there...
 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Rough Draft - Classification/Division ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 02.16.11; **171** due 02.18.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">For my first idea, I thought about dividing justice into two parts: Human justice and Divine justice. However, I thought this might be a little repetitive from my definition paper.

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">I thought about taking just human justice (like the court systems) and dividing them into different steps. For example: crime, trial, judgement. I could expand each subject and talk about how it plays an important role in the justice system.

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Another idea I had was dividing justice into how it is perceived in our minds and how it actually is. For example, we might perceive our courts as fair, but really there are a lot of undeserved sentences.

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">I could go more in-depth and divide justice into catagories such as ethics and morality, religion, and law. I'm thinking with this idea I would talk about justice and what it means to each subject and also how it is carried out in our lives through them.

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">So these are just some //rough// ideas, feel free to give me some feedback. Also, sorry this is so late.

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Sincerely, <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Ashlin

Dear Ashlin,

I guess my first question would be have you talked to your teacher about your troubles? Perhaps she has some feedback or can help direct you in some way. That being said, I will give you some feedback of my own.

I'm having troubles coming up with a good concept for my classification/division paper. Part of it is I don't know how I should classify justice. **Maybe you could try brainstorming all of the words or phrases you think of when you think of justice and try going from there.** So, I'm just going to post some of my ideas and hopefully when I get a better grasp on classification and division I can go from there... **Are you unsure of classification/division as a topic or specifically as it relates to your topic of justice? If it is classification/division itself I suggest talking with your teacher because she can probably help clear things up. As for how classification/division relates to justice - I think the ideas you have so far should work.**

For my first idea, I thought about dividing justice into two parts: Human justice and Divine justice. However, I thought this might be a little repetitive from my definition paper. **I could see how this idea might be repetitive, however it also has the potential of expanding on your last paper. You could do some research on different types of divine justice (different religious perspectives perhaps) and then compare that to current human forms of justice (either from different places around the world, or maybe just the U.S. or locally).**

I thought about taking just human justice (like the court systems) and dividing them into different steps. For example: crime, trial, judgement. I could expand each subject and talk about how it plays an important role in the justice system. **The justice system is a fundamental part of our national identity so focusing on the formal justice process seems like an accessible way to break down justice.**

Another idea I had was dividing justice into how it is perceived in our minds and how it actually is. For example, we might perceive our courts as fair, but really there are a lot of undeserved sentences. **How is human perception and reality different from or similar to divine v. human justice? Are they similar enough that you could you combine the two? How do you plan to classify people’s thoughts and reality into categories?**

I could go more in-depth and divide justice into catagories such as ethics and morality, religion, and law. I'm thinking with this idea I would talk about justice and what it means to each subject and also how it is carried out in our lives through them. **I think this is your strongest idea so far. You already have the categories (ethics/morality, religion, and law) and are thinking about what justice means within each of these categories and “how it is carried out in our lives” would be concrete examples of each.**

So these are just some rough ideas, feel free to give me some feedback. Also, sorry this is so late.

Sincerely, Ashlin

I think you have some really great ideas. If you are still unsure about the topic - talk to your teacher and hopefully she can help guide you but I think you’re on the right track. Really I think any of the topics you proposed would work, but like I said earlier I think so far the last one seems the furthest along at this point. As you decide where to take your paper I recommend doing some brainstorming. Take one of your topic ideas and write out everything you can think of that would/could fall under that category. Once you do this for all of your ideas look at which ones have the strongest examples or interest you the most and go from there.

I hope this has been helpful. If you have any additional questions or come up with more ideas and would like some feedback I check the wiki regularly so I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Sincerely,

Brittany


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Revision - Classification/Division ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 02.23.11; **171** due 02.25.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

<span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> Six Schemes of Justice Justice is a universal concept that is carried out in many different ways, according to culture, religion, and personal beliefs. No matter what an individual believes is justified, there is always going to be another individual who opposes those views. This explains the several different types of justice practiced in everyday life. The idea of justice can be broken down into six classes ranging from the radical to the divine. <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Eye for an Eye __ The most radical justice concept is often referred to as “an eye for an eye”. This means that a man who commits a crime deserves the same upon himself. It is considered to be the most radical because it is usually performed by an individual taking personal matters into their own hands, usually towards another individual. For example, a man kills another man’s wife, and he takes it upon himself to avenge his wife by executing her killer. By doing this he is composing what he believes is justice in his situation. Many countries hold the strong belief in this concept, and therefore if a crime is committed, a grave punishment is given. <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Puritanical Justice __ Puritanical justice is most simply when a group doles out justice to another group. It is almost always in religious setting, which makes it a common practice today, because religion is a crucial part of many people’s lives. An ordinary example arises in many churches of Christianity. In this situation the Church decides what is justified and hands out deserved punishments or rewards. Typically in Christianity the church uses fear of God or going to Hell to persuade members to do what they say. In Catholicism members are encouraged to go to confession to purify their soul, and in return priests bestow their justice in the form of the recitation of “Hail Marys”. <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Martial Law __ Martial Law is also considered a radical form of justice to some. This involves a governmental application of military enforcing the justice for a country. In Martial Law all decisions are made by the higher authority, and the law is incontrovertible to the public. In many cases justice is unfair in this situation, as it is based on personal and often harsh opinion. An example of this justice system is post World War II Israel, which issued military administrative government in places where there was a higher Arab population. <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Vigilante __ The term vigilante is often connected with popular super heroes. Essentially, vigilante justice is an individual who concerns himself with matters of public justice. A vigilante may believe that an institution is corrupt, therefore putting the public in danger, and decides to take matters into his own hands. Sometimes, a vigilante’s personal beliefs conflict with public beliefs, but this does not always stop him from performing daring acts in hopes of purifying the dishonesty in a system. <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Justice System __ The most familiar justice system is that of the United States of America. In the American Justice system, justice is brought upon an individual by a group. When a man commits a crime he is put on trial for his wrong-doings. His placement in front of a judge and jury illustrates human efforts to bring fairness into society. The man’s fate is determined by a mixture of individual and group opinions, generally accepted morality, and skill of representation. And with all of the factors that go into a trial, we can imagine that it doesn’t always work out as everyone would like. Often in this system men get off for heinous crimes, or innocents die for ludicrous mistakes; but it is all moving towards efforts to create an unpolluted civilization. <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Divine Justice __ Much like puritanical justice, divine justice can be linked with religion. However, in divine justice the human element is eliminated, which makes for what some believe as a perfect justice system. The most common concept is the Buddhist belief of Karma, which is full divine intervention in human punishment or reward; most know it as “what goes around, comes around”. Karma is an omniscient force that delivers deserved consequences. Other divine interventions may include a God or gods' determination of human fault, as opposed to a force resembling Karma. With the involvement of a higher power, bias is forgotten, and humans are judged equally on a much larger scale. When removing humans from individual judgment, new philosophies are born which may one day lead us to equilibrium.

Justice may be a universal concept, but even the slight change of a variable causes whole different beliefs in numerous cultures. With all of the people in the world, it’s no wonder there are many justice systems. Each system has its benefits—though sometimes those who benefit are few—and each system has its downfalls. With each stride we take towards innovation and omniscience, thousands of doors open for paths which may or may not arrive at societal equilibrium. As a growing species the best way to learn is to make mistakes, but what one believes about who—or what—decides the costs of those mistakes is up to him.


 * I've included my comments within the draft again.**

<span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/19px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Six Schemes of Justice

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Justice is a universal concept that is carried out in many different ways, according to culture, religion, and personal beliefs. No matter what an individual believes is justified, there is always going to be another individual who opposes those views. This **[This being this paper, or the fact that individuals may disagree on what justice means - “this” is unclear.]** explains the several different types of justice practiced in everyday life. The idea of justice can be broken down into six classes ranging from the radical to the divine. <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/19px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Eye for an Eye

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">The most radical justice concept is often referred to as “an eye for an eye”. **[Is there another name for it?]** This means that a man who commits a crime deserves the same upon himself. It is considered to be the most radical because it is usually performed by an individual taking personal matters into their own hands, **[What is wrong with dealing with one’s own personal matters?]** usually towards another individual. For example, a man kills another man’s wife, and he takes it upon himself to avenge his wife by executing her killer. **[Oh I see, maybe if you delete the word ‘personal’ in the last sentence it will be clearer.]** By doing this he is composing what he believes is justice in his situation. Many countries hold the strong belief in this concept, and therefore if a crime is committed, a grave punishment is given. **[So both individuals and established governments believe in this form of justice? You might want to mention that earlier. Also, do you have an example of a country where this happens? Or of a type of punishment for a crime - that might be interesting.]** <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/19px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Puritanical Justice

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Puritanical justice is most simply when a group doles out justice to another group. **[According to the rest of this paragraph “a group” here means the church and “another group” means the followers correct? Initially I was confused by this sentence and it may work better to clarify. Perhaps you could say something about how individuals give up “eye for an eye” justice for justice doled out by religious leaders or something about how members of a community leave justice to community heads (in this case the church)].** It is almost always in religious setting, which makes it a common practice today, because church is a crucial part of many people’s lives. An ordinary example arises in many churches of Christianity. In this situation the Church decides what is justified and hands out deserved punishments or rewards. **[Do they decide of their own will, or must the issues be brought to the church’s attention?].** Typically in Christianity the church uses fear of God or going to Hell to persuade members to do what they say. In Catholicism members are encouraged to go to confession to purify their soul, and in return priests bestow their justice in the form of the recitation of “Hail Marys”. **[Good example however, as someone unfamiliar with Catholic practices I’m not sure what this means or how it relates to justice. Can you explain more about how justice works for Catholics?]** <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/19px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Martial Law

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Martial Law is also considered a radical form of justice to some. **[This may work better before Puritanical Justice since it is also radical.]** This involves a governmental application of military enforcing the justice for a country. **[Can you make this sentence more concise? I understand what you are saying, but I had to read it a few times before I understood what “governmental application of military enforcing” meant.]** In Martial Law all decisions are made by the higher authority, and the law is incontrovertible to the public. **[Is the higher authority the government or the military?]** In many cases justice is unfair in this situation, as it is based on personal and often harsh opinion. **[Whose personal opinion, the government or the military?]** An example of this justice system is post World War II Israel, which issued military administrative government in places where there was a higher Arab population. **[Good example. Do you have an example of unfair justice in this situation?]** <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/19px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Vigilante

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">The term vigilante is often connected with popular super heroes. Essentially, vigilante justice **[Vigilante justice seems more like a concept than an individual, perhaps just “a vigilante is...”]** is an individual who concerns himself with matters of public justice. A vigilante may believe that an institution is corrupt, **[This comma makes it seem like the vigilante is putting the public in danger and I don’t think that was your intent. Perhaps instead add an ‘and’.]** therefore putting the public in danger, and decides to take matters into his own hands. Sometimes, a vigilante’s personal beliefs conflict with public beliefs, but this does not always stop him from performing daring acts in hopes of purifying the dishonesty in a system. **[Superhero example would be AWESOME.]** <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/19px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Justice System

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">The most familiar justice system is that of the United States of America. **[Most familiar to whom? Everyone? Americans?]** In the American Justice system, justice is brought upon an individual by a group. When a man commits a crime he is put on trial for his wrong-doings. His placement in front of a judge and jury illustrates human efforts to bring fairness into society. The man’s fate is determined by a mixture of individual and group opinions, generally accepted morality, and skill of representation. **[“Skill of representation” complicates this form of justice - it’s good you bring it up.]** And with all of the factors that go into a trial, we can imagine that it doesn’t always work out as everyone would like. Often in this system men get off for heinous crimes, or innocents die for ludicrous mistakes; **[I think this is very important as you consider justice. You might want to go back and look at Puritanical Justice to see if real justice is being done and comment on these two group imposed justice types and whether or not they actually produce justice. From Puritanical and Justice System shortcomings, is individual justice the only form of true justice since everyone has their own opinions?** but it is all moving towards efforts to create an unpolluted civilization. <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/19px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Divine Justice

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Much like puritanical justice, divine justice can be linked with religion. However, in divine justice the human element is eliminated, which makes for what some believe as a perfect justice system. The most common concept is the Buddhist belief of Karma, which is full divine intervention in human punishment or reward; most know it as “what goes around, comes around”. Karma is an omniscient force that delivers deserved consequences. **[This is the most thorough, easy to understand and concise definition of a section heading. Nicely done.]** Other divine interventions may include a God or gods' determination of human fault, as opposed to a force resembling Karma. With the involvement of a higher power, bias is forgotten, and humans are judged equally on a much larger scale. When removing humans from individual judgment, new philosophies are born which may one day lead us to equilibrium.

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Justice may be a universal concept, but even the slight change of a variable causes whole different beliefs in numerous cultures. With all of the people in the world, it’s no wonder there are many justice systems. Each system has its benefits—though sometimes those who benefit are few—and each system has its downfalls. **[Maybe talk about the positive and negative side of each form within its section.]** With each stride we take towards innovation and omniscience, thousands of doors open for paths which may or may not arrive at societal equilibrium. As a growing species the best way to learn is to make mistakes, but what one believes about who—or what—decides the costs of those mistakes is up to him.

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Ashlin,**

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**I must say I am impressed with this draft. After our meeting the other day I was excited to see where you were going to take this paper and what you have here is engaging and interesting. As a reader I found that I wanted more. More information about the topics (especially ones I was unfamiliar with) and more examples (because the other ones you have are so helpful in demonstrating what you’re talking about). I think if you consider some of the above comments and expand on these sections you will have a really solid paper. Now that you have a draft I would look at the sections and see if there is a logical order to them. I know I mentioned maybe Vigilante Justice coming after Eye for an Eye because they both mentioned radical forms of justice. Similarly, perhaps Puritanical and Divine Justice go together since both involve higher powers. It’s up to you but organizational flow might make this paper even stronger.**

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**I look forward to seeing what you come up with for your final!**

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Sincerely,**

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Brittany**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">FINAL - Classification/Division ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 03.01.11; **171** due 03.04.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Brittany, <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Even though this is the final draft on the wiki, Ms. Lange said she would give us time to do more revisions before we turn in the hard copy to her. So please feel free to write any suggestions for improvement so I can make the essay even better. <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Thanks, <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Ashlin

<span style="display: block; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> Six Schemes of Justice Justice exists universally; however, practices vary according to culture, religion, and personal beliefs. Regardless of individual beliefs of justice, an individual who opposes those views will always remain. When looking at this fact, the reason why many justice systems reside on Earth becomes apparent. The diversity of people breeds contrasting justice institutions. Justice systems break down into six classes, ranging from the radical to the divine. <span style="display: block; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Personal Justice __ Personal justice continues as the most radical form of justice today. In simplest terms, the radical side of personal justice means “an eye for an eye”. A man who commits a crime deserves the same upon himself. Personal justice occurs every day when we choose our paths based on level of justification. When a stranger cuts us off while driving, a conceivable response would entail cutting him off back. An individual taking matters into his own hands against another individual embodies the most radical form of justice. When justice becomes a personal matter it can quickly transform into revenge. For example, a man kills another man’s wife, and he takes it upon himself to avenge his wife by executing her killer. His acts demonstrate his interpretation of justice in his situation. But like the examples previously mentioned, reactions spawn from raw human emotion, such as anger. Many countries hold the strong belief in this concept, and therefore if a man commits a crime, he will receive grave punishment. In Saudi Arabia, if one catches a man stealing, they believe the man should have his hand cut off. <span style="display: block; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Martial Law __ Martial Law is also considered a radical form of justice. This involves a governmental application of military enforcing the justice for a country. In Martial Law the highest authority decides penalties, and the law becomes incontrovertible to the public. In this system, the military enforces punishment for disobeying the laws which a dictator creates. Often based on individual and harsh opinion, this justice lacks respect for the group in this situation. Hitler’s prejudice against the Jews in Nazi Germany during World War II and his use of military death camps graphically illustrates Martial Law.

<span style="display: block; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Puritanical Justice __ A group dictating justice for another group defines puritanical justice. It occurs in a religious setting in which the two groups include the church and the followers. It remains a common practice throughout history because religion has played a crucial role in many people’s lives. An example arises in many Christian churches. In this situation the Church determines justice and dictates deserved punishments or rewards. Typically in Christianity the church uses fear of God or going to Hell to persuade members to do what they say. In Catholicism members are encouraged to go to confession to purify their soul, and in return priests bestow punishment in the form of the recitation of verses for repentance of sins. Through this practice the follower’s sins become absolved and consequently justice is served with the completion of sentence. <span style="display: block; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Vigilante Justice __ People often connect vigilante with popular super heroes. Essentially, a vigilante individually concerns himself with matters of public justice. He sees the corruption in an institution that puts the public in danger, and decides to take matters into his own hands. Sometimes, a vigilante’s personal beliefs conflict with public beliefs, but this does not always stop him from performing daring acts in hopes of purifying the dishonesty in a system. Fiction vigilante Bruce Wayne uses his disguise and gadgets to provide justice in the corrupt city of Gotham as the infamous Batman. <span style="display: block; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Court Justice __ In the American Justice system, justice is brought upon an individual by a group. When a man commits a crime he goes on trial for his wrong-doings. His placement in front of a judge and jury illustrates human efforts to bring fairness into society. A mixture of individual and group opinions, generally accepted morality, and skill of representation determine the man’s fate. And with all of the factors that go into a trial, we can imagine that it doesn’t always work out as everyone would like. Often in this system men get off for heinous crimes, or innocents die for ludicrous mistakes; but it moves efforts towards creating an unpolluted civilization. <span style="display: block; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> __ Divine Justice __ Much like puritanical justice, divine justice relates to religion. However, divine justice eliminates the human element, which creates what some believe as a perfect justice system. The most common concept is the Buddhist belief of Karma, which is full divine intervention in human punishment or reward; most know it as “what goes around, comes around”. Karma is an omniscient force that delivers deserved consequences. Other divine interventions may include a God or gods determination of human fault, as opposed to a force resembling Karma. With the involvement of a higher power, bias is forgotten, and the force judges humans equally on a much larger scale. When removing humans from individual judgment, new philosophies are born which may one day lead us to equilibrium. Justice may be a universal concept, but even the slight change of a variable causes whole different beliefs in numerous cultures. With all of the people in the world, it’s no wonder many justice systems exist. Each system has its benefits—though sometimes only few benefit—and each system has its downfalls. Some systems put power into the wrong hands while others leave it out of human hands. The challenge presented remains finding a justice system that does not compromise justice for any. With each stride we take towards innovation and omniscience, thousands of doors open for paths which may or may not arrive at societal equilibrium. As a growing species the best way to learn is to make mistakes, but what one believes about who—or what—decides the costs of those mistakes is up to him.

<span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/26px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Six Schemes of Justice

<span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Justice exists universally; however, practices vary according to culture, religion, and personal beliefs. Regardless of individual beliefs of justice, an individual who opposes those views will always remain. When looking at this fact, the reason why many justice systems reside on Earth becomes apparent. The diversity of people breeds contrasting justice institutions. Justice systems break down into six classes, ranging from the radical to the divine. **These sentences all have a similar structure, is there anyway you can rework them so some are longer and some are shorter?** <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/26px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Personal Justice

<span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Personal justice continues as the most radical form of justice today. In simplest terms, the radical side of personal justice means “an eye for an eye”. A man who commits a crime deserves the same upon himself. Personal justice occurs every day when we choose our paths based on level of justification. When a stranger cuts us off while driving, a conceivable response would entail cutting him off back. An individual taking matters into his own hands against another individual embodies the most radical form of justice. When justice becomes a personal matter it can quickly transform into revenge. **Nice tie-in - justice equalling revenge.** For example, a man kills another man’s wife, and he takes it upon himself to avenge his wife by executing her killer. His acts demonstrate his interpretation of justice in his situation. But like the examples previously mentioned, reactions spawn from raw human emotion, such as anger. Many countries hold the strong belief in this concept, and therefore if a man commits a crime, he will receive grave punishment. In Saudi Arabia, if one catches a man stealing, they believe the man should have his hand cut off. **Good example. This is a solid, yet concise category of justice nicely done.** <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/26px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Martial Law

<span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Martial Law is also considered a radical form of justice. This involves a governmental application of military enforcing the justice for a country. In Martial Law the highest authority decides penalties, and the law becomes incontrovertible to the public. In this system, the military enforces punishment for disobeying the laws which a dictator creates. Often based on individual and harsh opinion, this justice lacks respect for the group in this situation. Hitler’s prejudice against the Jews in Nazi Germany during World War II and his use of military death camps graphically illustrates Martial Law. **This is another good example of a form of justice.**

<span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/26px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Puritanical Justice

<span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">A group dictating justice for another group defines puritanical justice. It occurs in a religious setting in which the two groups include the church and the followers. It remains a common practice throughout history because religion has played a crucial role in many people’s lives. An example arises in many Christian churches. In this situation the Church determines justice and dictates deserved punishments or rewards. Typically in Christianity the church uses fear of God or going to Hell to persuade members to do what they say. In Catholicism members are encouraged to go to confession to purify their soul, and in return priests bestow punishment in the form of the recitation of verses for repentance of sins. Through this practice the follower’s sins become absolved and consequently justice is served with the completion of sentence. <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/26px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Vigilante Justice

<span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">People often connect vigilante with popular super heroes. Essentially, a vigilante individually concerns himself with matters of public justice. He sees the corruption in an institution that puts the public in danger, and decides to take matters into his own hands. Sometimes, a vigilante’s personal beliefs conflict with public beliefs, but this does not always stop him from performing daring acts in hopes of purifying the dishonesty in a system. Fiction vigilante Bruce Wayne uses his disguise and gadgets to provide justice in the corrupt city of Gotham as the infamous Batman. <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/26px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Court Justice

<span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">In the American Justice system, justice is brought upon an individual by a group. When a man commits a crime he goes on trial for his wrong-doings. His placement in front of a judge and jury illustrates human efforts to bring fairness into society. A mixture of individual and group opinions, generally accepted morality, and skill of representation determine the man’s fate. And with all of the factors that go into a trial, we can imagine that it doesn’t always work out as everyone would like. Often in this system men get off for heinous crimes, or innocents die for ludicrous mistakes; but it moves efforts towards creating an unpolluted civilization. **What are the consequences of having a justice system that is imperfect? Is this really justice?** <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/26px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Divine Justice

<span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Much like puritanical justice, divine justice relates to religion. **I’d consider putting this section below puritanical justice if you are going to tie the two together. Otherwise, you could just start with this next sentence to tie it to the justice system.** However, divine justice eliminates the human element, which creates what some believe as a perfect justice system. The most common concept is the Buddhist belief of Karma, which is full divine intervention in human punishment or reward; most know it as “what goes around, comes around”. Karma is an omniscient force that delivers deserved consequences. Other divine interventions may include a God or gods determination of human fault, as opposed to a force resembling Karma. With the involvement of a higher power, bias is forgotten, and the force judges humans equally on a much larger scale. When removing humans from individual judgment, new philosophies are born which may one day lead us to equilibrium. **Equilibrium meaning that all actions have deserved consequences?** <span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Justice may be a universal concept, but even the slight change of a variable causes whole different beliefs in numerous cultures. With all of the people in the world, it’s no wonder many justice systems exist. Each system has its benefits—though sometimes only few benefit—and each system has its downfalls. Some systems put power into the wrong hands while others leave it out of human hands. The challenge presented remains finding a justice system that does not compromise justice for any. With each stride we take towards innovation and omniscience, **Can we take steps toward omniscience?** thousands of doors open for paths which may or may not arrive at societal equilibrium. As a growing species the best way to learn is to make mistakes, but what one believes about who—or what—decides the costs of those mistakes is up to him.

<span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Ashlin,** <span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**The examples you used to define each category helped me get a better handle on what you were talking about and gave more weight to your paper.** <span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Some things to consider as you finish this paper:** <span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**What is your current organizational structure? Is it working? Look over your categories of justice and determine who decides the justice in each case - the individual, an outsider, the divine. Could you rearrange the categories according to who decides it? Would this make your argument stronger? If not, what would?** <span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Your opening paragraph is good, but it could use some variety. If you could try to change up the sentence lengths/structure I think it would be even stronger. The same is true of the beginning of your final paragraph.** <span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**It might be interesting to note which forms of justice actually achieve justice and which do not.** <span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Be sure you define terms like “equilibrium” as they relate to justice.**

<span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**I hope this helps.**

<span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Sincerely,** <span style="font: 13px/26px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Brittany**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">REFLECTION #2 ****<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 03.22.11; **171** due 03.25.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Rough Draft - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 03.30.11; **171** due 04.01.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

Capital punishment remains as one of the most highly debated subjects in modern society. Many people believe that the only way to justify murder is to execute the murderers; however, others object to this logic and preach two wrongs don’t make a right. People have come up with as many arguments for and against this matter that we can think of, but each case gathers enough controversy to write a novel. In this case, the coverage of one argument is vital to the decision of whether capital punishment is justifiable; this being that the death penalty is a successful deterrent to murder, and perhaps other crimes. This notion, though seemingly logical, is not applicable nor does it validate death as a punishment to any crime. For the death penalty to be considered a deterrent to murder, statistical analysis of homicide rates would have to show a drop in the number of homicides in states where the death penalty is active. However, when looking at the statistics, between the years 1990 and 2009 the homicide rate was an average of 31.4% lower in states without the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center). This suggests the opposite of deterrence. Others claim the death penalty must be a deterrent because many refrain from committing crimes in fear of the consequences. From a young age we are taught to think of the consequences before we act. However, human emotion can be a powerful force in certain situations. People do not realize that most crimes are crimes of passion. This is when a person commits a crime in the heat of a moment without any contemplation of the costs. Capital punishment cannot survive as a successful deterrent if people do not deem death as a possible outcome of their crime. The fact that people justify capital punishment with deterrence of crime is less than satisfactory. After some reflection, the idea of execution for murder is morally unstable and not logically sound. As equals, we are not meant to judge each other or decide justice—in this case fate—of another human being. This must be decided by forces greater than us. As for capital punishment being a deterrent to crime, we shouldn’t have to kill people to stop murder. Ideally, people should be deterred by lack of morality or consequences decided by a higher power, not a judge and a group of “peers”. The deterrence of crime is not a justification for murder. With statistics showing lower homicide rates in states without the death penalty, arguments fall flat. Crimes of passion are overlooked in the quest to justify capital punishment, as well as morality. Killing people does not justify killing people and there should be no excuses as to why the death penalty continues in our country. With every life we drag through death row and execution, we take a step back in evolution, towards barbaric awareness and standards.

<span style="background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-origin: initial; display: block; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;"> Works Cited <span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: Calibri; line-height: 24pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">"Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." //Death Penalty Information Center//. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. < http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates >.

Response:

<span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Capital punishment remains as one of the most highly debated subjects in modern society. Many people believe that the only way to justify murder is to execute the murderers; however, others object to this logic and preach two wrongs don’t make a right. People have come up with as many arguments for and against this matter that we can think of, but each case gathers enough controversy to write a novel. **Each case or each argument for or against?** In this case, **In the case of your paper? If so, it’s probably unnecessary to say so.** the coverage of one argument **I’m not sure what this means. Does it mean looking at one argument for or against capital punishment?** is vital to the decision of whether capital punishment is justifiable; this being that the death penalty is a successful deterrent to murder, and perhaps other crimes. **Ok, I think I see where you are coming from here. Is there a way to rewrite this sentence to introduce the idea of deterrence at the beginning?** This notion, though seemingly logical, is not applicable nor does it validate death as a punishment to any crime. **I’m not sure applicable or validating death are the best ways to say that the argument is flawed.** <span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">For the death penalty to be considered a deterrent to murder, statistical analysis of homicide rates would have to show a drop in the number of homicides in states where the death penalty is active. **It’s good that you define how the argument would be valid.** However, when looking at the statistics, between the years 1990 and 2009 the homicide rate was an average of 31.4% lower in states without the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center). **Nice use of sources.** This suggests the opposite of deterrence. <span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Others claim **Who?** the death penalty must be a deterrent because many refrain from committing crimes in fear of the consequences. From a young age we are taught to think of the consequences before we act. However, human emotion can be a powerful force in certain situations. People do not realize that most crimes are crimes of passion. **Did you research this somewhere, or is it just your opinion?** This is when a person commits a crime in the heat of a moment without any contemplation of the costs. **Where are you getting this definition from?** Capital punishment cannot survive as a successful deterrent if people do not deem death as a possible outcome of their crime. **What are you trying to say here? That because people commit crimes in passion they aren’t thinking of any consequences, or that people commit other crimes (not murder) and don’t think the death penalty is a possible consequence?** <span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">The fact that people justify capital punishment with deterrence of crime is less than satisfactory. After some reflection, the idea of execution for murder is morally unstable and not logically sound. **How so? Doesn’t capital punishment line up with your eye for an eye division of justice from earlier?** As equals, we are not meant to judge each other or decide justice—in this case fate—of another human being. **Wouldn’t this fall under court justice from your earlier paper? As citizens don’t we agree to court justice in order to receive protection, gain justice and maintain order?** This must be decided by forces greater than us. **What if someone was harmed by another’s actions and the victim didn’t believe in a greater power? Would they accept justice they couldn’t witness/verify?** As for capital punishment being a deterrent to crime, we shouldn’t have to kill people to stop murder. **I understand where you are coming from, however, what about vigilantes who specifically kill murderers do you think that is wrong? What if more people would have died if the murderer lived?** Ideally, people should be deterred by lack of morality or consequences decided by a higher power, not a judge and a group of “peers”. **Didn’t you already argue that murders often happen in the heat of passion? If so, doesn’t that dismiss the morality argument? If one is taken over by passion wouldn’t that blind their morality? If there is no peer to peer justice, wouldn’t a higher power get overwhelmed and wouldn’t the world be reduced to chaos?** <span style="font: 13px/19px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">The deterrence of crime is not a justification for murder. With statistics showing lower homicide rates in states without the death penalty, arguments fall flat. Crimes of passion are overlooked in the quest to justify capital punishment, as well as morality. **So crimes of passion are justifiable?** Killing people does not justify killing people and there should be no excuses as to why the death penalty continues in our country. With every life we drag through death row and execution, we take a step back in evolution, towards barbaric awareness and standards. **But, by advocating divine justice only, aren’t you also reducing the world to barbaric standards? If people see no direct consequences for their actions are they really likely not to act on impulses? Does morality keep people from stealing or is it the prospect of getting caught?**

<span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/32px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Works Cited

<span style="font: 13px/32px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">"Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." //Death Penalty Information Center//. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. < [|__http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates__] >.

**Ashlin,**

**I’m intrigued by your argument. My suggestion for your revision is to go back and look at your previous assignments and see how this paper overlaps. I’ve pointed out a few areas already and I think if you bring in the types of justice from classification and division you’ll be able to form a more solid argument. I also suggest you try expanding the case in favor of the death penalty before you show that it is invalid. Doing so will give more weight to your argument if you can show you’ve equally assessed both sides. You have a few discrepancies that you should look over. Specifically: Are passion crimes justifiable? Is divine justice really viable? Would the complete absence of court justice still result in deterrence?**

**It might be interesting to view capital punishment through the perspective of each frame of justice you defined in classification and division. Once you show each perspective, then you can bring in outside sources to show the positives and negatives of each and finally show which is the best.**

**If nothing else, please consider:** **~ Crimes of passion versus cold-blooded murders and their justifications. If crimes of passion don’t warrant capital punishment would planned, calculated murders?** **~ Are crimes committed or not, based on morality or getting caught/punished?** **~ You claim that without court justice, justice would still exist, but I’m not sold on that just yet. Can you find an example of a non-court justice community that has low crime rates?**

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Brittany, <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">I made a few changes from the previous draft, however, I realize there's still a lot I haven't covered yet. Right now I'm just trying to organize my thoughts and prioritize the ideas. So here is the revision for now and let me know what you think of the changes.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Revision (1) - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.05.11; **171** due 04.08.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Ashlin

Capital punishment remains as one of the most highly debated subjects in modern society. Many people believe that the only way to justify murder is to execute the murderers; however, others object to this logic and preach two wrongs don’t make a right. People have come up with as many arguments for and against this matter that we can think of, but each case gathers enough controversy to write a novel. The coverage of one matter concerning capital punishment is vital to the decision of whether it is justifiable; this being that the death penalty is a successful deterrent to murder, and perhaps other crimes. This notion, though seemingly logical, is not applicable due to opposing statistics nor does it validate death as a punishment to any crime. For the death penalty to be considered a deterrent to murder, statistical analysis of homicide rates would have to show a drop in the number of homicides in states where the death penalty is active. However, when looking at the statistics, between the years 1990 and 2009 the homicide rate was an average of 31.4% lower in states without the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center). This suggests the opposite of deterrence. Not to mention eighty eight percent of the country’s top criminologists don’t believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide (Daily Camera). How is the general public supposed to believe it deters murder when those who are experts in the matter cannot conceive it? Others claim the death penalty must be a deterrent because many refrain from committing crimes in fear of the consequences. From a young age we are taught to think of the consequences before we act. However, human emotion can be a powerful force in certain situations. People do not realize that most crimes are crimes of passion. This is when a person commits a crime in the heat of a moment without premeditation (Legal Dictionary). Emotions shadow the judgment and it can lead to murder through anger or heartbreak. Capital punishment cannot survive as a successful deterrent if people do not deem death as a possible outcome of their actions. The fact that people justify capital punishment with deterrence of crime is less than satisfactory. After some reflection, the idea of execution for murder is morally unstable and not logically sound. As equals, we are not meant to judge each other or decide justice—in this case fate—of another human being. This must be decided by forces greater than us. As for capital punishment being a deterrent to crime, we shouldn’t have to kill people to stop murder. Ideally, people should be deterred by lack of morality or consequences decided by a higher power, not a judge and a group of “peers”. However, what is ideal is not always what is right for particular cultures; there must be a form of justice implemented to obtain balance. The deterrence of crime is not a justification for murder. With statistics showing lower homicide rates in states without the death penalty, arguments fall flat. Crimes of passion are overlooked in the quest to justify capital punishment, as well as morality. Killing people does not justify killing people and there should be no excuses as to why the death penalty continues in our country. With every life we drag through death row and execution, we take a step back in evolution, towards barbaric awareness and standards.

<span style="background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-origin: initial; display: block; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;"> Works Cited <span style="background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-origin: initial; color: black; font-family: Calibri; line-height: 24pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">"Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." //Death Penalty Information Center//. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates>.

<span style="background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-origin: initial; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">Hill, Gerrald N., and Kathleen T. Hill. "Crime of Passion." //Legal Dictionary//. Web. 5 Apr. 2011. <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime+of+passion>.

<span style="background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-origin: initial; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 200%; margin: auto 0in auto 22.5pt; text-indent: -22.5pt;">"CU study: Death penalty doesn't deter murder." Daily Camera (Boulder, CO) 16 June 2009: Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 5 Jan. 2011.

Ashlin,

My comments are below.

Brittany

Capital punishment remains as one of the most highly debated subjects in modern society. Many people believe that the only way to justify murder **does it justify murder or does capital punishment gain justice? Is justifying something the same as gaining justice?** is to execute the murderers; however, others object to this logic and preach two wrongs don’t make a right. People have come up with as many arguments for and against this matter that we can think of, but each case gathers enough controversy to write a novel. **Is it important to say that there are lots of arguments if you only focus on one of them? (**The coverage of one matter**) what does this mean?** concerning capital punishment is vital to the decision of whether it is justifiable; this being that the death penalty is a successful deterrent to murder, and perhaps other crimes. **Is there another way of saying this? Since this is the main point of your paper, it should be clear to the reader. I know what you’re trying to say, but this sentence difficult to dicipher.** This notion, though seemingly logical, is not applicable due to opposing statistics nor does it validate death as a punishment to any crime. **If the statistics showed the death penalty did deter crime would capital punishment be justified? Is the death penalty awarded for any crime, or is it just murder?** For the death penalty to be considered a deterrent to murder, statistical analysis of homicide rates would have to show a drop in the number of homicides in states where the death penalty is active. However, when looking at the statistics, between the years 1990 and 2009 the homicide rate was an average of 31.4% lower in states without the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center). This suggests the opposite of deterrence. Not to mention eighty eight percent of the country’s top criminologists don’t believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide (Daily Camera). How is the general public supposed to believe it deters murder when those who are experts in the matter cannot conceive it? **Good argument.** Others claim the death penalty must be a deterrent because many refrain from committing crimes in fear of the consequences. From a young age we are taught to think of the consequences before we act. However, human emotion can be a powerful force in certain situations. People do not realize that most crimes are crimes of passion. **Are crimes committed in passion excusable? Or should people be expected to check their emotions? Some people do don’t they? - Some people are capable of committing crimes, but keep themselves in line by controlling their emotions. Should they be rewarded if those who fall victim to their emotions aren’t punished for their shortcomings?** This is when a person commits a crime in the heat of a moment without premeditation (Legal Dictionary). Emotions shadow the judgment and it can lead to murder through anger or heartbreak. Capital punishment cannot survive as a successful deterrent if people do not deem death as a possible outcome of their actions. **This is a valid point. However, what about the other side of things. What about pre-meditated crimes? For those who know what they are doing, and that it is wrong, are they more likely to commit a crime in a state where the punishment will be less severe? Especially if it is a serial killer and not a crime geared toward a specific person.** The fact that people justify capital punishment with deterrence of crime is less than satisfactory. **Are there other reasons people justify capital punishment? Are you going to talk about them, or just focus on deterrence? If you’re focusing on deterrence, is this the argument used the most?** After some reflection, the idea of execution for murder is morally unstable and not logically sound. **How did you come to this conclusion? Can you explain your reflection? Are you thinking that because murder is wrong then capital punishment is wrong because it too is murder? If so, say so.** As equals, we are not meant to judge each other or decide justice—in this case fate—of another human being. **Why not? Why can’t we hold each other accountable for our actions?** This must be decided by forces greater than us. As for capital punishment being a deterrent to crime, we shouldn’t have to kill people to stop murder. Ideally, people should be deterred by lack of morality or consequences decided by a higher power, not a judge and a group of “peers”. However, what is ideal is not always what is right for particular cultures; there must be a form of justice implemented to obtain balance. **So if we can’t have ideal karmic justice and we shouldn’t judge our peers what do you propose? How do we deal with crimes of passion? With premeditated crimes? What is a just punishment for a murderer?** The deterrence of crime is not a justification for murder. With statistics showing lower homicide rates in states without the death penalty, arguments fall flat. Crimes of passion are overlooked in the quest to justify capital punishment, as well as morality. **So crimes of passion are justifiable, and people shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions?** Killing people does not justify killing people and there should be no excuses as to why the death penalty continues in our country. With every life we drag through death row and execution, we take a step back in evolution, towards barbaric awareness and standards.

**Ashlin,**

**I’m confused about the purpose of your paper because you are doing two different things: You’re saying that the argument of deterrence doesn’t justify capital punishment. And using that to say that capital punishment is unjust because it is immoral. Do you see the disconnect? Just because deterrence isn’t a valid argument doesn’t mean capital punishment itself is unjust.**

**There is a difference between being just and being justifiable. You show that deterrence is invalid because of crimes of passion which then leads you to conclude that capital punishment is unjust. But you neglect to comment on premeditated crimes. This argument alone leads me to believe non-crimes of passion might be deterred by capital punishment. So my question is, how does one argument for capital punishment, when proved wrong, show that capital punishment itself is wrong?**

**In classification/division you talked about “an eye for an eye” justice. According to the paper above is “an eye for an eye” justice really justice? Can something be just and still be wrong? In other words, in theory, “an eye for an eye” justice is just, but in practice, capital punishment is morally wrong because it requires committing the same crime as the person being punished (assuming they are on death row for murder).**

**In your next draft decide whether you are proving that capital punishment is unjust or unjustified by deterrence.** **If your argument is that capital punishment is unjust:** **Consider other arguments for capital punishment besides deterrence.** **Explain how justice might be had if not the death penalty.** **If your argument is that capital punishment is unjustified by deterrence:** **Consider whether premeditated crimes would be influenced by capital punishment laws.**

<span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> Works Cited

"Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." //Death Penalty Information Center//. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. < [|__http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates__] >.

Hill, Gerrald N., and Kathleen T. Hill. "Crime of Passion." //Legal Dictionary//. Web. 5 Apr. 2011. < [|__http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime+of+passion__] >.

"CU study: Death penalty doesn't deter murder." Daily Camera (Boulder, CO) 16 June 2009: Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 5 Jan. 2011.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Revision (2) - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.13.11; **171** due 04.15.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

<span style="display: block; line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> The Corrupt Penalty

==== As the old saying goes, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. Is it morally correct for a parent to hit their child because their child hit someone else? What about execution for murder? According to the “eye for an eye” justice system, this is acceptable, but when viewed differently, the death penalty seems barbaric. When looking at the arguments presented on the subject the answer is clear. Capital punishment does not deter murder, is more expensive than life in prison, and is morally irrational. ==== One of the most common arguments for the death penalty is that it deters people from committing murder. For the death penalty to be considered a deterrent to murder, statistical analysis of homicide rates would have to show a drop in the number of homicides in states where the death penalty is active. However, when looking at the statistics, between the years 1990 and 2009 the homicide rate was an average of 31.4% lower in states without the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center). This suggests the opposite of deterrence. Not to mention eighty eight percent of the country’s top criminologists don’t believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide (Daily Camera). How is the general public supposed to believe it deters murder when those who are experts in the matter cannot conceive it? Others claim the death penalty must be a deterrent because many refrain from committing crimes in fear of the consequences. From a young age we are taught to think of the consequences before we act. However, human emotion can be a powerful force in certain situations. People do not realize that most crimes are crimes of passion. This is when a person commits a crime in the heat of a moment without premeditation (Legal Dictionary). Emotions shadow the judgment and it can lead to murder through anger or heartbreak. Capital punishment cannot survive as a successful deterrent if people do not deem death as a possible outcome of their actions. This does not make the person any less guilty, it just illustrates that the death penalty does not act as a successful deterrent in those situations. In the case of premeditated murder, if the death penalty did deter planned murders, then why do they still happen? Supporters of the death penalty often argue that putting someone to death is less expensive to taxpayers than putting them in prison; however, this is a common misconception. Capital punishment actually costs 2-5 times more than sentenced life in prison (Messerli). All of the expense comes from the cost of countless appeals and additional legal procedures, which is covered by the taxpayers. A person can be on death row for up to 20 years before execution, which totals excruciating numbers by the time they receive their “punishment” (Death Penalty Information Center). This makes life in prison the more economic choice. The fact that people justify capital punishment is less than satisfactory. After some reflection, the idea of execution for murder is morally unstable and not logically sound. Depending on individual beliefs, to some, the death penalty is viewed as the easy way out. As equals with individual beliefs, we are not meant to judge each other or decide justice—in this case fate—of another human being. This must be decided by forces greater than us. Who is to decide if the death penalty is even humane if the only ones who can test it die? As for capital punishment being a deterrent to crime, we shouldn’t have to kill people to stop murder. Ideally, people should be deterred by lack of morality or consequences decided by a higher power, not a judge and a group of “peers”. However, what is ideal is not always what is right for particular cultures; there must be a form of justice implemented to obtain balance. The deterrence of crime is not a justification for murder. With statistics showing lower homicide rates in states without the death penalty, arguments fall flat. Crimes of passion are overlooked in the quest to justify capital punishment, as well as morality. Not to mention, it is more cost-effective to put someone in prison for life. Killing people does not justify killing people and there should be no excuses as to why the death penalty continues in our country. With every life we drag through death row and execution, we take a step back in evolution, towards barbaric awareness and standards.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; display: block; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;"> Works Cited <span style="background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-origin: initial; color: black; font-family: Calibri; line-height: 24pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">"Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." //Death Penalty Information Center//. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates>.

<span style="background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-origin: initial; color: black; font-family: Calibri; line-height: 24pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">Hill, Gerrald N., and Kathleen T. Hill. "Crime of Passion." //Legal Dictionary//. Web. 5 Apr. 2011. <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime+of+passion>.

<span style="background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-origin: initial; color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; margin: auto 0in auto 0.5in; text-indent: -40.5pt;">"CU study: Death penalty doesn't deter murder." Daily Camera (Boulder, CO) 16 June 2009: Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 5 Jan. 2011. <span style="background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-origin: initial; color: black; font-family: Calibri; line-height: 24pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">Messerli, Joe. "BalancedPolitics.org - Death Penalty (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)." //BalancedPolitics.org - Free Balanced, Non-Partisan Discussion of Political & Social Issues for Debate (Pros and Cons - Decision Making Politics)//. 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. [].

RESPONSE:

<span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 13px/32px Calibri; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"> The Corrupt Penalty

<span style="font: 13px/35px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">As the old saying goes, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. Is it morally correct for a parent to hit their child because their child hit someone else? What about execution for murder? According to the “eye for an eye” justice system, this is acceptable, but when viewed differently, the death penalty seems barbaric. **Good intro. I like the lesser-extreme example of a parent hitting a child.** When looking at the arguments presented on the subject the answer is clear. Capital punishment does not deter murder, is more expensive than life in prison, and is morally irrational. **Concise thesis. I have a clear idea of where your paper is headed.** <span style="font: 13px/32px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">One of the most common arguments for the death penalty is that it deters people from committing murder. For the death penalty to be considered a deterrent to murder, statistical analysis of homicide rates would have to show a drop in the number of homicides in states where the death penalty is active. However, when looking at the statistics, between the years 1990 and 2009 the homicide rate was an average of 31.4% lower in states without the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center). This suggests the opposite of deterrence. Not to mention eighty eight percent of the country’s top criminologists don’t believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide (Daily Camera). **I know you had this in your last paper, but is there any way you can rephrase it? Somehow when reading I read over “don’t” and was like, really? They think it is a deterrent? Just something to consider.** How is the general public supposed to believe it deters murder when those who are experts in the matter cannot conceive it? <span style="font: 13px/32px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Others claim the death penalty must be a deterrent because many refrain from committing crimes in fear of the consequences. From a young age we are taught to think of the consequences before we act. However, human emotion can be a powerful force in certain situations. People do not realize that most crimes are crimes of passion. This is when a person commits a crime in the heat of a moment without premeditation (Legal Dictionary). Emotions shadow the judgment and it can lead to murder through anger or heartbreak. Capital punishment cannot survive as a successful deterrent if people do not deem death as a possible outcome of their actions. This does not make the person any less guilty, it just illustrates that the death penalty does not act as a successful deterrent in those situations. **This sentence is really helps articulate your point. Well stated.** In the case of premeditated murder, if the death penalty did deter planned murders, then why do they still happen? **Also a fair point.** <span style="font: 13px/32px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">Supporters of the death penalty often argue that putting someone to death is less expensive to taxpayers than putting them in prison; however, this is a common misconception. Capital punishment actually costs 2-5 times more than sentenced life in prison (Messerli). All of the expense comes from the cost of countless appeals and additional legal procedures, which is covered by the taxpayers. A person can be on death row for up to 20 years before execution, which totals excruciating numbers **What do you mean by excruciating numbers? Money? I’m not sure.** by the time they receive their “punishment” (Death Penalty Information Center). This makes life in prison the more economic choice. <span style="font: 13px/32px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">The fact that people justify capital punishment is less than satisfactory. After some reflection, the idea of execution for murder is morally unstable and not logically sound. Depending on individual beliefs, to some, the death penalty is viewed as the easy way out. As equals with individual beliefs, we are not meant to judge each other or decide justice—in this case fate—of **Do you mean** **for? If you take out “in this case fate” the sentence doesn’t make sense.** another human being. This must be decided by forces greater than us. Who is to decide if the death penalty is even humane if the only ones who can test it die? **This is the strongest argument for this paragraph. Is the purpose of this paragraph to show that capital punishment is immoral because individuals have different beliefs and we can’t agree on whether capital punishment** **is ok? If so, this sentence should come sooner to be the base of your argument. If not, how is capital punishment immoral?** As for capital punishment being a deterrent to crime, we shouldn’t have to kill people to stop murder. Ideally, people should be deterred by lack of morality **Are they deterred by a lack of morality or by morality itself?** or consequences decided by a higher power, not a judge and a group of “peers”. **Why go back to deterrence here, what are you trying to show? That because deterrence is invalid, capital punishment is immoral? If so, it is not clear.** However, what is ideal is not always what is right for particular cultures; there must be a form of justice implemented to obtain balance. **Again, I think this paragraph is doing two different things here, which aren’t acting together. (See below for details).** <span style="font: 13px/32px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">The deterrence of crime is not a justification for murder. With statistics showing lower homicide rates in states without the death penalty, arguments fall flat. Crimes of passion are overlooked in the quest to justify capital punishment, as well as morality. **Do you mean in the quest to justify morality, or that morality is overlooked? Currently this sentence is saying in the quest to justify morality.** Not to mention, it is more cost-effective to put someone in prison for life. Killing people does not justify killing people and there should be no excuses as to why the death penalty continues in our country. With every life we drag through death row and execution, we take a step back in evolution, towards barbaric awareness and standards.

<span style="font: 13px/32px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Ashlin,** <span style="font: 13px/32px Calibri; margin: 0px;"> **This paper is much more cohesive and your purpose is more clear.** **The deterrence and cost sections are relatively strong, see my comments above for minor issues.** **However, there are still a few places for improvement. I’m confused about the death penalty immorality section. You get close to having a reason capital punishment is immoral with the sentence “**Who is to decide if the death penalty is even humane if the only ones who can test it die?**” but I’m not sure of the relationship between peer judgement and immorality. Is the fact that we’re judging others what makes capital punishment immoral? If so, you need to make that clear. If judging others isn’t what makes capital punishment immoral, how does the peer component (judging) of capital punishment weaken capital punishment as a form of justice? Also, what makes capital punishment immoral? - Did you look up info on who can receive the death penalty, is it only murderers, or can other crimes result in capital punishment? Is killing criminals the same as killing innocent people? If we judge murderers shouldn’t those administering capital punishment also be held responsible?**

<span style="font: 13px/32px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**Hope this helps!** <span style="font: 13px/32px Calibri; letter-spacing: 0px; margin: 0px;">**B**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">FINAL - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.19.11; **171** due 04.22.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Brittany, **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Thanks for all of your feedback for this paper, you've really helped me to get my message across through my writing! Even though this is the final draft, if you could go through and let me know if there are any things you aren't clear on or maybe any words I use too frequently I would really appreciate it. Ms. Lange is letting us fix it up even more before we turn in a copy to her. **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Thanks, **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Ashlin **

The Corrupt Penalty <span style="font-family: Calibri; line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">As the old saying goes, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. Is it morally correct for a parent to hit their child because their child hit someone else? What about execution for murder? According to the “eye for an eye” justice system, this is acceptable, but when viewed differently, the death penalty seems barbaric. When looking at the arguments presented on the subject the answer is clear. Capital punishment does not deter murder, is more expensive than life in prison, and is morally irrational. <span style="font-family: Calibri; line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"> One of the most common arguments for the death penalty is that it deters people from committing murder. For the death penalty to be considered a deterrent to murder, statistical analysis of homicide rates would have to show a drop in the number of homicides in states where the death penalty is active. However, when looking at the statistics, between the years 1990 and 2009 the homicide rate was an average of 31.4% lower in states without the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center). This suggests the opposite of deterrence. Not to mention eighty eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide (Daily Camera). How is the general public supposed to believe it deters murder when those who are experts in the matter cannot conceive it? <span style="font-family: Calibri; line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"> Others claim the death penalty must be a deterrent because many refrain from committing crimes in fear of the consequences. From a young age we are taught to think of the consequences before we act. However, human emotion can be a powerful force in certain situations. People do not realize that most crimes are crimes of passion. This is when a person commits a crime in the heat of a moment without premeditation (Legal Dictionary). Emotions shadow the judgment and it can lead to murder through anger or heartbreak. Capital punishment cannot survive as a successful deterrent if people do not deem death as a possible outcome of their actions. This does not make the person any less guilty, it just illustrates that the death penalty does not act as a successful deterrent in those situations. In the case of premeditated murder, if the death penalty did deter planned murders, then why do they still happen? <span style="font-family: Calibri; line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"> Supporters of the death penalty often argue that putting someone to death is less expensive to taxpayers than putting them in prison; however, this is a common misconception. Capital punishment actually costs 2-5 times more than sentenced life in prison (Messerli). All of the expense comes from the cost of countless appeals and additional legal procedures, which is covered by the taxpayers. A person can be on death row for up to 20 years before execution, which amounts to excruciating bills by the time they receive their “punishment” (Death Penalty Information Center). This makes life in prison the more economic choice. <span style="font-family: Calibri; line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> If the death penalty doesn’t serve as a deterrent or a quick money saver then the only purpose it provides is based on raw human emotions. Capital punishment acts as an outlet for grieving loved ones to get revenge on the person who tore their life apart. However, this society doesn’t need revenge, it needs justice; in a way capital punishment is a crime of passion that has been premeditated and makes those involved no better than the person being executed. Who is to decide if the death penalty is even humane if the only ones who can test it die? All of these factors bring the morality of capital punishment into intense inquisition. <span style="font-family: Calibri; line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The fact that people justify capital punishment is less than satisfactory. After some reflection, the idea of execution for murder is morally unstable and not logically sound. Depending on individual beliefs, to some, the death penalty is viewed as the easy way out, while others believe it is the ultimate punishment. If we cannot come to an agreement on capital punishment, then it hardly seems like the moral decision. As equals with individual beliefs, we are not meant to judge each other or decide justice—in this case fate—for another human being. This must be decided by forces greater than us. As for capital punishment being a deterrent to crime, we shouldn’t have to kill people to stop murder. As demonstrated by the child-parent example, this logic is immoral. Ideally, people should be deterred by personal morality or consequences decided by a higher power, not a judge and a group of “peers”. However, what is ideal is not always what is right for particular cultures; there must be a form of justice implemented to obtain balance. <span style="font-family: Calibri; line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"> The deterrence of crime is not a justification for murder. With statistics showing lower homicide rates in states without the death penalty, arguments fall flat. Morality and crimes of passion are overlooked in the quest to justify capital punishment. Not to mention, it is more cost-effective to put someone in prison for life. Killing people does not justify killing people and there should be no excuses as to why the death penalty continues in our country. With every life we drag through death row and execution, we take a step back in evolution, towards barbaric awareness and standards. <span style="background: white; display: block; line-height: 24pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;"> Works Cited <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;">"CU study: Death penalty doesn't deter murder." Daily Camera (Boulder, CO) 16 June 2009: Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 5 Jan. 2011. <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: black; font-family: Calibri; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: -40.5pt;">"Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." //Death Penalty Information Center//. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates>.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: black; font-family: Calibri; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: -0.5in;">Hill, Gerrald N., and Kathleen T. Hill. "Crime of Passion." //Legal Dictionary//. Web. 5 Apr. 2011. <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime+of+passion>.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: black; font-family: Calibri; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: -0.5in;">Messerli, Joe. "BalancedPolitics.org - Death Penalty (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)." //BalancedPolitics.org - Free Balanced, Non-Partisan Discussion of Political & Social Issues for Debate (Pros and Cons - Decision Making Politics)//. 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. [].

RESPONSE:

<span style="font: 13.0px Calibri; line-height: 32.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"> The Corrupt Penalty

As the old saying goes, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. Is it morally correct for a parent to hit their child because their child hit someone else? What about execution for murder? According to the “eye for an eye” justice system, this is acceptable, but when viewed differently, the death penalty seems barbaric. When looking at the arguments presented on the subject the answer is clear. Capital punishment does not deter murder, is more expensive than life in prison, and is morally irrational. One of the most common arguments for the death penalty is that it deters people from committing murder. For the death penalty to be considered a deterrent to murder, statistical analysis of homicide rates would have to show a drop in the number of homicides in states where the death penalty is active. However, when looking at the statistics, between the years 1990 and 2009 the homicide rate was an average of 31.4% lower in states without the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center). This suggests the opposite of deterrence. Not to mention eighty eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide (Daily Camera). How is the general public supposed to believe it **capital punishment? If you say so instead of “it” this sentence will be stronger.** deters murder when those who are experts in the matter cannot conceive it? Others claim the death penalty must be a deterrent because many refrain from committing crimes in fear of the consequences. From a young age we are taught to think of the consequences before we act. However, human emotion can be a powerful force in certain situations. People do not realize that most crimes are crimes of passion. This is when a person commits a crime in the heat of a moment without premeditation (Legal Dictionary). Emotions shadow the judgment and it can lead to murder through anger or heartbreak. Capital punishment cannot survive as a successful deterrent if people do not deem death as a possible outcome of their actions. This does not make the person any less guilty, it just illustrates that the death penalty does not act as a successful deterrent in those situations. In the case of premeditated murder, if the death penalty did deter planned murders, then why do they still happen? **Do you have access to a statistic that shows the % of crimes of passion criminals v. pre-determined crime criminals on death row? That statistic might make your argument stronger.** Supporters of the death penalty often argue that putting someone to death is less expensive to taxpayers than putting them in prison; however, this is a common misconception. Capital punishment actually costs 2-5 times more than sentenced life in prison (Messerli). All of the expense comes from the cost of countless appeals and additional legal procedures, which is covered by the taxpayers. A person can be on death row for up to 20 years before execution, which amounts to excruciating bills by the time they receive their “punishment” (Death Penalty Information Center). This makes life in prison the more economic choice. If the death penalty doesn’t serve as a deterrent or a quick money saver then the only purpose it provides is based on raw human emotions. Capital punishment acts as an outlet for grieving loved ones to get revenge on the person who tore their life apart. **But if a judge determines the crime, is this really so? What if the victim’s family is against the death penalty? Also, you may want to clarify if you’re only talking about murderers on death row sometime earlier in your paper.** However, this society **which society? American?** doesn’t need revenge, it needs justice; in a way capital punishment is a crime of passion that has been premeditated and makes those involved **the judge? jury? victim’s family? actual executioners?** no better than the person being executed. Who is to decide if the death penalty is even humane if the only ones who can test it die? All of these factors bring the morality of capital punishment into intense inquisition. The fact that people justify capital punishment is less than satisfactory. After some reflection, the idea of execution for murder is morally unstable and not logically sound. Depending on individual beliefs, to some, the death penalty is viewed as the easy way out, while others believe it is the ultimate punishment. If we cannot come to an agreement on capital punishment, then it hardly seems like the moral decision. As equals with individual beliefs, we are not meant to judge each other or decide justice **this contradicts your earlier statement “**this society doesn’t need revenge, it needs justice;**”** —in this case fate—for another human being. This must be decided by forces greater than us. **How do you justify needing justice, as you say earlier, with not wanting peer justice, if you recognize everyone has individual beliefs and might not believe in “forces greater than us”?** As for capital punishment being a deterrent to crime, we shouldn’t have to kill people to stop murder. As demonstrated by the child-parent example, this logic is immoral. Ideally, people should be deterred by personal morality or consequences decided by a higher power, not a judge and a group of “peers”. However, what is ideal is not always what is right for particular cultures; there must be a form of justice implemented to obtain balance. **Ok, so you recognize the flaws in an “ideal world” that’s good, but you should extend the argument to say something about how since we can’t justify “an eye for an eye” justice and if we believe killing people is wrong (hence why people are on death row in the first place) then we shouldn’t support capital punishment. You need to bring it all together again.** The deterrence of crime is not a justification for murder. With statistics showing lower homicide rates in states without the death penalty, arguments fall flat. Morality and crimes of passion are overlooked in the quest to justify capital punishment. Not to mention, it is more cost-effective to put someone in prison for life. Killing people does not justify killing people and there should be no excuses as to why the death penalty continues in our country. With every life we drag through death row and execution, we take a step back in evolution, towards barbaric awareness and standards.

**Ashlin,** **This paper has come a long way since your first draft. Just a few things you might want to address before turning in your final paper to Ms. Lang:** **~ Note early on in the paper that the crimes people sit on death row for are murder (or that they are the ones you are talking about in this paper).** **~ Consider if capital punishment really serves as revenge for victim's families if they aren’t deciding the verdict, or administering the punishment.** **~ At the end of the morality paragraph it is unclear why capital punishment is immoral. Restate your previous arguments to make it stronger ( **we can’t justify “an eye for an eye” justice and if we believe killing people is wrong (hence why people are on death row in the first place) then we shouldn’t support capital punishment** ).** **Thanks for all your hard work this semester, I hope my feedback has been helpful.** **Sincerely,** **Brittany** <span style="font: 13.0px Calibri; line-height: 32.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"> Works Cited

"CU study: Death penalty doesn't deter murder." Daily Camera (Boulder, CO) 16 June 2009: Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 5 Jan. 2011. "Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." //Death Penalty Information Center//. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. < [|__http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates__] >.

Hill, Gerrald N., and Kathleen T. Hill. "Crime of Passion." //Legal Dictionary//. Web. 5 Apr. 2011. < [|__http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime+of+passion__] >.

<span style="font: 12.0px Calibri; line-height: 32.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"> Messerli, Joe. "BalancedPolitics.org - Death Penalty (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)." //BalancedPolitics.org - Free Balanced, Non-Partisan Discussion of Political & Social Issues for Debate (Pros and Cons - Decision Making Politics)//. 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. [|__http://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm__].


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">REFLECTION #3 ****<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.25.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **