E-V Translation E38 Sun 19/09/10:
WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (THE DEATH PENALTY) OUR LIVES ARE LESS SECURE AND CRIMES OF VIOLENCE INCREASE. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO CONTROL VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY.
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS OPINION?
Before talking about the essential role of death penalty, you have to think about the meaning, and the purpose, of any kind of punishment. If you consider that the purpose is to prevent the guilty from being nasty again, you can be seduced by an argumentation in favour of the suppression of capital punishment. But you have to think about another aspect of the problem: a punishment is also useful to impress people, to make them fear the law. In fact, let's take the example of a young misfit, which has grown in a violent atmosphere, influenced by older delinquents, etc... He lives in the streets, he's got no aim but to survive. This is the kind of person who could possibly kill someone for money, or even for fun... Why would he fear prison? Life would be easier for him there. In addition, in many cases, when you behave normally, you can benefit from penalty reductions. This young misfit needs to be impressed, he needs to know that the law is a frontier. When you cross it, you can lose your life. That is why capital punishment helps keeping a distance between robbery and murder. If you abolish it, you suppress the difference between these two types of crime, which are completely different.
But there is also a limit to define: even if death penalty is unavoidable, it would be a crime to apply it to inadequate cases. If there is no premeditation or past facts which can justify such a punishment, it is far too strict to apply death penalty. That is why the lawmakers have to establish precisely the context in which capital punishment car be pronounced. That is the price to pay to limit violence without using excessive violence...
THE POSITION OF WOMEN IN SOCIETY HAS CHANGED MARKEDLY IN THE LAST TWENTY YEARS. MANY OF THE PROBLEMS YOUNG PEOPLE NOW EXPERIENCE, SUCH AS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, ARISE FROM THE FACT THAT MANY MARRIED WOMEN NOW WORK AND ARE NOT AT HOME TO CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE?
It is certainly true that the position of women in society has undergone a dramatic change in the past twenty years but I do not feel that this is a direct cause of the indisputable increase in juvenile-related problems during this period.
It is now accepted that young women should find work on leaving school; indeed to rely totally on their parents' financial support is no longer an option in many families. Likewise, once they get married, the majority of women continue working since the financial pressures of setting up a house and establishing a reasonable standard of living often require two incomes.
Twenty years ago it was common for women to give up work once they had children and devote their time to caring for their children. This is no longer the general rule and the provision of professionally-run child care facilities and day nurseries have removed much of the responsibility for child rearing that used to fall to mothers. However, these facilities come at a cost and often require two salaries coming into a family to be afforded.
I do not believe that the increase in the number of working mothers has resulted in children being brought up less well than previously. Indeed it could be argued that by giving mothers the opportunity to work and earn extra money children can be better provided for than previously. There is more money for luxuries and holidays and a more secure family life is possible. Of course there are limits as to the amount of time that ideally should be spent away from home and the ideal scenario would be for one of the parents (often the wife) to have a part-time job and thus be available for their children before and after school. It is important to establish the correct balance between family life and working life.