Punishment

A hate crime is defined as a crime motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward an individual’s national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. The concept of a hate crime should not exist. We as citizens of the United States of America have the right to hate. The punishment of a crime should not become more severe because of the mere assumption that somebody has hatred for a group of people. The punishment of the crime should focus more on the victim as an individual rather than the fact that the victim was a part of a certain group of people. To label a crime as a hate crime has a huge disadvantage on society.

“A free country will always mean a hateful country.” (Sullivan 192) As Americans we have the right to hate somebody and not be punished for it. The first amendment to the constitution grants us freedom of speech. Enforcing the law of hate crimes restricts our constitutional rights. If we are entitled to freedom of speech we are also entitled to freedom to think and feel a certain way. In addition, someone should not penalized because the violent act was assumed to be out of hate based only on the fact that the victim was black, homosexual, had a disability etc. If one acts violently because of hate they should be punished accordingly for solely the violent act, not the assumption of the act being out of hate.

Sullivan makes a valid point when he states, “In an attempt to repudiate a past that treated people differently because of the color of their skin, or their sex, or religion or sexual orientation, we may merely create a future that permanently treats people differently because of the color of their skin, or their sex, religion or sexual orientation. This notion of a hate crime, and the concept of hate that lies behind it, takes a psychological mystery and turns it into a facile political artifact.

Rather than compounding this error and extending even further, we should seriously consider repealing the concept altogether.” Hate crimes were created in an effort to lessen discrimination and to better society, when really they are making the issue worse. Hate crimes cause people to look at a victim and see nothing but, that they were of a certain gender or of a certain ethnicity. If hate crimes were eliminated, the victim would be looked solely as a person which would help to eliminate discrimination. Making a punishment more severe just because a person is different is adding to the issue.

“In this, as in so many other things, there is no solution to the problem. There is only a transcendence of it. For all our rhetoric, hate will never be destroyed.”(Sullivan 193) Hate is inevitable; it is a part of human nature to hate. Therefor Hate should not be categorized as a crime, how you act upon your feelings of hate should be the only thing punishable. Hate is a feeling and having a feeling is not a crime.

The law of hate crimes should definitely be repealed. Hate crimes are not only unconstitutional, but they add to the sociological issue of people being seen as different because of their national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. Hate crime laws have a big disadvantage on society and should not exist.

The Hebrew Bible is full of rules and by extension punishments. God needs to give his people a reason to obey the rules he sets, so he gives very harsh punishments for breaking one of his rules. However, he does not always warn people of what he punishment will be for breaking one of his rules. Although punishment is common throughout the entirety of the Bible and a major part of all religions that use the Hebrew Bible, it is particularly evident in Genesis 1-14 and Exodus 14-23. The punishment in Genesis 1-14 and Exodus 14-23 are some of the most detailed, severe, and wide reaching punishments in the Bible.

The punishments in Genesis 1-14 include Eve being sentenced to experience more pain during childbirth and be ruled over by her husband, Adam having to work hard for food and in the fields, Cain being sentenced to wander the Earth and receiving a mark from God, and the great flood because of the evil in humans. Eve is sentenced to experience more pain during childbirth because she ate from the tree of knowledge. God commanded her and Adam not to eat from the tree because they will die. She was tricked by a serpent into eating from the tree and when God found out he decided that she, and all other women, should experience more pain in childbirth because of the knowledge Eve gained from eating from the tree. Eve was also punished by her husband, and all women’s husbands, becoming the “rule[er] over you” (Genesis 3.16). This in a way is a punishment to both men and women, even though it definitely has more negative effects on women than men. Before this point, women and men were seen as equals and companions to one another, but with this punishment men are given power over women. Men are given the power because Eve convinces Adam to eat the apple. If Adam had control over Eve from the beginning, he could have stopped her from eating from the tree which is why God gives men control over women. Men controlling women is seen in many other passages and comes into play in several punishments in Exodus 22. Lot offers up his two daughters in Genesis 19.8 in order to protect some of his male visitors, Abraham kicks out Hagar and her son in Genesis 21.10, and in Genesis 29.30 the Bible says that Jacob loves Rachel more than Leah, and there is nothing Leah can do about it. She is forced to just stay with Jacob and obey him while being loved less. The thing that makes punishment in the Bible unique is that punishment is not usually just for the one person that committed the crime or sin; punishment is passed down. It is not just Eve who experiences more pain in childbirth, but all women do because of Eve’s sin. Adam is punished by God cursing “the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life…By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread,” (Genesis 3.17-19). Man is forced to do hard labor for his food because God makes farming hard work as punishment for Adam listening to his wife and eating from the tree. This establishes gender roles in civilizations by making women submissive to their husbands and their work being childbirth, but it assigns farming and field work to men.

Cain receives a mark from God and is forced to wander the Earth as punishment for killing his brother Abel. This punishment seems almost tailored for Cain specifically. Since Cain worked in the fields as a farmer, being sentenced to wander the Earth means he can never be a farmer again. He is not able to stay in one place long enough to make a farm or even grow one harvest’s worth of crops. God takes away Cain’s home and livelihood. The mark of Cain is to prevent Cain from being murdered while he travels. God does not want blood for blood as justice; instead, he wants Cain to have to live with murdering his brother and living the hard life of a fugitive until he dies by natural causes. If someone were to kill Cain, they would “suffer a sevenfold vengeance,” but the Bible does not define what that means (Genesis 4.14). Not every punishment is accurate to what God tells the people, like God telling Adam and Eve they’ll die if they eat from the tree of knowledge, and often punishments are not defined, like in the case of sevenfold vengeance. The great flood is a much more general punishment in the Bible. God regretted making humankind because he “saw the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually,” (Genesis 6.5). Rather than punishment of one being passed down through the generations, the punishment here is widespread and occurs to all the people in the world at once, with the exception of Noah and his family. God judges the people as being filled with evil thoughts, and by extension, sinful. God sees Noah, however, as a righteous person, so he gives Noah the ability to save his family and animals and rewards all his descendants for Noah’s obedience. The sins and evil of the rest of the world are never described, so it is hard to say what they are being punished for. This punishment has very little reasoning behind it and the people are never given a warning for committing what God sees as evil. This demonstrates how nondescript God can be when it comes to warnings and punishments. He, however, gets very specific about punishments in Exodus.

Punishments and rules are laid out very clearly in Exodus 21 and 22. Other punishments in Exodus 14-23 are the Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea and keeping bread until morning. The Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea because they did not believe in God, but God was the one who hardened the Pharaoh’s heart, so he would not let the Israelites go. When the Egyptians did start to believe in God, which can be seen by them believing he was fighting for the Israelites, is when God killed them all by having Moses close the Red Sea on them. An example of one of God’s small punishments is seen when the Israelites keep the leftover bread until morning. While they are wandering the desert, God gives them bread to collect, but Moses tells them “let no one leave any of it over until morning.’ But they did not listen to Moses; some left part of it until morning, and it bred worms and became foul.” (Exodus 16.19-20). No severe harm came to the Israelites who left the bread until morning, but it sends the message that every little thing that God says should be followed exactly as it is commanded or there will be some level of punishment. In Exodus 20, the Ten Commandments are listed out, but there are no punishments listed out correspondingly for breaking one or many commandments; it is just said to follow them. This contrasts to Exodus 21 and 22 which is a list of very specific rules and punishments for if something is done. One of the rules in Exodus 21 is “When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property,” (Exodus 21.20-21).

The scenario is explained and the punishment for the variations are also detailed, which is how most of the rules are laid out in Exodus 21 and 22. When the slave dies immediately, it is murder because the slave owner’s actions directly killed the slave. If it takes a few days, the slave owner is merely seen as punishing the slave, and the slave happened to die shortly after that punishment was dealt, but at this time it could not be proven if the slave happened to die or if the slave was killed because their owner struck them. Punishment is applied to animals as well as people in the Bible, such as “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall not be liable,” (Exodus 21.28). In modern society one would expect the owner to be held responsible because it is their property, but in the eyes of the God the ox simply does not deserve to live anymore, and the owner does not receive any punishment other than losing an ox. Sometimes punishments are reflective of women being submissive to men as well as a punishment for other actions. This is the case in Exodus 22.16-17, “When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.” This is seen as a man taking something away from the father, a pure daughter, rather than doing something wrong to a woman, which is why the reparations go to the father rather than going directly to the daughter. Occasionally God gives an explanation for his reasoning behind his rules and corresponding punishments. This is the case when God says “You shall not abuse any widow or orphan. If you do abuse them… I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans,” (Exodus 22.22-24). God will very often, but not always, have an eye for an eye type of punishment. His rules and punishments are based on making it up to the person you wronged directly.

Exodus 14-23 and Genesis 1-13 handle punishment very differently. In Genesis, punishment is very specific for Adam, Eve, and Cain, but is very general in the flood and in the fact that Adam and Eve’s punishments were passed on for all men and women. In Exodus, punishment is very detailed, but is setup more for when this rule is broken this punishment would occur. Punishment is dealt with directly in both sections of the Bible. The specificity and cause-effect nature of Exodus 14-23 makes what God expects of his people very clear. It sets up specific guidelines for everyone, which is extremely effective for creating a strong sense of society and community among the Israelites. The way God handles punishments in Exodus is far more interesting because the specificity opens the text up for more direct analysis for what God wants from people and why. Punishment is abundant in the Bible and one of the most common reasons for people to follow the word of the Bible. It is fear of punishment that causes people not to sin. The detail and frequency that punishment occurs in the Bible is reflective of how important it is in shaping the religion.

Everyday we go out and do the things we do. Everyone lives a different life and sees things differently. But most of the punishments are the same. We behave in certain ways to avoid consequences that authority figures have put out there. Through these punishments, society is being molded and shaped into what your parents, teachers, and bosses want. What your parents, teachers, and bosses want can be exactly what the government wants you to be. The government controls behavior through the punishments it enforces. They set the standards on how people should act and how they should respond to certain situations.

If these people act in a way not appropriate to societies standards, then they will be punished. This punishment will try to control the behaviors of these people. It will try to shape the person into what society wants. Punishments are not the only way to control someone’s behavior. People use rewards to keep someone happy and to control the behavior. More than likely, if you do something and you get rewarded, you will like it and behave in the same matter again later. I see society as a place where punishments are used more than rewards. They see that punishing an individual is easier than rewarding them.

It seems like those that are punished severely and taken to jail, come out of jail and find there way back. This is because some people are punished in the wrong way and sent to jail. Once out of jail, society sees that they have been punished and put them as outcast. These people now have a harder time functioning in society because the government thinks they have changed these individual’s behaviors. In reality, they come out of jail with no opportunity available. No one will hire these people because they are now seen as criminals. They try to find jobs but no one reaches out to them because of the punishment they have received.

Now these individuals find themselves in a dilemma. They need to eat and feed their families but have no way of doing so. They have to commit crimes to get want they want because society has put them out. Society and the people in it are not perfect and mistakes are made. We use punishment to control behavior so we can predict what they will do and control those around us. We need to understand that punishment can be good if used correctly. But if punishment is used incorrectly, it will hurt society in the long run and make life much harder to live.

The world is full of mysterious answers to questions: Why does the sun rise? Is there a higher power somewhere? These questions can be answered one of two ways; either through knowledge or belief. The accuracy of these answers, however, can vary greatly depending on which method of knowing is used. Belief, for example, is the least accurate option of the two. Belief is personal. Different individuals may have different beliefs on the same matter. People tend to have different beliefs depending on their way of thinking, which in turn depends on the person’s upbringing, education, knowledge, etc.

Knowledge however is something universal; there are no different views factored into knowledge. It is something that is void of any emotions or personal beliefs. When it comes to capital punishment, the answer for whether or not governments should be allowed to execute criminals is an answer based on belief. Some people may believe that capital punishment is wrong while some may believe that it is just. No one knows for sure whether or not it’s right or wrong to execute criminals. Some faith groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, oppose the death penalty as not being “pro-life. Catholic Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, writes “… the death penalty diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing. ” This quotation is based off of reason. It shows the side of the debate that views executing criminals as wrong. After all, if we kill someone to teach that killing is wrong, doesn’t that make us just as bad? “If a civilized society cannot say why one man should be executed and another not,” stated Justice Matthew Tobriner, “it does not rationally, logically take life.

Instead, it grossly denies due process of law, inflicting death on the basis of a trial that is capricious, discriminatory and guess-infected. ” For example, wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences and were killed by the state. People are accused of crimes they didn’t commit frequently. How can the state be sure of whether or not the person whose life they’re taking is actually doing justice, or just murdering an innocent person? This is based on reason. Arguing for capital punishment, the Clark County, Indiana Prosecuting

Attorney writes that “… there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent. ” Some crimes are so horrific that some people think that revenge or retribution is the only option.

This reasoning is not based on logic; but rather, it is based on emotions. Therefore, this reason should not be deemed a valid justification. It is commonly believed that the punishment of a crime should equal the crime. This is also known as “an eye for eye” justice. Therefore using this reason, the appropriate punishment for murder is death. Frank Carrington states, “is there any way one can tell whether the death penalty deters murders from killing? There is no way one can tell whether the death penalty deters murderers from killing.

The argument goes on that proponents of capital punishments should not have to bear the burden of proving deterrence by a reasonable doubt. Nor should the abolitionist have to prove deterrence by a reasonable doubt -neither side would be able to anyway. ” He also claims common sense supports the inference that if, the threat of the death penalty decreases, the rate of murders increases than it may be true. But if the threat had increased, the homicide rate may decrease. This statement means that capital punishment may serve as an example to would-be criminals, to deter them from committing murder or terrorist acts.

In conclusion, I find the arguments against capital punishment the most convincing. All of the inferences made in the argument against the death penalty have been based on reason or perception. An argument pro death penalty was based on emotion and has convinced me that the death penalty is in large part, a way of getting even. The “eye for an eye” analogy supports this. Previously, I was for capital punishment, but due to the evidence and the knowledge and not belief, that support the claims, I am against capital punishment. Word Count = 765

In the epic poem The Inferno by Dante Alighieri, Dante experiences pity for the damned souls in hell, which defies the Christian Church’s concept of frowning upon those in purgatory. Canto XIII of The Inferno exemplifies Dante’s ideas about people who commit suicide, which runs entirely contrary to the Church, who believes that those who commit suicide have dishonored God’s gift of human life. Dante’s defiance reflects his ability to analyze his surroundings and utilize his free will to think when released from the Church’s grasp.

Interestingly, he is only able to feel complete mental freedom in Hell, the place the Church disdains. Therefore, this poem is Dante criticizing society for blindly following the Church and diminishing their ability to think for themselves, and the Church for creating this type of controlling environment. Canto XIII (The Forest of Suicides) is solely dedicated to suicides, unlike any other Canto, which illustrates the significance of this point in Dante’s journey to the underworld. He passes through six levels of hell before reaching the circle of violence and he has not felt this much pity since the story of Francesca.

Upon entering the forest Dante questions his surroundings, an expected response of him. The entrance to the woods illustrates the pull between the imagined and experienced, and more importantly, what is written and left unsaid. Virgil tells Dante, ‘”Look well-you will see things that, in my telling, would seem to strip my words of truth. ‘/Lamentations I heard on every side but I saw no one who might be crying out so that, confused, I stopped” (Dante 239) Dante’s bewilderment personifies the strangeness of the seventh circle of hell and his feeling towards suicides: confused, nervous, and wary.

Virgil brings Dante further into the woods because he believes that Dante should honor these souls and pay attention to them, for the possibility remains they were not shown attention in their lives on earth. Continuing through the forest, Virgil tempts Dante to break a twig and witness the result in response to Dante’s joking comment of the sounds coming from the trees (239). To Dante’s amazement, the twig bleeds human blood and speaks: “‘Why do you tear me? Have you no pity? /We were once men that now are turned to thorns… ‘”(241).

Here Dante turns from a skeptic, to being fearful, to a believer of Virgil’s words and in use of his free will to feel emotion. The pity he feels for the souls stuck in twisted thorny trees for eternity bothers him because imagining himself in their position is nerve wracking. Moreover, the punishment given to those who commit suicide is everlasting pain and suffering. Having rejected their bodies on earth, these souls are decreed unable to assume human form. In committing suicide, the souls declared their God-given bodies unimportant, a sin in Christianity.

Thus arguably Dante feels more pity for the souls in the forest because he understands that suicide commonly occurs from external pressures and disasters. Thus those in the forest are dead because of other people’s actions, an unfair and unfortunate event. His pity shines through when Dante and Virgil conduct their ritual question and answer of the deceased. The souls trapped in the trees tell Virgil and Dante of how they got to the seventh circle and Dante becomes incredibly worked up and cannot speak, demonstrating his heartfelt emotions and sympathy.

A soul speaks and says, “‘If one of you goes back into the world, let him restore my memory, which still lies helpless beneath the blow that envy dealt it'”(243) This statement implies committing two sins, envy and suicide. Hearing his words, Dante becomes overwhelmed with despair. First he had no words in response because of shock and building emotion, but decides they must continue with the interviews. He says, “Please question him about the things you think I need to know. For I cannot, such pity fills my heart'”(243).

Previously Dante could relate somewhat to each circle and fear their punishment for himself, but he has not experienced killing himself, yet the anguish he feels is elevated. Presumably he feels like this because he sees no way out for them besides Judgment Day, which is unlikely to release them from suffering. Virgil asks the souls if they can one day be free, but they do not seem hopeful (245). A soul resumes to explain what happens to their bodies when they arrive in the seventh circle; they are treated like a rotten piece of meat that not even a dog would eat.

Their bodies are flung without care into the forest, no specific place chosen, and it fastens down to sprout roots and grow into the thorny, horrifying mess they stepped in to. In a sense, the way the bodies are treated is another form of punishment. Since they went astray from God’s plan, they are treated accordingly. Furthermore, once the thicket grows wild and big, The Harpies, terrifying creatures who live in the forest of suicides, feed on the branches housing the souls, meaning their punishment is endless pain so they never forget the feeling of suicide.

Out of the blue two souls come running towards them, this encounter further reveals Dante’s character. The souls are consciously running to their deaths with yearning and run into a thorn bush where a dog mangles the bodies and runs away with their limbs. Following straight after the event Dante and Virgil approach the bush the souls ran in to, as it was crying (247). Through this particular instance, Dante comments on the importance of nature in human life. Nature and Man coexist, but Man believes that nature is below us and therefore has the power to treat it as we please.

The bush did not want the soul to impound itself on it, but the soul did not consider that. Dante shows deep compassion for the bush simply by approaching it as if a physical human was crying. He breaks his nervous and confused mindset completely, exhibiting his change in heart and mind towards these tormented souls. Once the soul has rested in the bush, it has more concern for itself then when it was alive. The soul’s physical body was what pained him and being known as the person he once was seems to have been overwhelming.

Why this is remains unknown, but the reason is unimportant because the fact that someone would detest themselves or their life to such a great extent, means something must have happened to them that could not be erased. The act of killing his or herself was an act of relief from their previous identity, which is expressed through his concern for its bush after death: “‘O souls who have arrived to see the shameless carnage that has torn me from my leaves, /gather them here at the foot of this wretched bush'”(247).

The nameless soul asks for a simple and modest favor, which further shows its relaxed state of mind. Dante of course pities the soul, and being a learned man, acknowledges the importance of people’s relationship with the natural world. He helps the soul because he realizes it was once human but because of unfortunate events it resides in the forest. Moreover, Dante’s act exposes the anger within himself for his treatment of the branch when he entered the forest. Breaking the twig and seeing it bleed was terrifying and unexpected, but he has a chance to redeem himself by collecting the leaves for the soul.

The decision to leave the soul nameless indicates the commonality of suicide during this time period, which alludes to a misshapen society. If the Florentine people were commonly killing themselves and going against the Church, their reasons must have been grand because devotion to the Church was everything and almost mandated if one desired acceptance. Therefore, through having a nameless soul Dante criticizes the Church and their punishments and implying that life was worse than hell.

When the soul speaks of Florence and identifies himself as Florentine from his reference to Mars (155), Dante feels even greater pity because he is reminded of disturbing incidents of suicide and hanging where he grew up. Likely Dante knew people who committed suicide, which would make his sadness stronger. Knowing that someone you love must endure such a terrible afterlife is devastating, so for the love of his homeland and to help the souls in the forest, Dante loses fear and shock and genuinely helps the soul, which is an important moment.

He has not felt sad enough to help any other soul in hell, but this one is different because it resonates with him on a personal level. Dante’s grief throughout Inferno raises the issue of God’s Divine Justice and if his punishments are fair. By questioning God’s power, Dante puts himself out on the line and forces the reader to question God as well, aiming to alleviate the pressures of the Church on the individual and allowing one to think for one’s self.

Although Dante concludes that the crime fits the punishment, he shows remorse for the souls. His remorse sprouts from his acute awareness of his surroundings and understanding of his standing on earth. Without reading Inferno through Dante’s eyes, the reader could not have comprehended the importance of each circle of hell for him. Not only is Dante’s journey a trip to the underworld; it is a journey to find himself. The opening lines of the epic poem illustrate his internal unrest by describing the “dark wood” where his path was lost (3).

Entering each circle of hell means a learning experience for Dante and a chance to figure out who he is and where he wants to go in life. By Canto XIII his evolution is evident. Instead of collapsing from pity, he overcomes his emotions and allows himself to interact with the nameless soul. Dante has matured since entering Limbo, which benefits him in as he descends deeper into hell because he has the chance to analyze the soul’s situation and connect further, rather than assuming the role of the fainthearted.

Suspense begins in Roskolnikov’s thoughts There are times where we find ourselves living in suspense, feeling insecure about what possibly can occur next. So many things that surround us, at times, foreshadow what may happen next. When this happens, we crave to know what is the next event that will arrive. In the book of Crime and Punishment, there are many parts in which the story becomes suspenseful. Well, how does Dostoyevsky achieve and sustain the suspense in his novel?

It all starts right when we find out that Roskolnikov creates feelings of hatred towards Alyona Ivanovna, and creates some sort of plan to kill her. Even though in his thoughts laid the plan, he wasn’t completely convinced by his own being in actually completing with a crime. But once he was at the bar, where he overheard a conversation about Ivanovna and how she were better off dead, he decided that it was best that he were to do their request. This is before the suspense comes into play.

Overhearing the conversations about Alyona Ivanovna persuaded Rokolnikov that it was his destiny to murder her. The more he thought about it, the more he liked the idea. This is where we can see a bit of suspense growing, because as a reader, what can we expect from a man who has never committed a crime such as killing? While Roskolnikov was a bit insecure about his decision in doing murder, he planned to use an ax to murder Alyona Ivanovna. He got his ax, and went his way to her door, waiting the moment where he can take action.

It’s possible to imagine that in this moment, Roskolnikov probably tensed up in his body, possibly shook out of being nervous, and sweated heavily because he was going to do something he has never done before. The thoughts that lurked in his head of killing another person seemed right to him, because supposedly it was his “destiny”, but somewhere deep inside of him, he knew the act of murder brought consequences. This is where suspense begins to grow. Roskolnikov appears at her door, waiting for her to be in his presence.

She opens the door to find him at her doorstep, and allows him to come in. Roskolnikov offered her something to distract her from seeing him get out his ax, and he was successful. The suspense by now has grown to a whole another level, where we read to find out if Roskolnikov is really capable of killing another person, or not. This part of the book ends with letting us know that he was libertine, and when the chance was presented to him, he got out his ax, and lacerated her until she lied on the floor, dead.

Dostoyevsky, the author of Crime and Punishment, was successful in bringing in suspense to this part of the story. He was able to grasp for the reader’s attention, in wanting to know more of what Roskolnikov was capable of doing, what would have been his next move, and leaving them in shock when they come to find out what he ends up doing. This had to be one of the times in the book of Crime and Punishment where suspense was presented. Works Cited Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment

To Spank, Or Not To Spank COM/156 October 30, 2011 Parents have different ways of punishing their child. Anything from grounding them from things, making them do extra chores, time outs and pking them. The most effective of these, is pking. In a research project by Marjorie Gunnoe, “children who were pked between the ages of 2 and 6 grew up to be happier and well-adjusted as teenagers. ” Spanking a child is not abuse. It is a means of punishment. You should only use your hand to pk your child.

Showing your child they have done wrong, by pking, will teach them to not do what it is that they did, again. You should never use a belt, shoe, switch, or any other foreign object. Those would be considered weapons, and that would be child abuse. Spanking is not a hateful means of punishment. It shows the child they have done wrong and need to be punished. It is an effective means of punishment. Children learn not to do the same wrong again. A child will grow up “happier and well-adjusted” by pking them. The controversy of pking is worldwide.

Opinions differ on pro-corporal punishment and anti-corporal punishment. People who are against corporal punishment believe that pking is child abuse. They say there are better ways of punishing a child. People who are for corporal punishment believe that pking is a good form of punishment, yet they also know there are different ways of punishing a child. Parents who pk their children find it is more effective as a punishment. A research done by Marjorie Gunnoe, psychology professor at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, states that “pking is more effective on children ages 2 to 6 years old. It has also been said you should not pk a child under 18 months old or a child over the age of 10. Spanking a child over the age of 10 can have a negative effect and make a child more aggressive growing up. The American College of Pediatricians, or ACP, reviewed the research on corporal punishment and concluded that pking, as discipline, can be effective on children when it is used properly, but should not be solely relied on to keep your children in line. Spanking your child out of anger, or with anything other than your hand, leaving welts and/or bruises, is considered to be child abuse.

Spanking should not be impulsive, pk only with your hand once or twice, and the child should be forewarned of the pking and reason for the pking in order for it to be successful. The saying, “Spare the rod, spoil the child” comes from a biblical proverb (Proverbs 13:24) “He who withholds the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently. ” What this means is, if you don’t punish a child when they do wrong, you will spoil them. This goes way back. You want to punish your child for their wrong, and make sure it is effective enough to get the point across.

If you don’t effectively punish your child, they will think it is okay to keep doing the wrong. Kosciusko County (Indiana) Department of Child Services sees hundreds of cases per year involving child abuse and/or neglect. Of those cases, there is physical abuse such as punching, hitting, kicking, and biting. Yet there are only a “handful” of cases involving an out of control parent pking their child. Tiffany Malone, a caseworker for the DCS, has seen many cases of abuse and neglect. She stated, “You can pk your child as long as you do not leave any marks, and you do not pk them with anything except an open hand on the buttocks. It has also been said you can pk your child’s feet. been charged with Battery on a minor for leaving excessive marks on their child. In the Indiana Supreme Court case Willis vs. State, Sophia Willis is raising an unruly child and pked him several times with a belt or extension cord, which lead to marks on the child’s arm (from missing the buttocks. ) She ended up receiving 365 days in jail, and had to do 357 of those suspended to probation. The judge stated, “This is a tough area of the law. Because you know that a person’s intent was not to do a wrong thing. It has also been said, “The law is well settled that a parent has a right to administer proper and reasonable chastisement to his child without being guilty of an assault and battery. ” By knowing our boundaries and limitations, we can successfully correct our children in a positive way. By pking them. The mixed reaction by so many is just misunderstanding. No one has to pk a child. When nothing else works, pking is a last ditch effort. It may be a controversial form of punishment, but it does work. Older children that look back on their younger years are happy they were pked.

They grew up happier, did well in school, and did well as they grew up. There are different laws in different states. Some condone corporal punishment, some do not. Some countries have banned corporal punishment all together. As long as there is no anger or foreign objects involved in pking a child, it is not considered child abuse. Some psychologists, DCS workers, parents, and courts condone pking. There are court cases stating it is a parent’s right to decide whether or not a pking should be administered.

It is also the parent’s responsibility to react, without vengeance, appropriately while administering a pking to a child. A parent should not be found guilty of punishing their child no matter. Unless there is a sinister demeanor involved, a parent is completely capable of punishing their own child without chastisement from others. Children are our future and we want nothing but the best for them. By pking our children, we are teaching them right from wrong and making their future that much brighter and worth looking for. Citations/References http://www. lifesitenews. om/news/archive/ldn/2010/jan/10010507 http://www. mlive. com/news/grand-rapids/index. http://www. cerm. info/bible_studies/Topical/pking. htmssf/2010/01/is_pking_children_ok_calvin. html http://www. tldm. org/News11/AmericanCollegeOfPediatriciansSpanking. htm Tiffany Malone- Kosciusko County Child Protective Services, Warsaw, Indiana http://www. in. gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08290801mgr. pdf http://www. in. gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06100801rdr. pdf http://www. in. gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05311101msm. pdf http://www. in. gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3. html