Question: Do you think that people from certain ethnic backgrounds should be given greater access to education? Food, water and shelter are basic needs for a human. We need them to keep ourselves alive. However, nowadays, there is also a need for education to make sure we can survive on this earth. People need education to become knowledgeable. With knowledge, we will able to work for our basic needs. As education is essential to everyone, should people from certain ethic backgrounds be given greater access to education than the others? In my opinion, everyone should be given an equal chance to access education, as everyone possesses equal human rights. Discrimination should not be practiced. Everyone has the right to obtain education and there should not be an unfair distribution of education. In addition, giving people from certain ethnic backgrounds greater access to education will results in wider income gaps between ethnic groups. For ethnic groups that attain better access to education, they are more knowledgeable than ethnic groups that do not have the advantage to access to better quality of education. With more knowledge, they will able to acquire better jobs with higher salaries. Their income will be greater than the others. Besides, a country that gives all its ethnic groups even access to education will have a better image in others countries. When all the ethnic groups get equal access to education, the country will be more civilized as all of its civilians are educated well. Hence this will portray a model country whereby; different ethnics groups are able to excel despite their differences. In conclusion, everyone has equal rights. Therefore, there should not be discrimination of ethnic groups where only certain ethnic groups are given greater access to education. Governments should provide education to all their citizens to decrease the illiteracy rate in their countries and hence improve the living standards of their countries.
Question : Do you agree with the death penalty? For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it isn’t effective in reducing crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people. The worst thing about it. Errors: The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, the state of Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in Willingham’s case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict. Keeping killers off the streets for good: Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages: - An innocent person serving life can be released from prison - Life without parole costs less than the death penalty Costs, a surprise to many people: Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. Since the stakes are so high, the process is far more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death. Crime reduction (deterrence): The death penalty doesn't keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document