a) Look at the nine major arguments of right realism and construct counter arguments
E.g. Argument 8. Counter Argument:Â The refusal of Catholic children's agencies to consider gay couples as adoptive parents is against the law in England.Â Consideration of gay couples is contrary to the moral beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.Â Therefore this particular crime does not reflect absolute religions and therefore for Catholic's moral notions of right and wrong.Â Roman Catholics are the largest religious minority group in Britain, is it moral to legislate against their religious beliefs?Â For the Catholic Church in Britain, this particular legislative crime is not an offence against morality, whereas to act against its own religious beliefs would be an offence against morality.Â It is dangerous to equate legislation with morality.Â The question is raised which is more important social conscience or individual conscience?Â In Nazi Germany most opted for social conscience with devastating results for the Jewish and Gypsy populations of Europe.Â As society becomes increasingly secular argument 8 will become weaker.
Argument 1 - Counter Argument: Everybody understands individuals had control over their own actions. Therefore the idea that people were driver by believe & influenced by their social environment began to control the raison about why people behaved the way they did. There is some debate about law people became criminals & this varied absolutely for the next two centuries. Back to the late twenty centuries others elements such as peer pressure - substances abuse- family or school problems - lack of money & body chemistry figured into the mix. In reality, throughout time various discussions for criminal behaviour feel into two categories individual abnormalities both physical & psychological and social environment which included financial matters, such as whether a person was rich, poor or in between. Cesare Lombroso stated that some people simply born criminals.
Argument 2 - Counter Argument: Why society should be more enthusiastic to be judgmental & enforce high values? Will be acceptable that anti-social behaviour should be let unchallenged? Whist I realise that to impose a kind of rules will limits personal freedom. We may be accepted that it is a price worth paying particularly as the Tab that will be picked up by the rest of us for those who constantly refuse to accept our values in the name of their personal freedom. Crime is a distraction & waste of time I don't think particularly in the case of some our shocking crimes & the cases of many minor but perpetually offenders, a good deal is often known about the offender and there no serious corrective action is taken. I think about the case of [8 year old Sarah Payne] that was abducted, sexually abused and murdered by Roy Whiting who had previously abducted and sexually abused another little girl. He received a only 4 year prison sentence & while in prison he got the choice to refuse any treatment for his sexual issue. So he was released in the society as a human time bomb but an innocent child paid the price
Argument 3 - Counter Argument: In UK prison costs £700 per week for an ordinary prisoner - over £36.000 per year according to the Home Office. On this basis, a life sentence at todays will cost £550,000 for a 15 year term. Around £2.5 billion or £40.00 per annum by every person are spent on the UK Criminal Justice System at present and clearly rise. Does society obtain any merit from spending these vast sums? There is gunfire often heard in some zones in UK cities about local drug gangs sorting out territorial disputes. On daily basic we read of murders and others dreadful crimes and here what what does the penal system do to protect us? Building more new prisons and locking up ever more people really help? We know the answer is no and yet the government continue to do it. They will perpetual thinker with the laws to push up the maximum sentence for this crime or set up new offence here or there, but at the end it will have no effect other than certainly push up the cost to the taxpayer. I understand if there were to do a cost/benefit analysis, would you find that crime could be reduced by spending these huge amounts of money in better ways?
Argument 4 - Counter Argument: Increasingly, more young adults, teenagers & student are involved in act of criminality, delinquent and antisocial behaviour. This government must take the lead & contribute towards the establishment of intervention programs. Also civil society must play their role without the community. To improve social condition it will depend on every citizen to assist in maintaining a culture of good behaviour, peace & stability in their respective communities. All families must recognize that they have also a major role to perform in shaping the behaviour and future direction of their children. Their economic condition, attitude and behaviour will influence the future of their children in better social condition. But the government need to address this situation & provide the necessary funding for intervention programs and activities in schools, for families particularly those who are in the poverty.
Argument 5 - Counter Argument: A lot emphasis is placed upon rehabilitation by prison reform groups & there is obviously a lot of sense in trying to rehabilitate prisoners to lead an honest and normal life upon release. This end, they are taught skills and trades within prison. I feel that it may be much more use to address their drugs/emotional/mental problems as anger managements courses for violent offenders and doubt whether there is sufficient effort devoted to this. I also wonder whether it is actually possible to rehabilitate some offenders when society does not either forgive or forget particularly awful crimes - witness the furore over the release of the two boys who murdered James Bugler.
Argument 6 - Counter Argument: We are living in an age of increased insecurity & uncertainty in which public perception of crime and insecurity are becoming more prominent and more salient. Criminal gang battling for share of the illegal drug profit are a significant source of antisocial behaviour and street violence in the UK. Fear of crime by public has its own impact the more important of which is a de facto curfew on movements around the city. Particularly after dark coupled with feeling of insecurity even within the home.
Argument 7 - Counter Argument: The maximum punishment now, is life in prison, although only very few people will actually spent the rest of their lives behind bars. As the majority will be released on parole after serving their periods of 12 - 15 years for a single murder still we need to identify ways of preventing people committing the crime. Can genetics help here? It seem that we can identify genes that may cause or influence criminal behaviour. Really some question could be raise about the best way to stop violent crime if our justice system and politicians constantly give in to these bleeding lead socialist who are quite happy to defend the right of the criminal while punishing the innocent?
Argument 9 - Counter Argument: The field of restorative practices has significant implication for all aspects of society from families, classrooms, schools to workplaces because by using restorative practices can develop better relationship among use. One of the good examples is: In schools, the use of restorative practices has been shown to reliably reduce misbehaviour, bullying, violence & crime among students and improve the overall climate for learning.