Freedom of expression, enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless, the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In Singapore, where different racial and religious groups live together, it is one issue that needs to be addressed consistently and sensitively since failure to respect and understand each other caused by abuse of the right of expression may harm Singapore.
In Singer’s opinion, people should enjoy the freedom of expression, freely. He wrote that “freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive.” This is not true as we can see that Singapore has enjoyed democracy so far and yet the freedom of expression is controlled in certain extent by the Government. For instance, to stage a protest, a licence is required.
On the other hand, in Szilagyi’s opinion, we must consider the consequence of ill interpretations and manipulation that serves political agendas, which may lead to conflicts between ethnic/religious groups, or worse, within ethnic/religious groups in Singapore.
However, in a true democracy, the freedom to offend is also a right. The Michigan State University Fine Arts faculty has stated that “We strongly uphold the right of every citizen to express his or her opinions on any matter. However, this cannot take the form of coercion, intimidation, and interference in the functioning of an autonomous and democratic institution.” Hence, despite the probability of its abuse, freedom of expression is essential to the reasoned conduct of citizens in a democracy. While difficult and painful, only a society that protects the rights of both expressers and listeners, no matter how offensive either may be, can be called free.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Criminals are born, not made. Comment.
People blame criminals and even argue about what has made a criminal a criminal. To me, criminals are made, not born. Child abuse, family violence, parental neglect are some factors leading to crimes. The best example is Mary Bell mentioned in my previous article. She was just ten and yet she had killed two. This was probably due to the fact that her family did not take good care of her, causing her to simply erase some humane qualities. Mary's abusive mother, her genetic wild-card of a father, and physical damage likely incurred by the repetitive drug overdoses all contributed to her sociopathology. Her inability to bond with others in a loving manner was twisted into a bonding process based on violent aggression. Mary responded to others based on how she herself had been treated.
When a mother is a source of fear for a child, some cope by developing protective mechanisms against the outside world, which, for the developing sociopath, is a constant threat. As a result, we can see that criminals are made. However, not all children raised in abusive situations become sociopaths and not all sociopaths are raised in abusive situations become criminals. We can also see some positive examples in the world.
Though childhood and family background are important factors, genetic factors and neurological damage also play a role. Earlier studies have linked genetic deficiencies in monoamine oxidase (MAOA) activity to increased aggression in mice and humans. Subjects with low MAOA activity seem to react much more strongly to stress than those with high activity. The results were even starker for the subjects who had suffered the most serious abuse. "As adults, 85 percent of the severely maltreated children who also had the gene for low MAOA activity developed antisocial outcomes, such as violent criminal behavior," said Terrie Moffitt, one of the lead researchers in the University of Wisconsin.
The question of what makes a criminal a criminal is still going about and each side has its own proofs and stand. Somehow, one thing is for sure. Both have agreed that childhood background and genetic factors will cause a disaster if a child is subjected to all of them. Subjects who both suffered abuse and carried the low-activity MAOA gene were nine times as likely as the rest of the study group to engage in antisocial behavior.
When a mother is a source of fear for a child, some cope by developing protective mechanisms against the outside world, which, for the developing sociopath, is a constant threat. As a result, we can see that criminals are made. However, not all children raised in abusive situations become sociopaths and not all sociopaths are raised in abusive situations become criminals. We can also see some positive examples in the world.
Though childhood and family background are important factors, genetic factors and neurological damage also play a role. Earlier studies have linked genetic deficiencies in monoamine oxidase (MAOA) activity to increased aggression in mice and humans. Subjects with low MAOA activity seem to react much more strongly to stress than those with high activity. The results were even starker for the subjects who had suffered the most serious abuse. "As adults, 85 percent of the severely maltreated children who also had the gene for low MAOA activity developed antisocial outcomes, such as violent criminal behavior," said Terrie Moffitt, one of the lead researchers in the University of Wisconsin.
The question of what makes a criminal a criminal is still going about and each side has its own proofs and stand. Somehow, one thing is for sure. Both have agreed that childhood background and genetic factors will cause a disaster if a child is subjected to all of them. Subjects who both suffered abuse and carried the low-activity MAOA gene were nine times as likely as the rest of the study group to engage in antisocial behavior.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
"Brian Howe had no mother, so he won't be missed." -- Mary Bell
In this summer of 1968, Scotswood, an economically depressed community 275 miles north of London, was in a state of panic. Police flooded the community, interviewing kids between the ages of three and fifteen. It was because of the death of a small, three-year-old boy with fair hair, Brian.
Before the death of Brian, Mary also convicted of strangling a young boy, Martin Brown on May 25, 1968, the day before her 11th birthday.
Strangely, the police could not find any signs of violence. A bottle of aspirin was nearby -- perhaps he ate them all. There were no visible strangulation marks or any other marks on the child, and therefore the authorities believed his death was accidental. The Criminal Investigation Department was not called in.
The official report on Martin Brown declared the "cause of death open." But the Scotswood community couldn't simply let go of the tragic death, so they marched and protested against the dangerous conditions of the condemned buildings in the neighborhood. Mary was never suspected as a murderer.
The official report on Martin Brown declared the "cause of death open." But the Scotswood community couldn't simply let go of the tragic death, so they marched and protested against the dangerous conditions of the condemned buildings in the neighborhood. Mary was never suspected as a murderer.
Brian had been strangled. Nearby, a pair of broken scissors lay in the grass. There were puncture marks on his thighs, and his genitals had been partially skinned. Clumps of his hair were cut away. The wounds were bizarre: "There was a terrible playfulness about it, a terrible gentleness if you like, and somehow the playfulness of it made it more, rather than less, terrifying," said Inspector James Dobson. Brian's belly had been signed "M" with a razor blade. This cut would not be apparent until days later. It appeared that someone had imprinted an "N", and that a fourth mark was added (by a different hand?) to change the "N" into a "M".
During the investigation,the police found that among the children who stood out as suspicious to the investigators were eleven year old Mary Bell and thirteen year old Norma Bell (no relation). Mary was evasive and acted strange. Norma was excited by the murder, remembers one authority. "She was continually smiling as if it was a huge joke."
Bell was released from custody in 1980 and was granted anonymity to start a new life (under an assumed name) with her daughter who was born in 1984. This daughter did not know of her mother's past until Bell's location was discovered by reporters and she and her mother had to leave their house with bed sheets over their heads. The daughter's anonymity was originally protected until she reached the age of 18. However, on May 21, 2003, Bell won a High Court battle to have her own anonymity and that of her daughter extended for life.
This murder by Mary Bell is very shocking to me because she was just 10 and she had killed 2 children easily without feeling guilty. This incident illustrates well of how external factors can make a person commit terrible crimes. In this case, family is one of the influences.
Mary had been taught to keep quiet, especially around authority figures. Her father, Billy Bell, had lived with the family, but the children (Mary and her younger brother and sister) were instructed to always call him "uncle," so that their mother could collect government assistance. Billy Bell was a thief, and the mother, Betty Bell, was a prostitute who was often away in Glasgow on "business." Because of the family's shady vocations, Newcastle Welfare authorities knew very little about Mary's family.
I feel that living in a such loveless family, it is not surprising to see a typical and yet shocking criminal to hurt people. However, I feel that criminals who are under similar situations should not be excused from punishment as it is them who choose to hurt others.
In this case, sympathy seems to play an important role. For such a "manipulative" and "cunning" little girl, Mary knew nothing about attracting sympathy. At one point Mary told a police officer how a "woman up in the gallery smiles at me, but I don't smile back. It isn't a smiling matter. The jury wouldn't like it if I smiled, would they?"
Norma, on the other hand, was surrounded by a much more sympathetic family. She was the third of eleven children, and reacted to evidence and testimony with a more childlike combination of fear and nervous tears (Mary disdained crying as a sign of weakness.)
When the time came for the closing arguments, the prosecution characterized Mary as a fiend. Poor Norma was herself a victim of "an evil and compelling influence almost like that of the fictional Svengali," said Lyons.
In the end, Mary was undoubtedly to be guilty of the murder. However, one question is raised. Was it because Mary was unresponsive that the psychiatrists found her "psychopathic"? If she had broken her silence and told them of her abusive home life, would she have earned a more sympathetic analysis? I do not know. But one thing is for sure. As long as the criminal can prove that he is suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, or any inherent causes, or induced by disease or injury), then he shall not be convicted of Murder.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
GP Comprehension Questions
1. George Orwell's " A Hanging" has been described as a powerful condemnation of capital punishment. What techniques does Orwell use to draw from his readers the desired inference, as his condemnation is delivered indirectly rather than by more explicit means?
Orwell uses the description of a weak, fragile Hindu prisoner who had to be executed. Readers may pity for him since he would be hanged and there was no chances for him to prove his innocence or to turn over a new leaf. The situation where he could do nothing to alter the outcome actually puts the criminal in the role of a victim under capital punishment and this may make readers sympathize criminals. Moreover, Orwell indicates the superintendent of the jail and other warders in the story are the “evildoers”. The superintendent of the jail acted cruel throughout the whole story, especially so when he shouted “who let that bloody brute in here? Catch it, someone!” The other warders were also depicted as inhumane people as all they could think of was to finish this task as soon as possible. At the end of the story, they were even laughing, even “the superintendent grinned in a tolerant way.” The sentence “ The dead man was a hundred yards away” further proves that the controversial side of capital punishment. Besides the criminal’s abrupt death, the sudden appearance of the dog make readers start to reflect whether the death penalty can be justified since the dog liked him very much on the very first impression. Were there any hidden reasons behind his motivation to commit a crime so serious that he was put death sentence? In overall, Orwell uses description details and speech of the characters to indicate that he was not in favour of capital punishment.
2.What are some of the arguments for and against capital punishment?
Opponents of the capital punishment claim that it cheapens human life and puts government on the same low moral level as criminals who have taken lives of other people. The existence of human rights is threatened by it as criminals stll have a right to undergo natural death.The abolition of capital punishment would be a valuable example of a nation progressing towards the full protection of human rights.Besides, capital punishment also adds stress on both the executioners and the criminals as the former faces pressure from the authority to carry out successfully whereas the latter faces the fears of foreseen death.
However, with all these reasoning, the society still sides towars the necessity of capital punishment since it helps to maintain peace in certain extent. It can be seen that opinion polls consistently show that a majority of the American public supports the death penalty. A May 2005 Gallup poll had 74% of respondees in "favour of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder".
3.What are your own views on capital punishment? In what circumstances(if any) can the death penalty be justified?
Capital punishment has always been the controversial issue on the value of life and the meaning of death. Does the society have the right to value one’s life when there is a need to do so? If the answer is yes, what about the criminal suddenly gets his conscience back and pleads for forgiveness? What if his inmates who are going to be executed capital punishment may have touched by his pleading and beg the society too? Do we still carry out what is supposed to carry out or do we forgive them because everyone should be given a fair chance to turn over a new leaf? Even today, these questions still trouble the world greatly.
To me, I feel that capital punishment is still necessary in reinforcing the existence of laws. Everyone will know the degree of severity of crimes committed, hence, the crime rates can keep in a control since everyone considers the outcomes before committing. To some people, they may choose to look at it on a case-by-case basis when they are asked of their opinion. However, the law should be uniform and unbiased. We cannot forgive someone just because he asks for forgiveness. Criminals may claim that due to external factors such as parental neglect or family abuse, they are hence the products of such social edge. Nevertheless, it is they who choose to kill someone, hurt someone or create social uneasy. Hence, the society has the right to end their lives since they have to compensate the victims’ families with their lives when they decide to end another person’s life.
When people stand divided on moral and ethical aspects of the procedure, frustration is resulted. How can we judge in any circumstances that the capital punishment is justified? To me, I think that as long as we look at the fact that these criminals had indeed killed someone, the death penalty can be justified. However, it is under the condition that laws are checked consistently with fairness and the society is well informed of the capabilities and limitations of the law.
Orwell uses the description of a weak, fragile Hindu prisoner who had to be executed. Readers may pity for him since he would be hanged and there was no chances for him to prove his innocence or to turn over a new leaf. The situation where he could do nothing to alter the outcome actually puts the criminal in the role of a victim under capital punishment and this may make readers sympathize criminals. Moreover, Orwell indicates the superintendent of the jail and other warders in the story are the “evildoers”. The superintendent of the jail acted cruel throughout the whole story, especially so when he shouted “who let that bloody brute in here? Catch it, someone!” The other warders were also depicted as inhumane people as all they could think of was to finish this task as soon as possible. At the end of the story, they were even laughing, even “the superintendent grinned in a tolerant way.” The sentence “ The dead man was a hundred yards away” further proves that the controversial side of capital punishment. Besides the criminal’s abrupt death, the sudden appearance of the dog make readers start to reflect whether the death penalty can be justified since the dog liked him very much on the very first impression. Were there any hidden reasons behind his motivation to commit a crime so serious that he was put death sentence? In overall, Orwell uses description details and speech of the characters to indicate that he was not in favour of capital punishment.
2.What are some of the arguments for and against capital punishment?
Arguments for and against it are based on moral, practical, religious, and emotional grounds. Supporters argue that it deters crime, improves the community by making sure that convicted criminals do not find their way out onto the streets to offend again, and is cheaper than keeping convicted criminals in high security prison for the rest of their natural lives. Besides, supporters believe that it protects the "good" citizens and the criminals deserve it as they had also ended someone's life without justification. Hence it may not be important to make capital punishment justified.
Opponents of the capital punishment claim that it cheapens human life and puts government on the same low moral level as criminals who have taken lives of other people. The existence of human rights is threatened by it as criminals stll have a right to undergo natural death.The abolition of capital punishment would be a valuable example of a nation progressing towards the full protection of human rights.Besides, capital punishment also adds stress on both the executioners and the criminals as the former faces pressure from the authority to carry out successfully whereas the latter faces the fears of foreseen death.
However, with all these reasoning, the society still sides towars the necessity of capital punishment since it helps to maintain peace in certain extent. It can be seen that opinion polls consistently show that a majority of the American public supports the death penalty. A May 2005 Gallup poll had 74% of respondees in "favour of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder".
3.What are your own views on capital punishment? In what circumstances(if any) can the death penalty be justified?
Capital punishment has always been the controversial issue on the value of life and the meaning of death. Does the society have the right to value one’s life when there is a need to do so? If the answer is yes, what about the criminal suddenly gets his conscience back and pleads for forgiveness? What if his inmates who are going to be executed capital punishment may have touched by his pleading and beg the society too? Do we still carry out what is supposed to carry out or do we forgive them because everyone should be given a fair chance to turn over a new leaf? Even today, these questions still trouble the world greatly.
To me, I feel that capital punishment is still necessary in reinforcing the existence of laws. Everyone will know the degree of severity of crimes committed, hence, the crime rates can keep in a control since everyone considers the outcomes before committing. To some people, they may choose to look at it on a case-by-case basis when they are asked of their opinion. However, the law should be uniform and unbiased. We cannot forgive someone just because he asks for forgiveness. Criminals may claim that due to external factors such as parental neglect or family abuse, they are hence the products of such social edge. Nevertheless, it is they who choose to kill someone, hurt someone or create social uneasy. Hence, the society has the right to end their lives since they have to compensate the victims’ families with their lives when they decide to end another person’s life.
When people stand divided on moral and ethical aspects of the procedure, frustration is resulted. How can we judge in any circumstances that the capital punishment is justified? To me, I think that as long as we look at the fact that these criminals had indeed killed someone, the death penalty can be justified. However, it is under the condition that laws are checked consistently with fairness and the society is well informed of the capabilities and limitations of the law.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Introduction about myself
This is an introductory task for my GP. I hope this will help people a lot to know more about me.
My name is Wu Pei Yun from Mayflower Secondary School and the previous CCA is Dance. My interests are watching movies and TV, reading, listening to music, chatting and playing with my turtle.
I like Japanese music a lot because of its nice melody. Chinese songs are not bad but I feel that I am getting tired of love songs. Hence, my MP3 player usually has more Japanese songs than Chinese. +_+
Among all the singers, I like Ayumi Hamasaki the most because she is very talented. She really can sing and she can even write lyrics for all of her songs. Her lyric is very touching as it often expresses my feelings well at certain times. Therefore, I think her popularity is really well gained because her voice and her talents have attracted lots of people, including me.
Apart from music, I also spend time in watching movies and other things and I like action and horror movies the most. Watching movies really can help me to relax a lot from school work and I always like going with my friends for movies and chatting non-stop.
In the end, I am glad to say that I have found people with the same interests in AJC. It worried me at first that in AJC, I could not make good friends like I did in my Secondary School life. I hope I can make a lifetime friendship with them.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Holiday is over~~!
March holiday is over and I haven't even had a movie with my dear dear friends! Hate to say this, but I must admit that I've wasted so much time...So SAD!! Why can't all those interesting movies be shown during my free time..? Always must rush my works before I can relax for one.
Sigh...don't talk about movies. I'm glad to say that I've completed reading the comics. It's called 最終兵器彼女 or She, the Ultimate Weapon. The love story is so touching and I've cried when I was reading it...It starts with two ordinary high school students and they were in love with each other. When they just started dating, the female main character, Chise, was forced to transform to become an ultimate weapon by the Japanese Self Defence Force just because of the war going on in the world...
Shuji, the male character, was shocked to find out this but couldn't do much about it. At the same time, Chise was struggling between the boundary of human beings and of weapons. When they had finally saw each other again, both decided to elope. However, the medicine to control herself was no longer produced and Chise only had some more to sustain. Hence, though they had few weeks of happy days, Chise was dying with less and less medicine. The story continues but I don't want to tell... and the ending is very sad.
I think this story impacts me a lot...and the scenes when Chise destroyed cities in few seconds were really stunning. Wars are really scary...If anyone wants to have a look, erm...he better has a strong heart because some parts of the story are too cruel.
Life is so fragile..sigh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
