Another extremely surprising statistic is a rape occurs every seven minutes in the
United states…This adds up to over one million rapes a year, from article 15*. I think
what makes rape an even worse crime is the amount of times it goes unreported. The
victim usually feels really guilty and dirty. Sometimes the victim blames herself or
thinks that because she is on a date, she has somehow consented to sex. Or, if the
attacker used pressure and threats rather than physical violence, she may feel she did not
fight hard enough to stop the rape, (article 15). Also, Rape victims often blame
themselves for not foreseeing- and preventing- the incident. But, counselors say, these
feelings can be the biggest obstacle to moving past the experience. Realize it was a
violation that you had no control over and shove the blame back where it belongs- on the
shoulders of the attacker, (article 15).
It is very hard to convict a person of rape because there is a fine line between rape
and sex when it comes to evidence. It is hard for medical examiners to tell if the guy
really did force sex unless there are bruises or some other obvious physical signs.
Finding sperm evidence on the woman is not enough evidence to say for sure that the
woman was raped. In my opinion, we need to make it a more comfortable situation for a
woman to report the rape. We also need to have tougher punishments for the rapist. Life
in jail, with no bail and no appeals sounds great to me. I also think that we need to make
it easier to prove that a man is guilty. Using something like a lie detector test would help
greatly in this.
Death is sometimes punishment for rape and murders. I think that the invention
of electric chair, lethal injection machine, and all other things used for the death penalty
were the stupidest things ever invented. What were these people thinking when they
invented this? Did they actually think it would work? Did they ever consider that an eye
for the eye makes the world blind, or two wrongs don t make a right? What is the point
of having the death penalty? There isn t one! It hasn t lessened the amount of crime
present in America. Giving a criminal the death penalty is giving them the easy way out.
It is doing to them exactly what we are punishing them for in a lot of instances. How can
we preach one thing but then go against it to punish someone? It would be MUCH
harder for someone to sit in a brick square with no contact with the important people in
their life, no television, limited time outside, and arduous work all day long.
These convicted sex offenders, and murderers need is life imprisonment in a
maximum security prison with no parole, and no appeals. It is outrageous the amount of
people that go into prison on a 15 year sentence and get out many years before that.
How do people expect to make changes in the amount of violence in American when
they are consistently lenient on criminals? Why should we waste our money killing
someone when we can rehabilitate them and give them a real punishment by forcing
them to live the rest of their wasted life behind bars?
My thoughts on the death penalty agree with my thoughts on other life and death
issues. I am 100% against abortion and euthanasia also. I think that the main reason I
am against abortion is because of adoption. There are so many people that dream of
having kids and find out they can t. Adoption gives them the chance to fulfill their
life-long dreams. By allowing a woman to murder her baby, her own flesh and blood, we
are throwing away thousands of people s hopes and dreams. The person that wishes to
have the abortion needs to take responsibility for getting in bed with that man. There are
many precautions she could have taken, but chose not to. It is now him and her
responsibility to let that child live. They produced it, they must care for it, even if it is
only for the 9 months of pregnancy. Even in the case of rape, I am against abortion.
That woman can give up that child just like a woman can that didn t want the child.
I am also against doctor assisted suicide. If a doctor consents to taking a patient
off of life support or prescribe a drug that will kill them, they are committing murder.
All three of these life and death issues are wrong and should be outlawed!
It would be more difficult to commit murder if it was more difficult to get
weapons. Hand guns should definitely be banned. They should be allowed only for law
enforcement and those that are involved in the armed force. Article 24* uses statistics to
prove this, Deaths caused by firearms, most of them handguns, number about 40,000
each year in the United States. More than 1,600 of them are accidents. The number of
nonfatal injuries caused by hand gun accidents is four to six times higher.. guns are the
second most deadly consumer product, after cars, on the death market..some states the
death rate related to firearms already exceeded that associated with motor vehicles.
The ownership of guns increased the risk of homicide among teens and young
adults more than threefold and the risk of suicide is more than tenfold, (article 24).
Also, the availability of a gun greatly increases the likelihood that suicide attempt will
succeed. Nationwide, firearms– mostly handguns– are used in about 19,000 suicides
each year. Among young people from 10 to 19, more than 1,400 suicides are committed
with guns each year, (article 24).
For the safety of the entire nation, hand guns need to be banned. Research
shows that playing with toy guns prompts aggression and anti-social behavior, which may
include kicking, fist fighting, pushing and shoving, damaging property, and threatening to
hurt someone, (article 25*). As we learned before anti-social behavior as a child can
result in violence later on in life. Giving a child a toy gun is setting them up for a hard
time later in life when it comes to relating to people, and is setting them up for a violent
life style. Why would any parent want to ruin their child s life like that? I wouldn t want
to, therefore my children would never be allowed to play with any toy that resembles a
gun. This includes lazor shooters and a lot of toys that are popular now-days. This
would probably cause a lot of arguing, but I know that it would help my children in the
future because providing children with imitation weapons parents are, in effect, giving
tacit approval to the kind of behavior with which guns are closely associated: violence
and aggression, (article 25). If I knew that my child s friend had toy guns in their house,
I would still let them play there, but I would make sure the friends parents knew that my
child could not play with them. Most respectable people would take the toy guns away
while my child was there.
The second amendment makes banning handguns unconstitutional, in many
people s opinions. The second amendment gives the right to a well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed. My interpretation of this amendment is that a person has
the right to bear arms if they are protecting the security of the United States through
means of the armed forces only. When the Constitution was written violence with guns
was not a problem. Things have changed since then and so should the amendment. I
think it should read a person has the right to bear arms if it is necessary to the security of
the free state through the means of armed forces and law enforcement. This way there
would be no controversy over if we are being unconstitutional by making it illegal to
have a hand gun.
I think violence shown through the media should be regulated. When a person
turns on the television or radio they are bound to hear/see some sort of violence.
Children are viewing this and beginning to think all of this violence is okay, and
sometimes even a cool thing. If so and so artist sings this, or so and so actor kills
someone it is okay, it can t be morally unjust, is what many are beginning to think. The
media currently has the biggest impact on the growth of violence in America, I think.
Violence in television has gotten way out of hand, but due to the first amendment nothing
can be done through the judicial system. When the constitution allowed freedom of the
press I don t think that they know what would happen in the future. They never expected
songs to be about killing other people or television showing brutality.
Parent s can restrict the amount of violence, if any, that their child views by
purchasing the new v-chips. With these they can set a block that will not allow shows
with a certain rating to be viewed through their television. Also, many televisions have a
program where you can put a block on certain channels. In order to unblock the channel
you must know the code. These two things are very helpful and can diminish the amount
of violence seen through television.
Song lyrics also seem to have a lot more phrases in them that suggest or talk
about violent acts. CDs have stickers on them that say there are explicit lyrics in the
songs, but that doesn t seem to help. Music stores should have a law that says you cannot
buy a CD with this sticker on it unless you are eighteen years old. Producers should
supply CDs with the regular lyrics and CDs with edited lyrics. This way a twelve year
old child can listen to the music they enjoy without hearing the f-word every other word.
They can no longer be influenced by the type of music they enjoy. Just like we have a
rating system for television, we should have one for books, and music. Not as many kids
read books as do watch TV or listen to music, so that doesn t seem to be as big of a
problem. A problem that I see to be a lot larger than books would be the Internet and
computer games. Just look at the two boys from Columbine, constantly playing war
games on the computer and learning how to make bombs through the Internet. Somehow
the United States Government needs to regulate these games and the web sites placed on
the Internet. When it comes to my children I will definitely have restrictions on the
music they listen to, the television they watch, and what other things they do in their
spare time. I personally don t think a kid needs to see people being blown up or hear
about something shooting a cop to be entertained. If my ideas about alleviating the
amount of violence in the media happen in the next ten years I may not have to worry so
much about what restrictions I will have on my children.
Sport is set apart both cognitively and emotionally from the everyday world.
(article 29*) The way an athlete performs on the field, ice or in the ring does not reflect
they way there are as a human being. Playing the sport and the contact that goes along
with it has nothing to do with how the person acts on the streets. Contact is a major part
of the game, and I see nothing wrong with it. There is a problem, though, when the
athletes start to use their sports contact outside of the sport. There is a certain point in
which the severity of aggression is too high. Some aggressive acts are not acceptable.
The game is a game. You go out to win, but there s a line-limitations-there are
rules…You try to dominate the other player, but you don t want to make him leave the
game, supports what I am saying exactly (article 29). When a person paralyzes someone
because they tackled them something needs to be done; they need to be suspended from
the sport until they learn their lesson. It is part of the person s job as a sports figure to be
a person someone can look up to, and when things are taken too far or aggression is used
outside of the sport they aren t doing their job. Most people get fired when they don t do
their job, athletes should be fired just like everyone else. They should receive no special
treatment. Sports aren t encouraging violence in society in any way.
The three sports that have the most aggression in them are boxing, football, and
hockey. When a person signs up to play these sports they know that they are a very
physical game, and are consenting to what may happen to them while playing. I see
nothing wrong with these three sports at all. The physical contact is part of the game,
and without it what fun would it be to play and watch? I will let my children play sports
that involve physical contact but I will make sure they know the difference between what
is justified during the game, and that how they act while playing their sport will never be
allowed outside of the sport.
I don t think a person s religion makes a person for or against violence unless
they practice their religion purposely. People go to war a lot of times despite the fact that
they are Christian. People do seem to be as dedicated to their religion as they used to be,
therefore they are losing some of their morals and not following every aspect and rule of
their religion to a T . I think that the Christian commandment Thou shall not kill
means exactly what it says; don t kill-no exceptions. Even in the situation of war I don t
think that commandment allows people to kill. Therefore, I do not believe in the just war
theory. I don t believe in war period.
Religions shouldn t take a stance on things. They should let the people decide for
themselves how they feel rather than saying since you believe this you must also believe
this, because a lot of people have contrasting views now. Religion may be an important
part of people s lives because of what they believe in when it comes to a higher being,
but I don t think that it impacts every single part of their life. If Jesus were alive today I
think he would be extremely disappointed in everyone. He would probably be hurt that
people aren t following his ways to the extent he did, but things have changed a lot in
2,000 years and people can no longer be expected to follow every aspect of their religion.
Pacifism and civil disobedience have been effective many times (i.e. Ghandi, and
Martin Luther King Jr.). It can still be very effective when it is used. Ghandi and Martin
Luther King did a very brave things by trying to accomplish their goals non-violently
when the people they were against were only using violence. It seems like everyone
thinks that everything has to be solved with violence now, though.
I would have to say that I am a pacifist. IF something can be solved by means of
talking then do it. Not everything has to be solved by blowing up half a country and
killing thousands of innocent people. I would never ever go to war. I would flee to
Canada if they made it mandatory for women to fill out the draft cards. I am against war
100%. . Every minute, the world spends $1.3 million for military purposes, article 34*
claims. Some other interesting facts about what is spent for military purposes are:
The worlds stockpile of nuclear weapons represents an explosive force more than
5,000 times greater that all the munitions used in World War II.
The cost of one new nuclear submarine equals the annual education budget of 23
developing countries with 160 million school-age children. (article 34)
Why are we wasting all this time and energy on nuclear weapons when we could be
giving children a better education and educating them on how not to have war and how
to solve things peacefully. Everything can be solved nonviolently it just takes a lot more
time and effort. With how busy people s lifestyles are now, they just don t want to take
the time to sit down and work it out. I personally think that non-violent means of solving
things are a lot more productive than violent means. Look at how much Martin Luther
King Jr. accomplished in less than a year, then look at what little we have solved with the
Middle East since we went to war with them. What accomplished more? Martin Luther
King did. Non-violence accomplishes more in less time than violence does.
The United States and every other country all need to get together and sit down
and discuss calmly how they feel about things and work all their problems out. There is
no need to continue fighting. We should all be working together to make this entire
world a better place rather than being selfish and focusing only on our own country. If
we all worked things out there would no longer be international violence. This would be
a very lengthy process, but I think it would be worth it in the end. At this point getting
rid of all our nuclear weapons would be very dangerous for the United States. I am sure
that would be attacked as soon as we did it and would go to ruins. If we all agreed to do