For madam-professor only conflicting views

Assignment 1.2: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay – Part II
Synthesizing and Writing
Due Week 4 and worth 100 points

When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking.

The assignment is divided into two (2) parts.
For Part I of the assignment (due Week 2), you read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes, reviewed the Procon.org Website in order to gather information, and engaged in prewriting to examine your thoughts.
* Remember that in the Week 2 Discussion, you examined the biases discussed in Chapter 2 of the webtext.

In Part II of the assignment (due Week 4), you will write a paper to synthesize your ideas.
Part II – Writing
Write at three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:
1. State your position on the topic you selected for Assignment 1.1.
2. Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position    and explain why you selected these specific reasons.
3. Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website.
4. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position.   
5. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases.
6. Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the “Believing Game,” even if your position on the issue has stayed the same.

The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing:

• Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph.
• Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.
• Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA Style format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

You must follow these submission guidelines:

• Submit the essay to Turnitin.com and then submit the originality report and final essay with any needed revisions to Blackboard.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

• Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language.
• Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking.
• Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.

Grading for this assignment will be based on quality, logic / organization, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.

          Believing Game

         Reasons to Allow Death Penalty

          Introduction

     In any discussion that happens in any environment, we are plunged into a situation where we might be forced to believe a thing. The cause for this is that most people are put into a situation of doubts. Doubting is but of belief as it is out of it that we have to introduce believing as a game. It is true that any idea can be considered depending on how much has been done by the parties to inculcate the belief as (Tannen, 1998) explains.

    When a person does a crime, the magnitude of the punishment must match the extent of the penalty. For instance, when one kills, death penalty becomes enough as a punishment meted on that person. However, capital punishment has both negative and positive explanations. When we then focus on the pros and cons of the death penalty, the cons take a larger extent of the discussion. For that matter, we need to make people believe in capital punishment as a way to correct the ills that are a cruel to the growth of society (Maimonides, 1993). The death penalty is voted for its reasons on morality, constitutionality and deterrence (Maimonides, 1993). Following this discussion, it is important to have a death penalty as a way to prevent more ills in the society.

     But before believing on the essence of the death penalty, there are cons that exist on it. Thus opposes the pros brought up by the death penalty. As (Schabas, 2002) explains, the moral reason that exists for the need to apply the death penalty. Is on the fact, those who perform immoral acts do not respect their human dignity. Therefore, are ready for death. It is true that death penalty gives honor to human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor for being able to control his destiny for good or for ill. But in the same case, the opposing facts on it is that, as much as it has been perceived to act on the moral ground, it is not better off as it allows the criminal justice system to treat one better if he or she is rich and guilty than if one is weak and innocent.

     The other opposition on constitutionality according to William J. Brennan is that death penalty will always treat human beings as the vilest beings or else non-humans (Schabas, 2002). It is opposed to the defense that death would always subject human beings to be fate forbidden by the principle of humane treatment. In that case, the assumption has been made that, death is cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Clause on both Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

     Lastly, the opposition on the need to have capital punishment as a way to prevent crime is that there is no actual proof of the fact that death penalty would help reduce crime. Many states that have the death penalty have no indicated cases that when the death penalty was introduced crime rates reduced in any way. It is therefore believed that death penalty has no deterrent effect. Further proofs have been made by the social science research to discredit the beliefs on the death penalty (Schabas, 2002).

     It is interesting to believe in this view because not all the states can buy into the ideas but then can be bought. Imagine a situation where people are involved in cases of crime, but the only means of punishment is death. Of course, no one would wish to die. In that case, the death penalty can way help to reduce the number of crimes and murder.

     It is interesting to have put across this believe in that (French, 1995), if the state had no laws and that can help in the deterrence of crime, it could not be comfortable to live. It is helpful to accept this belief because, constitutionally, it is the mandate of the justice system to prevent murder and crime in the society. Further, Common sense, bolstered by statistics and analyzes, tells us that the death penalty will deter crime since people fear nothing more than death.

     It is helpful to put the focus on this belief in that; it is also a source of retribution. It is expected that the society is exposed to get what it exactly deserves. It is true that crime disturbs and reduces order but then again if we don’t have enough policies such as a death penalty, it cannot be any easy to put all in order. While we show our belief in this fact, in a deserved punishment, it protects society morally by restoring this just order, where the wrongdoer is made to pay a price that is equivalent to the harm he has done to the people. Focusing keenly, it is important to have this rule passed across in the society (French, 1995).

     In conclusion, if we have the death penalty, it is easy to correct and reduce the number of crime that happens in the society. The weaknesses in the decisions made by the states will encourage an increased cases of murder. The death penalty, therefore, provides a finality of the issues of crimes as people fear death.

References

 French, H. (1995, June 6). Constitutional Court. The New York Times.

Maimonides, M. (1993). Capital Punishment. Pp. Pp 1–68.

Schabas, W. (2002). The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law. Cambridge

University Press.        

Tannin, Deborah. The Argument Culture: Moving From Debate to

Dialogue. Random House, 1998