A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the rights to benefit from his or her own labor
Crime refers to a deviation from the norms or standards set by societies. These norms are what keep societies in cohesion in the form of a social contract. That is, there is agreement on what should be the corollary that results from errant behavior. However, when individuals knowingly commit crimes that are expected to break this social cohesion, I disagree that such individuals should be stripped of their civil rights and even extremely, depriving them of benefiting from their labor.
Since time immemorial, the contracts that bind societies together clearly do so on the collective agreement on what should be and should not. While this is expected to be the case, the reason why deterrents exist is to ensure that errants are not allowed stray from course. But in doing so and correcting such behavior, commensurate punishments are what engenders egalitarian societies. What is expected is a grand level of definition of what crimes could result in such egregious punishments. Should the decision to strip people of civil rights and hindering benefits from labor be hinged on the intent to commit such crimes or the enormity when they do so? These are important contentions that need to be perused before meting out punishments as stated by the claim.
Conversely, one might disagree and argue that the cohesion can only be maintained if people are well-bound to social contracts. That is, the need to commit a crime should not outweigh abiding by social contracts and that cohesion is far important. However, the lacuna in such an argument is to be fixated on the letters of the law, in contrast to, should the need arises, the spirit of the law. How do we explain meting out punishment as in the claim of the issue essay, to a driver that knowingly violates speed limits and disobeys traffic rules when he carries a patient that needs medical attention and is gasping for life? Or how it can be that when people are faced with dilemmas and making a moral decision drives them to knowingly commit a crime?
Conclusively, when people knowingly commit crimes that are at the heart of social contracts, what is expected is a whole-scale assessment of the situation rather than stripping them of what makes them a member of the society. In doing so, it is easier to uphold cohesion rather than dishing out stifler punishments that might not prove anything in the course of future and present events.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-07-26 | parth tank | 50 | view |
| 2020-05-28 | Hameed-97 | 79 | view |
| 2019-10-07 | man_si_jain | 50 | view |
- The powerful are most respected not when they exercise their power but when they refrain from exercising it 50
- The first step to self knowledge is rejection of the familiar 66
- The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine Manned space flight is costly and dangerous Moreover the recent successes of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great dea 77
- A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio We need to increase the funding for the movie working title by 10 in order to ensure a quality product As you know we are working with a First time director whose only previous exper 58
- The following argument was made in a newspaper editorial The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders if the number of illegal immigrants entering Country cannot be checked both it s economy and national indentity are endangered Bec 72
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, however, if, so, well, while, in contrast, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.3162921348 177% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2007.0 2235.4752809 90% => OK
No of words: 408.0 442.535393258 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91911764706 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65778396409 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 215.323595506 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.487745098039 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 612.0 704.065955056 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.674115813 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.058823529 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.35294117647 5.21951772744 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.231387680371 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0796034682568 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0832354621162 0.0758088955206 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154553983737 0.150359130593 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0784501829392 0.0667264976115 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.8420337079 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 100.480337079 100% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.