Recent orders
Is healthcare a fundamental human right
Is healthcare a fundamental human right?
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date
There is a great deal of debate over whether or not healthcare is a fundamental human right. Many people believe it is a basic human right, while others contend that it is a privilege that should be earned. Several key points should be considered when debating this topic. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not healthcare is a fundamental human right is a complex one. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue (Ayubdar, M., & Vang-Phu, T. (2021). Therefore, there are several reasons on healthcare is a fundamental right.
From this article, “Healthcare as a Universal Human Right: Sustainability in Global Health by Nunes,” I learned that healthcare is a fundamental human right. This means everyone has the right to healthcare, regardless of income, race, or social status. Healthcare is essential for human dignity and well-being and should be accessible to everyone (Nunes, 2021). Unfortunately, healthcare is not accessible to everyone in many parts of the world. This is often due to poverty, lack of infrastructure, and political instability. To make healthcare a reality for everyone, we must address these issues. We need financial support for countries that lack the resources to provide healthcare to their citizens. We also need to build infrastructure and promote political stability. Only then will healthcare be a reality for everyone—Healthcare as a fundamental human right and the importance of sustainability in global health. The author discusses the concept of healthcare as a human right and the various ways it can be achieved. The author also discusses the importance of sustainability in global health and the multiple ways it can be achieved.
However, the article “Access to Healthcare as a Fundamental Right or Privilege? by Verulava” taught me that healthcare is not a fundamental human right. The author argues that healthcare is a privilege, not a right and that access to healthcare should be based on need, not on a person’s ability to pay. The author also argues that healthcare is a scarce resource and that rationing is necessary to ensure that everyone has access to the care they need. While healthcare is a fundamental human right in many countries, there are several reasons why it is not considered a fundamental human right in others (Verulava, 2021). One reason is that healthcare is a service someone must provide, and not everyone has the same access to healthcare providers. Another reason is that healthcare is a costly service, and not everyone can afford to pay for it. Finally, some argue that healthcare is not a fundamental human right because it is not an absolute right and that other rights are more important.
Works Cited
Nunes, R. (2021). Healthcare as a Universal Human Right: Sustainability in Global Health (p. 224). Taylor & Francis. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/52617Verulava, T. (2021). Access to Healthcare as a Fundamental Right or Privilege?. Siriraj Medical Journal, 73(10), 721-726. https://he02.tcithaijo.org/index.php/sirirajmedj/article/view/253306Ayubdar, M., & Vang-Phu, T. (2021). ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS REGULATIONS. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 24, 1-12. https://search.proquest.com/openview/74c7710b7592dd38a549f25fb0e7f569/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=38868
IS EDUCATION WORTH THE COST
IS EDUCATION WORTH THE COST?
Student’s name
Instructor
Course
Date
Is Education Worth The Cost?
Different norms and beliefs define a society. However, when it comes to education, there is a manner in which it is viewed as one that determines a person’s place in the community. Education in the contemporary world has been taken as one of the essential parts of society. However, in a real sense, it is not everything that matters. First of all, education is very costly and in this concerning college and university education. Many people spent a lot of money on education, which does not help them that much, and education does not get into their minds. This is what becomes for some college students a time well spent making new friends and having new experiences (Kerr, 2019).
Most high school students in the United States wait eagerly after finishing high school for a letter of acceptance or rejection from their different universities of choice. This means, therefore, the transition has to take place, and most of the parents have to use a lot of money to prepare their children for college life. Most of the parents go shopping and pay school fees, which are very much, and they can sometimes go even a further effort to get loans for their children to have a college education. This especially happens in developing countries. However, the question that remains unanswered is whether the education these students pursue after high school education is worth the cost. This is a question that has been debated for so long, and it keeps on bringing new perspectives every day. Some individuals believe that education is essential and that people should pay all the possible amount of information to ensure that education is gained.
On the other hand, some individuals believe that education is not very important. The best way to teach is to provide information to the person who wants to be educated and to learn. I agree with the latter perspective.
This means education is not worth the amount of money different pay to get this education. Therefore, the best thing to do is stop education at all costs and ensures that every individual gains access to information. Therefore if the education system factors in making information available even before students can get into college, if the information is provided, there will no need for teachers, and there will be a tremendous loss. Therefore teachers are not required there will be better places for experiments carried out by the uncontrolled science of the world(Kerr, 2019).
Acceding to Forbes, the cost of attendance in public in-state colleges is approximately $27,000 per year. On the other side for private colleges, this amount goes to around $55,000. Compared to the reality of issues, this amount of money is too much just for getting a certificate that may come without all the required skills. It, therefore, turns out that education is self-based and not school-based. This is because unless a person decides to study and use the resources to develop themselves into what they need, it is challenging for them to learn. With this realization, it turns out why education is so expensive (Tretina, 2020).
First of all, it is essential to consider that education is just an arrangement of the freely available information in most sites, libraries, and other places in an orderly manner. This means that when a person studies a degree course, they are just paying for the arrangement of the information and not for the information they are getting. Other things a person can pay for are the time spent within the institution and their skills from their lecturers who have had experience. Therefore, information is not paid for since it can be easily obtained and at a meager price compared to school fees (Abbiati, & Barone, 2017).
Therefore it is a significant consideration for some people to make. The most important reason people go to universities and colleges is for their improvement of skills and the desire to look for better employment with better salaries. However, this needs skills, and there is always a question; which one is better? College certificate or skills?. It is why some individuals like Elon musk are against the education system and focus on the formation of a person and what they like and believe to be their true identity and calling to perform and achieve.
References
Abbiati, G., & Barone, C. (2017). Is university education worth the investment? The expectations of upper secondary school seniors and the role of family background. Rationality and Society, 29(2), 113-159.
Kerr, E. (2019, June 17). Is College Worth the Cost? US News & World Report; U.S. News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2019-06-17/is-college-worth-the-cost
Tretina, K. (2020, December 29). Is College Worth The Cost? Pros Vs. Cons. Forbes Advisor. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/is-college-worth-it/
Is Death Penalty Effective
Is Death Penalty Effective
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Professor’s Name
Date
Is Death Penalty Effective
The death penalty, also referred to as capital punishment, involves the offenders’ execution sentenced to death following the conviction by courts of law of particular criminal offenses. Although the terms death penalty and capital punishment are sometimes used interchangeably, Clark (2017) shows that the execution does not always follow the penalty. The proponents of death punishment argue that death punishment helps deter crime and fulfill other goals of punishment. However, death punishment opponents say that it is unethical, inhumane, and does not meet the punishment goals. There has been a lot of controversy regarding the imposition of the death penalty.
In the United States, death punishment has been restored since the year 1976. The number of approximately killed inmates was thirty in 2015 (Spitzberg et al. 2018). Most states that were affected were Virginia, Florida, Texas, and Missouri. It was said that two thousand nine hundred and eighty-four convicts were waiting on the death row (Spitzberg et al. 2018). For the last two decades, research has shown that Americans were in great support of punishment through death. The support has been seen to fall steadily with time though the majority of the republicans are in agreement with the act. The Democrats oppose this capital punishment and ask for its review (Spitzberg et al. 2018). Also, the issue of racial discrimination has been evident in many death penalties. African American people have become most victims of this punishment (Steiker et al. 2015).
Firstly, there is controversy concerning whether the death punishment helps in enhancing retribution. According to Villalobos (2020), the proponents of death punishment argue that it satisfies the principle of retribution when punishing severe offenses like murder. The proponents’ primary argument is that guilty individuals should be punished and that the punishments should proportional to the crime severity. These arguments are based on the belief that justice requires individuals to suffer for their wrongdoing and suffer in a manner that reflects their crimes. Retribution requires all offenders to face punishments that reflect their punishments. Therefore, in such cases, the most appropriate punishment for murder would be the death penalty. Chan et al. (2018) also show that the proponents of death punishment also argue that the courts should heed to the society’s cry for justice and judgments that befit various crimes. Steiker et al. (2019) show that capital punishment proponents often support their arguments with the biblical concept of “an eye for an eye.” However, Baumgartner et al. (2017) show that the idea is usually misinterpreted. The idea means that only the guilty should face punishments and that the sentences should neither be too lenient nor too severe. Most opponents of the death penalty argue that the penalty acts as vengeance somewhat instead of retribution, and it is a morally wrong concept. Also, Villalobos (2020) claims that the anticipatory suffering of the offenders who may sometimes be kept in a death row for too long awaiting their execution makes the punishment too severe, violating the principle of retribution the amount of penalty should reflect the crime.
Secondly, there are dilemmas regarding whether the death penalty acts as a deterrence against murder and other serious crimes. The death penalty proponents argue that executing convicted murders would instill fear and prevent other peoples from committing similar crimes. However, Steiker et al. (2019) argue that there is no significant correlation between the death penalty and murder deterrence. Also, Chan et al. (2018), some of the executed individuals could not be prevented from engaging in similar crimes due to mental defects and illness. According to Clark (2017), some murders are committed in very emotional states that contain the offenders from thinking about the consequences of their acts, hence previous execution of the convicted criminals cannot deter such crimes. Also, there are doubts about whether the death penalty deters crimes more than life imprisonment. The opponents of the death penalty argue that the anticipatory period before the convicted criminals’ execution minimizes the death punishment’s deterrent effect. Villalobos (2020) indicates that a long gap between the crime and the punishment, either by certainty or time, nullifies the punishments’ deterrent effect. Also, capital punishment’s deterrent effect would be more significant if the punishments were executed in public places and in a humiliating way. However, convicted criminals are always perpetrated in private places and relatively painless methods that use drugs and injections, reducing the criminals’ deterrent effects. However, some proponents of the death penalty argue that the sentence is effective even if it fails to satisfy the punishment’s deterrent goal. For instance, Steiker et al. (2019) argue that executing murderers helps reduce their number, hence decreasing the murder of innocent individuals.
Rehabilitation is another crucial goal of punishment. Clark (2017) shows that rehabilitation involves changing a criminal’s behavior to mold them into legally abiding citizens of society. However, the death penalty does not allow the rehabilitation of the offenders’ behaviors and returning them to the community. The proponents of death punishment argue that the penalty enables the criminals’ rehabilitation during the anticipatory periods. For instance, Villalobos (2020) indicates that some offenders use the anticipatory period to express remorse of their acts, repent, and undergo spiritual rehabilitation before their execution. However, the argument does not support capital punishment but seeks to prove that capital punishment can lead to rehabilitation.
The death penalty proponents also argue that the penalty prevents reoffending since the executed criminals cannot kill again; however, the opponents of the penalty dispute this argument by providing other punishment methods for offenders from society. The proponents of the death punishment counter this argument by arguing that although there are minimal cases, some people escape from the prison and kills again, hence necessitating the death penalty. The proponents of capital punishment also argue that although the imprisonment without parole prevents the society from the threats caused by the convicted murderers, the murders are a significant threat to the prison police and the staffs. Therefore, the best way of preventing the reoccurrence of murder offenses would-be offenders’ execution.
Some proponents of the death penalty argue that it acts as an incentive to help police in their investigations. Baumgartner et al. (2017) show that plea bargaining is used to support the police in their investigation in most countries. The process enables the prisoners to get a reduced jail term if they agree to collaborate with the police in digging more evidence. Clark (2017) indicates that when the death penalty is the most probable punishment, the prisoners are more willing to collaborate with the police officers to reduce their punishments, at least to life imprisonment. However, Villalobos (2020) argues that using the death penalty to fetch for evidence from individuals is torture and should be never be tolerated.
According to Chan et al. (2018), the death penalty is also used for psychological benefit. For instance, Clark (2017) shows that the penalty usually symbolizes that bad things happen to people who deserve them in Japan. Also, Villalobos (2020) also shows bad things happening to people who deserve them, reinforce the contrary view that good things happen to those who deserve them, creating a psychological effect that makes people feel rewards for good deeds, hence fostering hard work and other values.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is massive controversy on the effectiveness of the death penalty in averting crimes. The proponents of the death penalty serve various principles of the punishments including the deterrence, retribution, sacrificial rehabilitation, avoids reoccurrence of crimes, makes the prisoners collaborate with the police in various investigations in exchange with a reduced jail term, and reinforces psychological believes that fosters hard work and lead a good life. However, the opponents of the death punishment do jot exhaustively serves the punishment goals. Death penalties fail to provide a chance for offenders’ rehabilitation and do not enhance retribution and deterrence against crime. Proponents of death punishment also argue that although the police use the penalty in doing their investigations in exchange for reduced jail term. However, the penalty acts as the offender’s humiliation to produce some evidence, amounting to torture. In general, the death penalty is unethical, and it fails to satisfy all the punishment goals. The NGOs, public, and other stakeholders should continue advocating for the complete removal of the death penalty, considering ethical consideration and respect for human dignity.
References
Baumgartner, F., Davidson, M., Johnson, K., Krishnamurthy, A., & Wilson, C. (2017). Deadly Justice: A statistical portrait of the death penalty. Oxford University Press.
Chan, W. C., Tan, E. S., Lee, J. T. T., & Mathi, B. (2018). How strong is public support for the death penalty in Singapore?. Asian journal of criminology, 13(2), 91-107.
Clark, R. (2017). To Abolish the Death Penalty. In Capital Punishment (pp. 176-180). Routledge.
Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2019). The American Death Penalty: Alternative Model for Ordinary Criminal Justice or Exception that Justifies the Rule? New Criminal Law Review, 22(4), 359-390.
Villalobos, A. (2020). Countering Pro-Death Penalty Attitudes.
Ye, X., Sharag-Eldin, A., Spitzberg, B., & Wu, L. (2018). Analyzing public opinions on death penalty abolishment. Chinese Sociological Dialogue, 3(1), 53-75.
Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2015). The American death penalty and the (in) visibility of race. The University of Chicago Law Review, 243-294.
Is Death Penalty Effective
Citation:
Baumgartner, F., Davidson, M., Johnson, K., Krishnamurthy, A., & Wilson, C. (2017). Deadly Justice: A statistical portrait of the death penalty. Oxford University Press.
Annotation:
The authors in their book try to bring out a bigger picture of the death penalty. They suggest that retribution is not enough evidence for capital punishment. They bring up questions on how the punishment could be made proportionate and given to the worst offenders. Also, they suggest that a limit should be kept on the number of crimes to which the death penalty is to be given.
Citation:
Chan, W. C., Tan, E. S., Lee, J. T. T., & Mathi, B. (2018). How strong is public support for the death penalty in Singapore?. Asian journal of criminology, 13(2), 91-107.
Annotation:
The article studies the strength of public support for the death penalty in Singapore. It states that Singapore is well known for use using the death penalty for drug trafficking and murder cases. Singapore makes the death penalty mandatory but later amended for the judge to give an option of life imprisonment. The article reports on findings that assess knowledge and support of the death penalty.
Citation:
Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2015). The American death penalty and the (in) visibility of race. The University of Chicago Law Review, 243-294.
Annotation:
This article talks about the American death penalty and racial discrimination in the ruling. The authors say that racial injustice is common in American criminal justice and this causes suffering to most black Americans as they become victims. The article details how the blacks were mistreated during the civil war and how the Supreme court avoided racism.
Citation:
Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2019). The American Death Penalty: Alternative Model for Ordinary Criminal Justice or Exception that Justifies the Rule? New Criminal Law Review, 22(4), 359-390.
Annotation:
This article looks at the alternative models for the ordinary criminal justice system. The authors state that the Supreme Court has come up with a substitute justice system limited to capital cases. This includes; proportionality in sentence outcomes, the requirement of individualized sentencing, and regulating the defense counsel. These regulations were set under the statement that ‘death is different.’
Citation:
Villalobos, A. (2020). Countering Pro-Death Penalty Attitudes.
Annotation:
In this article, the authors suggest that the death penalty has been the main issue in many prisons. The authors tested two methods regarding how they would change the minds of individuals towards the death penalty. They tested the innocent-risk argument that suggests that there is greater risk in killing someone innocent. They then tested the deterrence-risk argument that states that the death penalty is not the best way to handle a capital offense. They found out that the innocent-risk situation increased the probability of reducing death penalty attitudes.