YENI PURTIKA 081222210028 C’08 EDU REG WRITING III
Death Penalty for Corruptors
In our beloved country, Indonesia, corruption has become one of the continuous problems which never end through generations. It seems that corruption has become a sweet culture for high officials. The issue to sentence a death penalty to a guilty corruptor has risen to the surface because the Indonesian law dealing with corruption is very weak as many corruptors can easily escape to overseas or only get a short time period in prison. Some think that this is against human right, right, but some believe believe the corruptors deserve to get the death penalty. There are two main reasons why people disagree to sentence death penalty to the corruptors. First, whatever the criminal case is, death penalty is against the human right to live. Giving the death penalty to the corruptors signs basic human rights infraction. infraction. Second, giving death penalty to the corruptors can not contribute any economic improvement to the condition of the society but only to give satisfaction to people to watch the corruptors dying. The death of the corruptors will not return the money that has been corrupted. On the other hand , there are also two strong arguments against this point of view. First, Indonesia should provide a strong and fair verdict against corruption. The society has become tired to find and witness that the corruptors who have corrupted billions just only get two year period in prison while a thief who get caught stealing chicken get five years sentence. Second, to solve and stop officials from corrupting people’s money is only by giving a death penalty. This will give wary effect to the officials not to do corruptions anymore. In conclusion, giving a death penalty to the corruptors, certainly , is an action against human right. However , the government should publish the verdict fairly to every criminal cases of corruption whether it is big or small amount of money. It is better that the corruptors who are guilty are sentenced a lifetime punishment and should return the money that has been corrupted.
Notes: Bold Unde Underl rlin ined ed (Pa (Parag ragrap raph h 1) Unde Underl rlin ined ed (Para (Paragr grap aph h 2) 2) Font in Arial Grey Bold and Underlined Italicized
: Thesis Statement : Arg Argum umen ents ts aga again inst st the the deat death h pen penal alty ty : Arg Argum umen ents ts for for the the deat death h pen penal alty ty : Connectors : Modalities : Thinking verb : Adverb of Manner
Statements of Issue
Contrastive points to death penalty for corruptors
Supporting points to death penalty for corruptors
Conclusion & Recommendation
YENI PURTIKA 081222210028 C’08 EDU REG WRITING III
Death Penalty for Corruptors In our beloved country, Indonesia, corruption has become one of the continuous problems which never ends through generations. It seems that corruption has become a sweet culture for high officials. The issue to sentence a death penalty to a guilty corruptor has risen to the surface because the Indonesian law dealing with corruption is very weak as many corruptors can easily escape to overseas or only get a short time period in prison. Some think that this is against human right, but some believe the corruptors deserve to get the death penalty. There are two main reasons why people disagree to sentence death penalty to the corruptors. First, whatever the criminal case is, death penalty is against the human right to live. Giving the death penalty to the corruptors signs basic human rights infraction. Second, giving death penalty to the corruptors can not contribute any economic improvement to the condition of the society but only to give satisfaction to people to watch the corruptors dying. The death of the corruptors will not return the money that has been corrupted. On the other hand, there are also two strong arguments against this point of view. First, Indonesia should provide a strong and fair verdict against corruption. The society has become tired to find and witness that the corruptors who have corrupted billions just only get two year period in prison while a thief who get caught stealing chicken get five years sentence. Second, to solve and stop officials from corrupting people’s money is only by giving a death penalty. This will give wary effect to the officials not to do corruptions anymore. In conclusion, giving a death penalty to the corruptors, certainly, is an action against human right. However, we have to think about the people who have become the victims of corruption. Since corruption can not be vanished, society needs the definite move from the government, so the society trusts that the government has run a clean and transparent administration. Of course before sentence a corruptor, there are several perspectives. First is the quality of corruption. How much numbers are corrupted and we have to see whether the person is a serial corruptor. Second, the perspective that should be assessed is the perpetrator’s responsibility whether it is a strategic or not. The last perspective is whether he is the main perpetrator and committed to do corruption. If those points are confirmed, in my opinion, the death penalty may become the main option.
YENI PURTIKA 081222210028 C’08 EDU REG WRITING III
Euthanasia, Human Rights to Live or Die Euthanasia is the killing process of a person who is seriously ill and purposed to end the unbearable pain. Some people agree that a person who has no hope of recovery has the right to die, but some people think that it will be immoral to force people to continue living with full of pain. There are two main reasons why some people agree in euthanasia. First, an ill person has the right to decide how and when to end their life. Society should allow people to die painlessly with a dignity. Second, the sick person also has responsibility with the family. The family members who are burdened by the cost of life support have life too. If the person has been sick for years and has already committed to do euthanasia, the euthanasia may be the main solution to do the problem. In contrast , some people who strongly disagree with euthanasia have three strong arguments. First, euthanasia is against the will of God. To end someone’s life deliberately whatever the reason is and even if the person personally asks us to do that is still a murder. A person will die by his time not because of someone’s hand. Furthermore , life is a gift from God so it is God’s decision when someone has to die. Second, there are many possibilities that euthanasia will be abused. Allowing euthanasia may make the doctors discourage to search the new treatment or medication for the patient. In addition, euthanasia can lower the commitment of the doctors and nurses to save patient lives. Third, the person who commits to do euthanasia may get many influences as he thinks about his family being burdened by the cost. Also, in our beloved country, there are many cases of malpractices by the doctors so the verdict of the patient life will not remain any longer might be a wrong diagnose. To conclude, an ill person has right to die but life is certainly sacred and precious for everyone. There are many other ways to help the patient, for example the using of media. Nowadays, there are several television stations which present the care-to-others programs. If the family can not afford the cost, they can record the condition of the patient and ask the media to publish it. So people who have enough money can donate the patients for operations or fund for life supports.
Notes: Bold Underlined (Paragraph 1) Underlined (Paragraph 2) Font in Arial Grey Bold and Underlined Italicized
: Thesis Statement : Arguments against the death penalty : Arguments for the death penalty : Connectors : Modalities : Thinking verb : Adverb of Manner
Statements of Issue
Supporting points for euthanasia
Arguments points against euthanasia
Conclusion & Recommendation
