capital punishment的文章请各位高手帮我写篇文章,capital punishment,我是支持死刑的,我觉得最有说服力的就是严刑骏法抑制犯罪.600字英文就行.复制的,硬生生用软件翻译的就别发了,浪费你时间,我

capital punishment的文章请各位高手帮我写篇文章,capital punishment,我是支持死刑的,我觉得最有说服力的就是严刑骏法抑制犯罪.600字英文就行.复制的,硬生生用软件翻译的就别发了,浪费你时间,我
capital punishment的文章
请各位高手帮我写篇文章,capital punishment,我是支持死刑的,我觉得最有说服力的就是严刑骏法抑制犯罪.
600字英文就行.
复制的,硬生生用软件翻译的就别发了,浪费你时间,我还是有英语功底的,我认的出来.
一楼的朋友，字数不够。
我需要五六百字哈

capital punishment的文章请各位高手帮我写篇文章,capital punishment,我是支持死刑的,我觉得最有说服力的就是严刑骏法抑制犯罪.600字英文就行.复制的,硬生生用软件翻译的就别发了,浪费你时间,我
Hi, Dear friend.
You will find a lot of articles regarding capital punishment in the hyperlink I give u below.
The following is an example.
Capital punishment: where the world stands
UN Chronicle, Dec, 2004 by Bree Polk-Bauman
Many cultures throughout the ages have used capital punishment for grave offences, ranging from theft to murder. But today, only 78 countries and territories have retained the right to use the death penalty.
In 2003, according to Amnesty International (also see page 22), speaking to the UN Commission on Human Rights, 28 of those States executed 1,146 prisoners and some 2,756 persons were sentenced to death in 64 countries, and the true numbers were likely higher.
The first attempt by the international community at abolishing the death penalty, or simply minimizing its use, was in 1948 with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It defines in detail the rights and freedoms of individuals, whereas the UN Charter had discussed human rights only in general terms. The United Nations was created after the Second World War to prevent unnecessary death, according to its Charter, while the Universal Declaration further clarifies that goal in its article 3, stating that "everyone has the right to life".
A Declaration is a non-binding treaty, but a Convention or a Covenant is a legal instrument. Since the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December 1948, 118 Member States have abolished the death penalty either in law or in practice, and many are encouraging others to do the same. Soon after, some States feared that despite its moral force, not many countries would follow its defined regulations. For that reason, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted in 1966, entered into force ten years later, and now has 152 ratifications. It strongly encourages UN Member States to abolish the death penalty, but allows that the "sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes" (Article 6, Section 2). It also created a monitoring body--the Human Rights Committee--as a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Covenant.
In 1989, the General Assembly adopted a Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, which entered into force in 1991. It was created because many States Parties believe that "abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights" (Preamble). It allows for the use of the death penalty only during wartime and within justifiable reason (Article 2, Section 1), and requires States Parties to submit reports to the Human Rights Committee on "measures that they have adopted to give effect to the present Protocol" (Article 3). Persons below the age of 18 who have committed a crime, known as child offenders, are exempt from capital punishment (Article 37) under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entered into force within a year of its adoption in 1989. Ratified by 192 countries, the Convention is "the most universally accepted human rights instrument in history". However, two countries have yet to sign it--Somalia and the United States.
In addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol, as well as the Rights of the Child Convention, there are over fifty resolutions abolishing the death penalty, which were adopted by the UN General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Commission on Human Rights. European States are some of the strongest forces within the United Nations in the international effort to abolish the death penalty. The European Parliament has declared that it "considers capital punishment an inhuman, medieval form of punishment and unworthy of modern societies". The European Convention--signed by 18 States and ratified by another 24--entered into force in July 2003. It is the first international treaty to ban the death penalty in all cases, and the abolition of the death penalty is a requirement for countries seeking the European Union's membership.
Despite international efforts to restrict the death penalty, capital punishment is still being applied to child offenders, although clearly banned under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since 1990, eight countries have executed 36 child offenders. China, Pakistan and Yemen have raised to 18 years the minimum age for the application of the death penalty, and Iran is in the process of doing the same. However, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and the United States have not outlawed such execution. Since 1990, over half of known executions of child offenders (19 of the 36) have taken place in the United States. In July 2004, former Presidents Jimmy Carter of the United States and Mikhail Gorbachev of the Russian Federation, along with several Nobel Peace laureates, lobbied outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C. in an effort to end the execution of child offenders.
The Commission on Human Rights appointed a Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, whose mandate, among others, is to look into independent cases of capital punishment throughout the world and try to prevent new ones. Current Special Rapporteur Asma Jahangir strongly encouraged international organizations and other pertinent actors to support initiatives aimed at raising awareness of UN human rights mandates and programme. She stressed that "human rights can best be respected in a culture of democracy, and no democratic process is sustainable without the support of an independent legal and judicial system".

额.看着这么多分我也眼谗了..可我没那个水平.另外我对楼主这句"我还是有英语功底的"感到非常不爽..貌似你有功底在这让别人帮你写了?貌似我也可以给你200分.让你给我写写?

My Idea about capital punishment
In the modern global community, the ideas of liberalism and democracy are widely accepted. People embrace freedom to an extent that has never been achieved throug...

全部展开

My Idea about capital punishment
In the modern global community, the ideas of liberalism and democracy are widely accepted. People embrace freedom to an extent that has never been achieved throughout history. However, some countries go a little bit too far. The abolishment of capital punishment is just one example. These counties argue that no authority is entitled to deprive individuals of their right to live. Even those who commit felonies such as murder, rape and arson should be put in prison rather than on a guillotine. They believe their practice embodies humanism which goes well beyond the tit-for-tat juridical tradition that is passed down for generations. In my mind, however, death penalty should not be abolished, as long as there is a possibility of grave crimes in the world.
In the Chinese language, there is a proverb that goes like this: A merciful angel frightens no devil.The capital punishment is the last weapon that awes potential criminals. If there were no nuclear bombs, would China have felt at least apparently at ease at the militaristic menace posed by the USSR in early 1960s? Perhaps this is not an appropriate analogue, but China is a country which holds one fourths of the world population. Now our country is still not safe enough partly due to lack of policing. If the penalties are loosen, China will be in a mess, with so acute confrontational sentiments between the rich and poor and so uneven distribution of properties. Not only won’t our goals of a better-off society be achieved, but stability, our basis of national development will also be threatened.
I will have to mention the case of Singapore as well. We all know that a year ago an young Australian was executed there for carrying drugs. Singapore was thus widely criticized for its despotism by European and Australian presses. Given that the independence of justice of one nation should be respected if it does not defy international laws, we must know that Singapore is a key port. If the law is not strict enough, will this tiny country enjoy its peace and stability as we constantly admire?
You may say that both China and Singapore are oriental countries whose rulers are descendants of thousand-year-long feudal monarchies. We just shift our focus to the most liberal country, the United States. Do Americans say goodbye to death penalty? We safely come to a conclusion that it death penalty is not a case of tradition, but an earthy need indeed.
You may also argue that despite the abolishment of capital punishment the EU is still well-organized with no significant rise in crime rate. That is correct. I never deny that EU is safer than the US and China. But I would like to remind you of Milocevic’s death in Hague. Yes, even if he is convicted won’t he be killed at once, but he was left in a small room with no access to basic medical care. He died of heart attack. What a good death. The Europeans remove a pain in the ass without using a knife. Europeans treasure human rights. They tried Milocevic for his genocide of Croats. But note the Rwanda genocide.Which Tony Blair or Jacque Chirac grieved for the victims of Rwanda genocide? Where was the EU then? I find sheer dual standards. I find typical hypocrisy.
To accomplish humanity we have too many things to do, except the consideration of the abolishment of death penalty. Perhaps this is done one day in the future when China is more democratic and liberal. But now, we must stick to death penalty for the good of the majority of the citizens, not of the criminals.
里面如果有语法错误，单词拼写错误请见谅

收起

'The death penalty is justified because it - and it alone - pays proper respect to the importance of human life.' What is your view on this? (JC2 CT1 2002)
Much has often been said about the sanct...

全部展开

'The death penalty is justified because it - and it alone - pays proper respect to the importance of human life.' What is your view on this? (JC2 CT1 2002)
Much has often been said about the sanctity of human life. The gift of life is a privilege bestowed upon us. Even though each life may tread different roads, encounter different experiences, there is one fact that binds all lives together - we only live once.
The quality of life, however, is a variable factor that is sometimes beyond our mortal means of control. It is undeniable, though, that everyone is entitled to an equal shot at the myriad of chances life presents to us. Out of this whole concept of the sanctity and sacredness of life arises the debate on capital punishment, or the death penalty.
There are those who despise the death penalty for its apparent cruelty and the finality that it implies, and yet others who look upon it as the ideal and only way to pay proper respect to the importance of human life. But the pertinent issue that we must examine here today is whether the death penalty is truly justified in its execution and also if it is the only, and ultimately, the most suitable means of paying homage to the value of human life.
Today, approximately ninety countries around the world still retain the death penalty. This includes China, Islamic countries, Singapore, as well as thirty seven states of the United States. The controversy surrounding this form of criminal punishment has never faltered over the years, however, as people call into question the humanity of terminating a criminal's life.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." It is on this basis that many anti-death penalty activists argue their case, by claiming that the government flagrantly disregards the sanctity of human life by disallowing the criminals their right to live. Then there are those who claim that the death penalty is hypocritical because while it sends out a message that murder is a crime that should be condemned, the government is doing precisely what it condemns by murdering the criminal. Yet others bring out the seeming futility of executing criminals; they preach peace and forgiveness, and despise the death penalty for its seeming emphasis on vengeance.
Surely these are valid arguments. And clearly they have their own logic. However it is my own personal belief that the death penalty is justified not only in its punishment of criminals, but also as the most respectable way to uphold the sanctity of human life. It must be understood that the death penalty is only meted out in cases which involve murder. When a criminal goes so far as to commit the crime of murder, he is obviously exhibiting his disregard for the victim's right to life. Human rights are a contract deal. Freedoms of individuals should, theoretically, be respected and unhindered but it cannot, and must not, infringe on another's rights. If one takes away the right to life of another person (as murder clearly does), at that moment he himself has already forfeited his right to life.
Instead let us examine how the death penalty serves to protect the people, and why in the administration of the death penalty, it is not hypocritical. There are the four tenets of justice - retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. Out of the above four, the death penalty clearly satisfies three, with only the exception of rehabilitation. And this is only so because the criminal in question here does not even deserve a chance at rehabilitation because of the gross nature of his crime. To examine the relation between the death penalty and the respect for human life, let us assume that the criminal is truly guilty of his offense, thus eliminating much of the debate about the sentencing innocents to the death row. In any case, it must be remembered that there are at least 28 mandatory procedures that the criminal goes through before reaching the death sentence, and as such the likelihood of sentencing the wrong person to death is very low. It is possible, but nonetheless very rare.
Firstly, the death penalty pays proper respect to the importance of the life of the victim. While others may dismiss this as vengeance and that killing the perpetrator of the crime will in no way bring back or even compensate the loss of an innocent, the view from the other side of the coin may be such that this act of retribution will not only bring consolation to the victim's family that justice has been done, but also act as an effective deterrent to potentially dangerous characters in society such that they think twice before committing such a hideous crime. It is even in the Bible that retribution is one of the most effective means of punishment. Exodus 21/23 says "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." How, and why should one give so much concern and respect for a murderer and pardon him from the death row when he himself could not pardon his victim from death?
The death penalty also pays respect to the murderer's life. How so, one may ask, could it be that we are respecting the murderer's life when one is forcibly taking it away cruelly? It is presumed that the murderer in question is guilty in this case to have reached the level of being passed the death sentence. As such, punishment must be meted out. If not the death sentence, he will surely be passed lifetime imprisonment with hard labour, without parole. While it has been frequently debated what kind of mercy this is in comparison to death, what kind of life then does it leave the murderer? To live each day with the knowledge of his crime and guilt eating at him? How much more mercy is it, to jail him in a living tomb, to waste the rest of his life away in monotonous toil, without the small pleasures of life others are entitled to enjoy, depriving him and making him suffer? Is it not comparable to being one of the living dead? If accorded the death penalty, his torture and pain would over in a few minutes, and his death would be a rapid one. John Stuart Mills too said the death penalty was "the least cruel mode in which it is possible adequately to deter from the crime… in our horror in inflicting death, we devise some punishment… with a deterrent force comparable to death… this is far more cruel in reality."
Lastly, the death penalty accords due respect to the rest of society. The death penalty puts away criminals for good, most of them hard-core and repeat offenders, and thus protects society from these undesirable characters. Ultimately, it is one of the best ways to respect the safety and liberty of the people by allowing them to roam the streets without fear in their hearts for their lives and safety. Besides the obvious incapacitated state of the convicted, the deterrence effect of the death penalty is also far from negligible. Numerous studies in the United States (like Utah from 1976 to 1988) showed a noticeable drop in murder rates in the months directly following any execution. The death penalty helps to keep the streets, and innocents, safe.
The debate on the death penalty will never go away. It is my belief, however, that it is justified because it alone pays proper respect to the importance of human life. It respects the human life of the victim, the life of the convicted, as well as those of the innocents. The game of life must be played, and those who flout the rules and cheat by killing off other players must pay the price, however expensive. This price is death.

收起

capital punishment
I feel that capital punishment is necessary despite human rights organisations protesting against it due to humanity issues. Although a person can be wrongly executed, this for...

全部展开

capital punishment
I feel that capital punishment is necessary despite human rights organisations protesting against it due to humanity issues. Although a person can be wrongly executed, this form of punishment is still important in maintaining a safe society and possibly decreasing crime rates.
Criminals nowadays have no sense of right and wrong so they do not care about their actions and the consequences, if they do not care then why should others care about them? Most of them have issues and serious problems so they have no contribution to the society at all, what is the point in keeping these people alive if all they are capable of is doing damage?

Some people might argue that this is no way to treat anyone even if that person is a criminal. But we are talking about mass murderes here, they take away other people's lives, they take away other people's right to live. Do the victims not equally have rights? These hard criminals bring anguish to families, they should not get off lightly and before we talk about human rights, we should think about moral issues first, that is nobody has the right to take away anyone's life. So they should pay with a heavy price.

收起