Q: Death penalty is not a deterrent, it is a murder. Do you agree?

R: My stand on death penalty is that it is murder and not a deterrent. This opinion is attributed by several factors, such as the cruel forms of capital punishment and irreversibility in miscarriages of justice.

Death penalty includes a whole range of inhumane forms of putting a person to die. On the list, there is the electric chair, lethal injection, hanging, gas chamber poisoning and many others. These are all terrifying ways of dying and paying for one’s irreparable crimes, as the pain induced is beyond words. From a prosecuted convict’s point of view, he experiences two types of pain. The feeling of emotional pain before the actual execution, when the convict knows of his impending death penalty, and the torment of physical pain during the procedure of his execution. Hence, capital punishment is not a deterrent but murder as it is a process of causing immense hurt to one before ending his life prematurely.

The death penalty should not be used as two wrongs do not make a right. Some may think that since the convict is guilty of raping or killing someone, he should be put to death to repay his sins. However, executing him would not correct his irrevocable mistake as all that is done is put a quick end to his life. To quote, Mahatma Gandhi once said that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. Furthermore, death penalty is quick and brings about less suffering than a jail term sentence. Instead, to make a convict truly repentant for his heinous crime, he should be locked away behind bars in a small cell. Thus, capital punishment is murder and should not be carried out as it cannot undo the convict’s past.

Since death penalty cannot correct what is already done by the convict, rehabilitation should be carried out. The alternative should be favoured as convicts may not be mentally sound or there is the possibility of human errors in the process of the convict’s trial. By this, it means that the people who sentence out capital punishments may be prosecuting the wrong person. In such cases, miscarriages of justice are permanent. What is done, cannot be undone, and the person may die an unrightfully death. Therefore, the death penalty may murder someone for another’s crime.

We make mistakes all the time, even in setting down justice and carrying out sentences. Humans should never play the role of God; thinking that we have the power to end a person’s life because of his mistake. Also, death penalties over the years have seen countless blunders made by prosecutors. As in the case of Jimmy Lee Gray in Mississippi, USA, 1983, the executioner was drunk, causing the incomplete release of poisonous gas. Gray’s agony was prolonged before his death due to the executioner’s irresponsibility. Consequently, death penalty is murder as humans, including convicts, are not perfect by nature.

However, some may argue that the death penalty is right and can be used as a deterrent for others. Those who support capital punishment give reasons such as justice and vengeance, and public safety.

Death penalty is implemented because some treat it as avenging the victim. In this situation, capital punishment serves as fulfilling justice and vengeance. Many feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice and/or vengeance. People believe that death is the only thing convicts deserve for their immoral crimes. Certain crimes are so wicked that executing the criminal is the only reasonable response. Thus, death penalty is not murder but a deterrent because it ends a convict’s life for a reason and warns others as well.

In addition, death penalty is put into action in consideration of the public’s safety. For example, once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone again. This would ensure the people that their lives will not be in danger by any deranged escape convict. Hence, death penalty is not murder as it has a purpose of protecting the welfare of the public.

Therefore, in conclusion, death penalty is murder as the inhumane forms of execution do not make right a convict’s crime. It becomes murder when human errors come into play. Since everyone makes mistakes of all degrees, should they be executed?

Q: Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state the reasons why you think it is un/necessary

R: My stand on this topic is that media censorship is necessary.

The merits for media censorship are many, of which includes the existence of sensitive issues and protecting national interests.

Firstly, media censorship plays an important role when the media delivers issues that may be deemed as sensitive in some parts of the world. Certain issues are sensitive due to different people's lifestyle and cultural beliefs. For example, the recent issue of the cartoon of Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. Also, all communities have their own opinions that more or less differ from others. Here, media censorship comes into play to draw the line and prevent the violation of certain people's beliefs. Thus, this decreases the tension between racial groups or relationships amongst countries.

Furthermore, to protect the young and weak-minded, there is media censorship. The media is a powerful tool that has the ability to influence and manipulate people's mindset. If the media is not used with appropriate care, it can bring about negative impact on the youth of the world. The young and weak-minded children can easily fall victim to media abuse as they are still innocent and unexposed to life experiences yet. Hence, media censorship is vital to prevent the young and innocent from unnecessary exposure that create negative effects.

Lastly, media censorship is crucial to safeguard national interests. The government policies are protected as censorship means there is control over what the media can publish regarding the state's affairs. This preserves national interests such as preventing racial riots and ensuring that no wrong messages are sent out to the public. With media censorship, conflicts do not break out so often and peace is ensured, stabilizing the country's relationships nationally and internationally.

On the other hand, media censorship has its demerits, such as limiting exposure for the public and breaching the rights of freedom of expression.

Firstly, media censorship controls how much is let out for public-viewing. It may cover the truth of certain issues in the bid for protecting national interests or community's beliefs. This does not allow the public to know the real facts of the issue. Consequently, the media will portray 'creative untruths' that are not true.

In addition, human rights are violated by media censorship. Particularly in discussion here is the right of freedom of expression. Censorship tightens the boundary so much so that people are not given the opportunity to voice their opinions and have their say. As a result, the right of freedom of expression is virtually being removed from people by media censorship.

Therefore, in conclusion, media censorship is important and highly necessary as it helps to maintain peace in the world. This is done so when sensitive issues are safeguarded and messages are not wrongly portrayed by the media.

Q: What have you learnt about the media in the way they present what is perceived over what is real?

R: From our knowledge, the main role of the media is to be the ‘watchdog of society’. By this, it means that the media is the guardian and protector of the general public.

All through our daily lives, we are constantly being exposed to the media; getting our information and subconsciously being influenced by it. However, the media does not always portray the real truth of issues in a positive tone. On the other hand, what is perceived by people is presented in a way such that these untruths are made 'real' and believable. Actually, these untruths are lies spun by the media to cover up the facts and protect authoritative figures.

In the Iraq war issue, it is presented in the article that the US forces invaded Iraq with a purpose of ridding Saddam Hussein. It is portrayed that the US backs this purpose up with the seeming reason of wanting to end Hussein’s actions of destructing Iraq. Yet, as shown from images and civilians death count, “the US invasion of Iraq has destroyed more of the country than Saddam Hussein ever did in more than 20 years”.

Then again, the real motive of the US invasion is to gain control of the oil-rich land in Iraq. In the article, it is insisted that “oil is not a motivating factor”. This brings us to the emphasis that the actual truth of the invasion is being denied. To the public, a clouded image of the fact - that US is indeed after Iraq’s oil - is being portrayed. In other words, what is real is not made known to people. Instead, the media influences the public to believe that the reason for invading is aside the oil factor.

To conclude, the media works in a way such that it makes people believe and have a deep impression of what is perceived. Simultaneously, the real truth is denied and suppressed under lies the media creates.