People commit crimes when they are unsatisfied with the situation they are in. Crimes are usually done knowingly. As the prompt talks about the crime one does 'knowingly'. This is a vague claim made as there is no device or technology that can measure how much a person knows. Sure there are devices like lie detector but one cannot simply depend as human cognition is obscure. Such devices only detect heart rate and body temperature to detect if one is lying. And if one is a criminal, he may as well have the skill to prevaricate the results of the device. Additionally, the prompt also contains a second part that implies that those who knowingly commit crime must deprive from civil rights and to earn with their labor. However, there any different types of crime and depriving every criminal of the civil right is partiality as a fellow human regardless of the degree of crime. Thus, in my belief the notion of the prompt is in itself flawed, and hence, i disagree.
Human mind is one of the most powerful organ that can surpass any device ever developed by human till date. One has yet to divulge all the obscurities of the emminent powers of brain. Thus to differentiate whether an information is possessed by a person or not cannot be easily identified. Let us assume an example of a corrupt finance department head who embezzles money allocated for the new project. To detect if he does the embezzelment with the prescience of crime is nebulous, since he may be negligent enough to believe that as he is a part of the team he has the right to use the money. In these cases, even a lie detector will be a failure.
Similarly, if a rapist has a patriarchial mindset then his crimes are always right in his eyes. Thus, diferentiate if the criminal does a crime with his conscience cannot be identified. Moreover, a criminal most of the time knows what he is doing and may even have storng beliefs that what he does is right regardless of any law and regulations.
Additionally, to berieve a person from civil rights and benefit from his or her own labor is not pragmatic. When a person commits a crime it may be driven by multiple situations and his mental stability. He may even have been coaxed to commit such crimes. Punishing a criminal is a must to ensure not only the repetition by the same person but also to avoid generation of such criminals. However, to devoid the person with civil rights is too extreme. Moreover, just labelling a person as a criminal does not make him a target for inhumane acts. The degree of his crimes will determine his punishment and as per his punifhment he must also be given a chance to repent his sins.
Thus, in conclusion to the points mentioned above the notion of the prompt is absurd and simply seems to be driven by emotions. Punishing a criminal is not a black and white matter. One must meticulously research and study the degree of his crimes and consequen
People
commit
crimes
when they
are unsatisfied
with the situation they are in.
Crimes
are
usually
done
knowingly
.
As
the
prompt
talks about the
crime
one
does
'
knowingly
'. This is a vague claim made as there is no
device
or technology that can measure how much a
person
knows. Sure there are
devices
like lie detector
but
one cannot
simply
depend
as human cognition is obscure. Such
devices
only
detect heart rate and body temperature to detect if one is lying. And if one is a
criminal
, he may
as well
have the
skill
to prevaricate the results of the
device
.
Additionally
, the
prompt
also
contains a second part that implies that those who
knowingly
commit
crime
must
deprive from
civil
rights
and to earn with their labor.
However
, there any
different
types of
crime
and depriving every
criminal
of the
civil
right
is partiality as a fellow human regardless of the degree of
crime
.
Thus
, in my belief the notion of the
prompt
is in itself flawed, and
hence
,
i
disagree.
Human mind is one of the most powerful organ that can surpass any
device
ever developed by human till date. One has
yet
to divulge all the obscurities of the
emminent
powers of brain.
Thus
to differentiate whether an information
is possessed
by a
person
or not cannot be
easily
identified.
Let
us assume an example of a corrupt finance department head who embezzles money allocated for the new project. To detect if he
does
the
embezzelment
with the prescience of
crime
is nebulous, since he may be negligent
enough
to believe that as he is a part of the team he has the
right
to
use
the money. In these cases, even a lie detector will be a failure.
Similarly
, if a rapist has a
patriarchial
mindset then his
crimes
are always
right
in his eyes.
Thus
,
diferentiate
if the
criminal
does
a
crime
with his conscience cannot
be identified
.
Moreover
, a
criminal
most of the time knows what he is doing and may even have
storng
beliefs that what he
does
is
right
regardless of any law and regulations.
Additionally
, to
berieve
a
person
from
civil
rights
and benefit from
his or her
own
labor is not pragmatic. When a
person
commits
a
crime
it may
be driven
by multiple situations and his mental stability. He may even have
been coaxed
to
commit
such
crimes
. Punishing a
criminal
is a
must to
ensure not
only
the repetition by the same
person
but
also
to avoid generation of such
criminals
.
However
, to devoid the
person
with
civil
rights
is too extreme.
Moreover
,
just
labelling a
person
as a
criminal
does
not
make
him a target for inhumane acts. The degree of his
crimes
will determine his punishment and as per his
punifhment
he
must
also
be
given
a chance to repent his sins.
Thus
,
in conclusion
to the points mentioned above the notion of the
prompt
is absurd and
simply
seems to
be driven
by emotions. Punishing a
criminal
is not a black and white matter. One
must
meticulously
research and study the degree of his
crimes
and
consequen