"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle)
Do you agree?

According to dictionary.com, poverty is defined as the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.

Revolution is an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. It is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time and may cause major changes in a culture or economy.
Crime on the otherhand is an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. Both usually take place when the needs of the people are not taken care of.

Crime mainly results when people are not able to sustain their life, when basic livelihood like food and water are not met. In the less devloped country, it is hard for the poor to breakthrough the vicious cycle of poverty. Moreover, the bulk of those uneducated comes from the poor as they are unable to afford an education which would naturally upgrade them and enable them to search for better higher paid jobs which will give them better living conditions and afford the basic necessities needed. As a result of globalisation today, the standard of living of a country becomes higher. Its a common situation, where children often pesters their parents to buy them the newest and expensive toys inorder not to lose to their friends for not being able to afford them. When poverty sinks into the family, it often leads to desperation, inorder to keep up with life's expectation criminal activities therefore takes place.

Revolution on the otherhand can results due to poverty. One such example is the 1917 revolution in Russia where the peasants wanted a fairer social and political order as land was controlled by the landowners. The people were living in poverty and the living conditions was very poor. Taxes were high even though the agricultural productivity was low. The workers on the otherhand had long working hours and often lived in overcrowded housing with deplorable sanitary conditions. Some after living in the cities encountered material goods they never seen in the villages before, moreover the urban industrial life gave them many benefits. Hence, as the people wanted to have a better life and to break through the vicious cycle of poverty, a revolution therefore took place.

However, i feel that even though poverty can lead to both revolution and crime, it is not the mother of them. Revolution can be caused due to a conflict in political views like the chinese civil war where two parties was involved one which wanted democracy and another which wanted communism in china. On the otherhand, poverty does not totally leads to crime. From the article "Unemployment, poverty not sole causes of crime", Prime Minister Honourable Dr. Kenny D. Anthony says that:

"No reasonable person will totally deny that providing job opportunities for the unemployed, reduces the chances of them engaging in criminal activities. But to say that unemployed persons have no choice but to turn to a life of crime is absurd. It is equally absurd to say that people commit crime because they are poor. Some of the poorest people that I know are among the most decent law abiding people in St. Lucia. They resent criminal activities and have never found themselves on the wrong side of the law”

Therefore, i feel that what Aristole says is more of an over-generalising statement. As much as poverty may lead to revolution and crime, but it is unfair to say that poverty is the main causes of both revolution and crime as there are many other factors that leads to them. As far as i believe, people will not create a revolution or commit crimes if their welfare are not challenged. In this world there are many people living in poverty, but i believe many of them strives and works hard to make ends meet. I also believe that many of the people in this world have good morals and upbringing which teaches them not to engage in criminal activities, and only the minority will commit crime and most of the time crime is commit out of greed instead for genuine needs. Therefore, i agree only to a small extent that "the mother of revolution and crime is poverty".

"The death penalty is not deterrent, it is murder." Do you agree?

According to www.dictionary.com , death penalty is a sentence of punishment by execution for certain crimes like murder.

Note: In the United States, capital punishment has been an extremely controversial issue on legal, moral, and ethical grounds. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was not, in principle, cruel and unusual punishment(and not, therefore, unconstitutional), but that its implementation through existing state laws was unconstitutional. In 1976, the Supreme Court again ruled that the death penalty was not unconstitutional, though a mandatory death penalty for any crime was. Thirty-nine states now practice the death penalty.

Deterrent is something that deters to prevent or discourage the occurrence of an action, as by means of fear or doubt

According to wikipedia, death penalty or capital punishment is used historically to punish both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent(refers to any expression designed to convey dissatisfaction with or opposition to the policies of a governing body). In the modern world today, capital punishment is still carried out in some countries where death penalty is reserved for punishments such as premeditated murder, espionage (spying), treason, or as part of military justice.

From the article "Crime and Causality: Do killers Deserve to Die?" It states that even if one supposes that the capital punishment is moraly justifiable, there are many good reasons to supposed it. Throughout the years, some people have been wrongly found guilty, some having been executed for offences which they never commit. Discrimination also plays a part in deciding a sentence. Being racial bias, a non-white is likely to get a heavier sentence compared to someone who is a white. Also, due to economic statue, the poor and marginalized are much more prone to execution than the rich.

There are 5 ways of executing a criminal.
1. Electric Chair where the condemmed is strapped to a wooden chair, with electrodes attached and a shock of thirty thousand watts is applied. The prisoner is literally cooked internally, and death may require mulitple shocks.
2. Gas Chamber where death is casued by exposure to cynide gas where victim die from suffocation.
3. Lethal Injection is the most widespread and humane method where poison is injected into the body to kill the criminal.
4. Hanging is the suspension of a person by a ligature, usually a cord wrapped around the neck, causing death.
5. Firing squad where it requires all members of the group to fire simultaneously, with one who will fire the lethal shot. The condemned is typically blindfolded or hooded, as well as being restrained

The principle of capital punishment is that certain murderers deserve nothing less than death as a just, proportionate and effective punishment. It is 100% effective as a deterrent to the criminal being executed; that killer cannot commit any more crimes. By setting a precedent, it act as a deterrent for others who wants to commit such similar crimes. With capital punishment in placed, it also shows that the country is tough on criminals. There will be a decrease in crime rates, having less chaos in the country as others would probably think twice before commiting a crime, thus making a country much more politically stable, presevering national security

Also, with capital punishments, by killing the criminal, it helps to bring justice for the victim and the his family members. The criminal will never ever again fatally harm anyone, thus possing no threat to the public. Moreover, it is more economically sound to execute a prisoner than to keep him in life incarceration, and also better off sentencing death penalties to criminals who are beyond rehabilitation than for him to leave off taxplayers.

However, capital punishment is murder. Execution is the act or instance of putting to death or being put to death as a lawful penalty. It is a state-sanctioned killing, and it devalues the respect we place on human life. Therefore, how can we punish someone for commiting murder, when he/she is punished by means of a death sentence? Isn't there killing of a person happening in both cases?

By sentencing someone to be put to death, it rules out possibility of rehabilitation, that they may repent of their crime, serve a sentence as punishment, and emerge as a reformed and useful member of society. Also, some victims may be wrongly found guilty, with some may have already been executed. Moreover, the methods of death penalty may go wrong, and thus delay the process of executing the criminal

Death penalty acts as a deterent to others, yet it is clear that retaliation to the death is no longer necessary to protect ourselves from murderers, and the deterrent effect of executions is very much open to question. Human should not play God by melting out death penalty. As two wrongs do not make a right, we should not just sentence a criminal for his crime, but analyse and understand what had shaped him and led him to kill others.

Therefore i agree to a large extent that the death penalty is not deterrent, it is murder.