William Vega English Comp I October 3, 2013 Ban Texting While Driving In the recent days there been quite an uprising in the debate over banning texting while driving. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat in the House of Representatives, argues that that there should a ban because the dangers that texting while driving brings. In my personal opinion is that there should be a law that bans texting messaging while driving because of all the risks and dangers that involves in it. After reading Carolyn McCarthy’s article, “Should Text Messaging While Driving Be Banned? YES.” I even feel more confident in my opinion that there should be a law that bans texting while driving.
I don’t approve of the killings but it does make sense. Watching a lot of crime solving shows, I know that murderers have pretty bad back-stories such as people or parents abandoning them, which is like the monster. I honestly think he should be blamed for them but instead of being put in jail, he should be given help that he needs. I feel as if the monster didn’t know what he was capable of and he was just trying to get Victor’s attention. I do believe Victor got what was coming to him.
I think that the idea that he does not deserve his reputation is solely for argument, because some people love the feeling of making other people angry. So Alexander made some mistakes and maybe he killed people, just because he had the authority, but no one is perfect and you can’t argue that he does not deserve this title because he made these mistakes. Every human person has made mistakes because no one human has any faults in their history. If you look at other great leaders, they all had a weakness and eventually led to their downfall, but just because they had weaknesses does not mean that they should not be honored for their accomplishments. I think that ‘defaming’ Alexander the Great does not prove the ‘no’ side in any way, because he did many things to help his empire and even though he was the cause of many deaths to the native people of their homelands, he did what he thought was best for his people.
As a rational criminal, if I were to decide to shoplift, and knowing that the decision to commit a specific crime is a matter of personal choice, I would feel like I would let a lot of my family members down by making this choice to commit a crime. I feel like the thought of having to face friends and family would be worst then receiving punishment from the legal system. The concept of general deterrence would also make it hard for me to know that with crime the punishment could be severe and to have to live without my children for any period of time would way on my concisions’. Understanding the choice theory states that: all we do is behave, that almost all behavior is chosen, and that we are driven by our genes to satisfy five basic needs: survival, love and belonging, power, freedom and fun
He should just withdraw from the case because it’s not ethical to defend someone who is guilty. But if the answer is so obvious, why are there some lawyers out there who defend guilty clients? The majority of them do it because they feel sympathy for their client. An attorney’s job isn’t just to prove the innocence of his client. His job is also to defend.
The public is hard.” From that it can be seen that the public is bias towards the circumstances of the supposed victim and wants the accused punished without any regard to their situation. When it comes to a crime the community wants to be put at ease. They want someone convicted and justice to be served as soon as possible. However, what happens in the case of an innocent person being wrongly accused? This is called a ‘miscarriage of justice’.
Second, it will assist to the understanding and demands of relativism. These are key terms of analysis prior to guiding an individual to the true meaning of ethical relativism. Finally, it will consider the disadvantages and advantages of this philosophical view while emphasizing different points of view of philosophical key leaders. Ethics: Ethical Relativism At first glance, for the unknowledgeable individual, Ethical relativism may sound intriguing, but there is more beyond the external perspective of this philosophical view. In a perfect world, one hopes to experience a well thought-out philosophical view.
In the assertion ‘all people are good, but it’s the external forces of society that make a man evil’ I immediately think of the ‘Ballad of Joe Meek’. Joe Meek was generally a ‘good’ person before his encounter with the police officers. He had good intentions by telling the police officers they were wrong for putting their hands on the young woman, but the blatant disrespect the police officers showed him changed his outlook. The actions taken by the police officers stand as the external forces or catalysts for Joe Meek’s violent rampage. Back in our ‘Rise of Man’ unit, many people in the class agreed that the quality that makes man is the ability to be shaped by our experiences.
Many employers do not give convicted felons an opportunity to prove that they are reformed after paying their debt to society. Fear from harm by someone is also a social control. Depending on the severity of the crime, many victims of crimes and sometimes their loved ones seek revenge for the wrong that has happened to them or their loved one. Crimes that are of extreme nature such as murder, assault, and sexual based crimes often leave victims and their families wanted to punish the perpetrator to the maximum. Sometimes many feel that the sentence issued by the law was not enough and it is their responsibility to make the perpetrator pay for doing their family wrong.
The negative consequence of imprisonment have been exaggerated with the amount of drama and fights that happen in there and majority of the fights that happen in jail are far more violent and dangerous then it is outside of jail. Those that get sent to prison of minor reasons end up dead or get bashed to the inch of their lives because consequences have been exaggerated. Although imprisonment is a great way to punish the criminals that keep reoffending the same crimes a lesson and it is also good so that it is easier to protect the community if there aren’t any psychological people out there. But in saying that, as people of the community we agree but we also disagree to the negative consequences of imprisonment have been exaggerated. Imagine yourself in a cell with the most wanted killer in America and you only went in for stealing a candy bar, do you think that’s fair?