Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En bas
Dissertation/Correction
Message de princessblood posté le 14-03-2012 à 16:28:24 (S | E | F)
Bonjour,
Pourriez-vous m'aider à me corriger s'il vous plaît?
Merci d'avance pour vos réponses!
Is it enough to apprehend criminals ? Compared to their crimes, to family’s lost, a simple punishment like an imprisonment seems negligible. That’s why we can reassess the validity of the principle of justice, of ways how institutions as Justice Department do justices to victims. Is it necessary to go as far as stopping crimes or apprehending criminals is enough to compensate torts inflicted ? If we want to address completely this problem we have to envisage two ways of thinking. On the one hand, we will analyse it in a concrete way, in a practical situation, in a realistic world. On the other hand, we will come up with a strange idea. In a distant futur, the society has managed to find a manner to arrest criminals before they have done their tort.
It is interesting first to note how logical and obvious it appears to us to have always a responsible. So, after a crime have been committed, it needs criminal, thief or muderer, that we can charge, judge, emprison and even kill. It is a legal manner to pass our frustation onto anybody. The person should be a poor scapegoat who had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the official goal is not to repeat the same crime. However, we have emphasize that the real purpose, the one that is hidden. The truth that everybody knows but also the truth that makes be quiet. In reality, victims or their parents want feel that their revenge havs been executed. If the justice, revenge of sorts, doesn’t exist, there would be an untold number of vendettas in cities. It would be a real chaos. The human society would fall apart bit-by-bit under the knife. The action of apprehending criminals is therefore justified by good reasons, even if the pain remains in our heart and mind. To save somebody unhappiness, heartbreaking, depression due to a rape, to a murder or to other despicable crimes, it would be necessary to prevent crimes, to stop criminals before they succeed in doing it.
This brings us to the next point. To understand correctly this question and form your own opinion, I recommand to you to watch Minority report a film by Steven Spielberg. It is the best example I know for all I will try to account for. If we stop criminal before their crime, it would be brilliant. There would be no more victims. It would be the end of all social problems, or at lest of the most part. But, if there would be only happy-ends, it means murderers don’t exist. There would be no prison. A criminal is a person who is guilty of crime. If there is no more crime, how criminals can still exist ? If we apprehend a criminal before their tort, can we still consider him like a criminal ? After all, we can have criminal urge but without always carrying it out. It is a permanent feature in human beings. Our urge to kill are often passing. It arrives in a fit of anger and disappears afterwards. Thus, if we rely on people's feelings to consider them as criminals, a lot of them would be imprisoned in error. If ca is, they would never have committed their crime. But as they did stop before, we do not know the outcome of history. Maybe, they would have never committed their crimes. But as they have been arrested before, we do not know the outcome of the history, of their delicate situation.
In conclusion, the problem of apprehending criminals or stopping them before their tort is really complex and I must admit that it leaves my mind with no thought. I have no opinion. I am not convinced and my point of view is nonexistent. I leave it to you to judge for yourself.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 14-03-2012 17:31
Message de princessblood posté le 14-03-2012 à 16:28:24 (S | E | F)
Bonjour,
Pourriez-vous m'aider à me corriger s'il vous plaît?
Merci d'avance pour vos réponses!
Is it enough to apprehend criminals ? Compared to their crimes, to family’s lost, a simple punishment like an imprisonment seems negligible. That’s why we can reassess the validity of the principle of justice, of ways how institutions as Justice Department do justices to victims. Is it necessary to go as far as stopping crimes or apprehending criminals is enough to compensate torts inflicted ? If we want to address completely this problem we have to envisage two ways of thinking. On the one hand, we will analyse it in a concrete way, in a practical situation, in a realistic world. On the other hand, we will come up with a strange idea. In a distant futur, the society has managed to find a manner to arrest criminals before they have done their tort.
It is interesting first to note how logical and obvious it appears to us to have always a responsible. So, after a crime have been committed, it needs criminal, thief or muderer, that we can charge, judge, emprison and even kill. It is a legal manner to pass our frustation onto anybody. The person should be a poor scapegoat who had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the official goal is not to repeat the same crime. However, we have emphasize that the real purpose, the one that is hidden. The truth that everybody knows but also the truth that makes be quiet. In reality, victims or their parents want feel that their revenge havs been executed. If the justice, revenge of sorts, doesn’t exist, there would be an untold number of vendettas in cities. It would be a real chaos. The human society would fall apart bit-by-bit under the knife. The action of apprehending criminals is therefore justified by good reasons, even if the pain remains in our heart and mind. To save somebody unhappiness, heartbreaking, depression due to a rape, to a murder or to other despicable crimes, it would be necessary to prevent crimes, to stop criminals before they succeed in doing it.
This brings us to the next point. To understand correctly this question and form your own opinion, I recommand to you to watch Minority report a film by Steven Spielberg. It is the best example I know for all I will try to account for. If we stop criminal before their crime, it would be brilliant. There would be no more victims. It would be the end of all social problems, or at lest of the most part. But, if there would be only happy-ends, it means murderers don’t exist. There would be no prison. A criminal is a person who is guilty of crime. If there is no more crime, how criminals can still exist ? If we apprehend a criminal before their tort, can we still consider him like a criminal ? After all, we can have criminal urge but without always carrying it out. It is a permanent feature in human beings. Our urge to kill are often passing. It arrives in a fit of anger and disappears afterwards. Thus, if we rely on people's feelings to consider them as criminals, a lot of them would be imprisoned in error. If ca is, they would never have committed their crime. But as they did stop before, we do not know the outcome of history. Maybe, they would have never committed their crimes. But as they have been arrested before, we do not know the outcome of the history, of their delicate situation.
In conclusion, the problem of apprehending criminals or stopping them before their tort is really complex and I must admit that it leaves my mind with no thought. I have no opinion. I am not convinced and my point of view is nonexistent. I leave it to you to judge for yourself.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 14-03-2012 17:31
Réponse: Dissertation/Correction de princessblood, postée le 14-03-2012 à 18:33:43 (S | E)
Il n'y a vraiment personne pour m'aider?
Réponse: Dissertation/Correction de princessblood, postée le 14-03-2012 à 18:45:45 (S | E)
j'ai essayé de me recorriger. Voulez-vous bien me relire?
Is it enough to apprehend criminals? Compared to their crimes, to family’s lost, a simple punishment like an imprisonment seems negligible. That’s why we can reassess the validity of the principle of justice, of ways how institutions as Justice Department do justices to victims. Is it necessary to go as far as stopping crimes or apprehending criminals is enough to compensate torts inflicted? If we want to address completely this problem we have to envisage two ways of thinking. On the one hand, we will analyse it in a concrete way, in a practical situation, in a realistic world. On the other hand, we will come up with a strange idea. In a distant future, the society has managed to find a manner to arrest criminals before they have done their tort.
It is interesting first to note how logical and obvious it appears to us to have always a responsible. So, after a crime has been committed, it needs criminal, thief or murderer, that we can charge, judge, imprison and even kill. It is a legal manner to pass our frustration onto anybody. The person should be a poor scapegoat who had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the official goal is not to repeat the same crime. However, we have to emphasize that the real purpose, the one that is hidden. The truth that everybody knows but also the truth that makes be quiet. In reality, victims or their parents want feel that their revenge has been executed. If the justice, revenge of sorts, doesn’t exist, there would be an untold number of vendettas in cities. It would be a real chaos. The human society would fall apart bit-by-bit under the knife. The action of apprehending criminals is therefore justified by good reasons, even if the pain remains in our heart and mind. To save somebody unhappiness, heartbreaking, depression due to a rape, to a murder or to other despicable crimes, it would be necessary to prevent crimes, to stop criminals before they succeed in doing it.
This brings us to the next point. To understand correctly this question and form your own opinion, I recommend to you to watch Minority report a film by Steven Spielberg. It is the best example I know for all I will try to account for. If we stop criminal before their crime, it would be brilliant. There would be no more victims. It would be the end of all social problems, or at least of the most part. But, if there would be only happy-ends, it means murderers don’t exist. There would be no prison. A criminal is a person who is guilty of crime. If there is no more crime, how criminals can still exist? If we apprehend a criminal before their tort, can we still consider him like a criminal? After all, we can have criminal urge but without always carrying it out. It is a permanent feature in human beings. Our urge to kill is often passing. It arrives in a fit of anger and disappears afterwards. Thus, if we rely on people's feelings to consider them as criminals, a lot of them would be imprisoned in error. If ca is, they would never have committed their crime. But as they did stop before, we do not know the outcome of history. Maybe, they would have never committed their crimes. But as they have been arrested before, we do not know the outcome of the history, of their delicate situation.
In conclusion, the problem of apprehending criminals or stopping them before their tort is really complex and I must admit that it leaves my mind with no thought. I have no opinion. I am not convinced and my point of view is nonexistent. I leave it to you to judge for yourself.
Réponse: Dissertation/Correction de sherry48, postée le 15-03-2012 à 03:35:39 (S | E)
Hello princessblood.
Here are some of the things to take another look at.
Compared to their crimes, to * family’s lost (noun),
of ways (how) institutions as Justice Department do justices to victims. Is it necessary to go as far as stopping crimes or apprehending criminals is enough to compensate torts inflicted? If we want to address completely this problem we have to envisage two ways of thinking.
On the other hand, we will come up with a strange idea. In a distant future, the society has managed to find a manner to arrest criminals before they have done their tort. (A synonym? I learned this word in a law class, but it's not common.)
It is interesting first to note how logical and obvious it appears to us to have always a responsible. So, after a crime has been committed, it needs * criminal, thief or murderer, that we can charge, judge, imprison and even kill. However, we have to emphasize that the real purpose, the one that is hidden. The truth that everybody knows but also the truth that makes be quiet. In reality, victims or their parents want feel that their revenge has been executed. If the justice, revenge of sorts, doesn’t exist, there would be an untold number of vendettas in cities.
To save somebody unhappiness, heartbreaking, depression due to a rape, to a murder or to other despicable crimes, it would be necessary to prevent crimes,
To understand correctly this question and form your own opinion,
If we stop criminal before their crime, it would be brilliant. It would be the end of all social problems, or at least of the most part. But, if there would be only happy-ends, it means murderers don’t exist.
If there is no more crime, how criminals can still exist?
After all, we can have criminal urge but without always carrying it (plural) out.
If ca is,
Sherry
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais
