Topic: A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor.
Crime is a wrong thing. And a crime done intentionally is even worse mainly because the person knows the deed he will be committing is wrong and yet he does so. A person who intentionally commits a crime definitely breaks the social contract and social protocol and should pay for his deeds. He should be punished for whatever he has done to go against the regular syntax of the society and should not be able to retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or own labor. Therefore it will not be wrong to agree with the given statement.
As citizens of a country, we follow a certain societal norm and protocol set up by the government. Law and order are the checks put on such protocols and when a person breaks these protocols and goes against them, he commits a crime. In most of the cases, the crime is intentionally committed, knowing that the action taken is against the society's set rules and protocol. Every citizen abides by these rules and this is what makes a country disciplined and civilized. The higher the crime rate, the more dangerous and abominable the place becomes. A place with a high frequency of crime can never flourish and it's citizen can never find themselves safe or be at ease. Therefore a person who intentionally commits a crime, cannot be granted a chance to feel safe. For an instance, consider the case of the famous leaders of India, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawarharlal Nehru. The leaders went on strikes and freedom struggles to get independence, and as per morality, there was nothing wrong in fighting for one's freedom. However, the national leaders did go against the law and declared war, where there was a massive loss of life and property to win the freedom struggle and this in turn caused the leaders to be severly punished by the British government. The were kept in prison for days and worked like slaves till the point of getting tortured to death. This was extreme punishment but at the end of the story, the government had to follow the rules set in law.
Another such instance in the case of breaking speed limits in country of Tokyo. When a person crosses the speed threshold, the driver is charged with a heavy fine and might even be jailed for a certain period for breaking the speed limits. Driving a vehicle beyond the set limits, is considered a crime in Tokyo, as this might cause a loss of life as well propertyboth which are important aspects in life. Money cannot buy life. Hence the people in Tokyo follow very strict traffic rules. The person once jailed, does not hold any civil rights to benefit from his or her own labor and hence is bound to pay for the crime he committed. this in return, teahes the driver a lesson and makes sure that this doesn't happen again. This in turn contributes to driving within speed limits and also imbibes a feeling of responsibility and awareness among the drivers henceforth.
Therefore, in conclusion, it can be said that, it is not right to forgive a person who intentionally commits a crime, because the repercussions of this crime an be severe and can have immense effects affecting others as well. Such people should be punished well, even to the extent that the person who commits the crime intentionally is considered to break the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor.
Crime is a wrong thing. And a crime done intentionally is even worse mainly because the person knows the deed he will be committing is wrong and yet he does so. A person who intentionally commits a crime definitely breaks the social contract and social protocol and should pay for his deeds. He should be punished for whatever he has done to go against the regular syntax of the society and should not be able to retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or own labor. Therefore it will not be wrong to agree with the given statement.
As citizens of a country, we follow a certain societal norm and protocol set up by the government. Law and order are the checks put on such protocols and when a person breaks these protocols and goes against them, he commits a crime. In most of the cases, the crime is intentionally committed, knowing that the action taken is against the society's set rules and protocol. Every citizen abides by these rules and this is what makes a country disciplined and civilized. The higher the crime rate, the more dangerous and abominable the place becomes. A place with a high frequency of crime can never flourish and it's citizen can never find themselves safe or be at ease. Therefore a person who intentionally commits a crime, cannot be granted a chance to feel safe. For an instance, consider the case of the famous leaders of India, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawarharlal Nehru. The leaders went on strikes and freedom struggles to get independence, and as per morality, there was nothing wrong in fighting for one's freedom. However, the national leaders did go against the law and declared war, where there was a massive loss of life and property to win the freedom struggle and this in turn caused the leaders to be severly punished by the British government. The were kept in prison for days and worked like slaves till the point of getting tortured to death. This was extreme punishment but at the end of the story, the government had to follow the rules set in law.
Another such instance in the case of breaking speed limits in country of Tokyo. When a person crosses the speed threshold, the driver is charged with a heavy fine and might even be jailed for a certain period for breaking the speed limits. Driving a vehicle beyond the set limits, is considered a crime in Tokyo, as this might cause a loss of life as well propertyboth which are important aspects in life. Money cannot buy life. Hence the people in Tokyo follow very strict traffic rules. The person once jailed, does not hold any civil rights to benefit from his or her own labor and hence is bound to pay for the crime he committed. this in return, teahes the driver a lesson and makes sure that this doesn't happen again. This in turn contributes to driving within speed limits and also imbibes a feeling of responsibility and awareness among the drivers henceforth.
Therefore, in conclusion, it can be said that, it is not right to forgive a person who intentionally commits a crime, because the repercussions of this crime an be severe and can have immense effects affecting others as well. Such people should be punished well, even to the extent that the person who commits the crime intentionally is considered to break the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor.
No comments:
Post a Comment