Do you believe that societies ought to enforce capital punishment or are there alternative forms of punishment that would be better used?

Capital punishment is the killing of a criminal for a crime that he has committed. Previously most countries employed this method of punishment but nowadays it is much less widely used. I personally do not believe that societies today should use capital punishment and I also believe that there are alternative punishments that can be used.

My main argument against capital punishment is that I believe we do not have the right to kill another human being regardless of the crime. I don't believe in the old religious maxim of "an eye for an eye." Modern societies shouldn't turn to such barbaric punishments.

Another argument against capital punishment is that people can be wrongly convicted and executed. If a man is in prison, he can be released if later proved not guilty. If he is dead, there is nothing that can be done. In the UK, a group of supposed terrorists were convicted of murder in Birmingham in the 1970s. They were proved innocent about 15 years later and released. If they had been executed, innocent people would have died.

There are alternative punishments available. For bad crimes prison life sentences can be given with criminals imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Also a lot of horrific crimes are committed by people who are mentally sick. These people are not responsible for their actions and can be kept safely and permanently in secure hospitals. Yes, this costs a lot more but I believe it is the duty of society to do this.

There are arguments for capital punishment. Many people feel its threat stops serious crime and that criminals deserve nothing less. It's cheaper and keeps the prisons manageable. I can understand this point of view but I cannot agree with it.

So, in conclusion, I don't believe in capital punishment, as there are less barbaric alternatives available. We can opt for these to avoid horrific mistakes and make modern society a more humane one.

"A zoo has no useful purpose."
Do you agree or disagree?

I think that the question about whether a zoo has a useful purpose is one that is open for debate. Nowadays, it is a topical question. Some people believe that zoos are essential while other people believe that a zoo has no useful purpose and that people should observe wild animals in their natural habitat. Personally, I think that both aspects of this situation have their relative advantages. In the following paragraphs I will analyse these points and present my own view in favour of animals being allowed to stay in the wild.

From the one side, a zoo has many benefits for people. First of all, children can learn about animals not only from books and TV programs but from actually observing them "live". They can see animals, touch them and even feed them. I think it is an amazing experience for a child. He gains more knowledge and experience from this "communication" with the animals. Second of all, a zoo is a perfect place for people to see many animals that most do not get the chance to see during their lifetimes.

However, I keep asking myself "what kind of benefits do wild animals get from a zoo?" and unfortunately, I cannot find a single one. I think that wild animals should live in their natural environment. Moreover, I think that we should learn about them through TV programmes whilst sitting in our favourite chairs, or people who like danger should try to observe them in their native environment. I strongly believe that animals are not toys. I know that most zoos try to keep their animals in an environment similar to their native one, but they cannot give these creatures as much freedom as Mother Nature intended.

To sum up, I think that wild animals should not be kept in a zoo. Personally, I enjoy watching "Discovery Channel" far more than watching a black bear trying desperately to hide from the scorching sun in a Texas zoo.

In general, people do not have such a close relationship with their neighbours as they did in the past. Why is this so, and what can be done to improve contact between neighbours?

In the past, neighbours formed an important part of people's social lives and they helped them when they had problems. Nowadays, people often do not even know their neighbours and in consequence they live much more isolated lives.

There are a number of reasons why we have less contact with our neighbours. Firstly, our lifestyles are more mobile. This means people may change the area where they live quite frequently and this cuses their relationships with their neighbours to be more superficial. Secondly, nowadays people often live and work in different places. This leads to people forming closer relationships with work colleagues than the ones they have with their neighbours. Finally, modern lifestyles make us spend more time inside our houses watching television, and when we go out, we travel by car. Consequently, we do not speak to the people in our neighbourhood so much.

There are a number of ways in which I think contact between neighbours can be improved. First of all, local authorities can provide communal areas such as play grounds for children and community halls so that there are places where neighbours can meet and make friends. Next, I think that when new neighbours come to a street, the people living there ought to introduce themselves and welcome them. Lastly, people living in a street or small district should form neighbourhood associations and meet regularly to discuss the things which affect them.

In conclusion, these suggestions will probably not make neighbours as important in our lives as they were in the past. However, they will help our relationships with our neighbours to become more useful and valuable.

"The attitude of parents to the education of their children is more important than the quality of schools and teachers in producing well-educated people."
Do you agree?

The education of a child is significantly affected by both the attitude of the parents and the quality of the child's school and teachers. I would not say, however, that the parents' attitude is necessarily the more important of these two factors.

A good parental attitude definitely helps a child's school progress. Studies have shown that Asian students are often higher achievers in school than their American counterparts because Asian parents usually take a more active interest in their children's education. Educationally minded parents can in fact compensate to a certain extent for a poor quality school or teachers. Such parents might provide extra work at home, encourage the child to read more or study by himself or herself. Concerned parents may even hire the services of a tutor.

On the other hand, educationally minded parents arc usually not enough to ensure the good education of a child. Parents often don't have the resources of a good school, or the collective knowledge and training of a good teaching staff. Furthermore, time or money may limit what the well intentioned parent can actually do for the child's education in practical terms.

Consequently, although parental attitude and quality of school and staff are both important to a child's education, I don't feel that one is necessarily more important than the other. Perhaps ironically, it is usually the children of educationally minded parents that end up being sent to good schools with good teachers.

"Human beings are rapidly destroying the planet Earth."
Do you agree?

Many people believe that human beings arc destroying the planet Earth. I have to agree with this statement and I believe there is plenty of evidence for it if we look at some of man's agricultural and industrial practices. In addition, the use of nuclear energy further increases the danger to the world.

Man's agricultural practices arc severely damaging the environment. The incorrect use of land causes the formation of deserts; this is a particularly serious problem in Australia and the USA. Diversion of water from lakes and rivers for irrigation can also cause severe problems. The use of water from the Aral sea in the Soviet Union is an example of this.

Industrial wastes have caused critical pollution of water and the atmosphere. Atmospheric pollution has resulted in the 'greenhouse effect' — a phenomenon that is resulting in a dangerous increase in the temperature of the world. Similarly chemical pollution is damaging the ozone layer of the Earth. This results in dangerous ultraviolet rays entering the Earth's atmosphere.

Nuclear power also poses serious problems. One nuclear bomb can have devastating long-term effects. Even if nuclear power is used for peaceful purposes, the wastes are so toxic and so long-lasting that we are endangering the lives of generations to come.

Some people may think that improved technology will solve the problems of the Earth. Others believe that man will eventually leam to cooperate and use resources intelligently. However, I think this is naive, wishful thinking, and from all the evidence, man is destroying the Earth.

Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against common childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?

Essay 1
Some people argue that the state does not have the right to make parents immunise their children. However, I feel the question is not whether they should immunise but whether, as members of society, they have the right not to.

Preventative medicine has proved to be the most effective way of reducing the incidence of fatal childhood diseases. As a result of the widespread practice of immunising young children in our society, many lives have been saved and the diseases have been reduced to almost zero.

In previous centuries children died from ordinary illnesses such as influenza and tuberculosis and because few people had immunity, the diseases spread easily. Diseases such as dysentery were the result of poor hygiene but these have long been eradicated since the arrival of good
sanitation and clean water. Nobody would suggest that we should reverse this good practice now because dysentery has been wiped out.

Serious diseases such as polio and smallpox have also been eradicated through national immunisation programmes. In consequence, children not immunised are far less at risk in this disease-free society than they would otherwise be. Parents choosing not to immunise are relying on the fact that the diseases have already been eradicated. If the number of parents choosing
not to immunise increased, there would be a similar increase in the risk of the diseases returning.

Immunisation is not an issue like seatbelts which affects only the individual. A decision not to immunise will have widespread repercussions for the whole of society and for this reason, I do not believe that individuals have the right to stand aside. In my opinion immunisation should be obligatory.

Essay 2
The issue of whether we should force parents to immunise their children against common diseases is, in my opinion, a social rather than a medical question. Since we are free to choose what we expose our bodies to in the way of food, drink, or religion for that matter, why should the question of medical 'treatment' be any different?

Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes which fail to take into consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations which can
sometimes result in stunted growth or even death.

The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural immunity through contact with that disease. So when children are given artificial immunity, we create a vulnerable society which is entirely dependent on immunisation. In the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease, the society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before.

In addition there is the issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on religious grounds and their needs must also be considered.

For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.

News editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in newspapers. What factors do you think influence these decisions? Do we become used to bad news? Would it he better if more good news was reported?

It has often been said that “Good news is bad news” because it does not sell newspapers. A radio station that once decided to present only good news soon found that it had gone out of business for lack of listeners. Bad news on the other hand is so common that in order to cope with it, we often simply ignore it. We have become immune to bad news and the newspapers and radio stations are aware of this.

While newspapers and TV stations may aim to report world events accurately, be they natural or human disasters, political events or the horrors of war, it is also true that their main objective is to sell newspapers and attract listeners and viewers to their stations. For this reason TV and radio stations attempt to reflect the flavour of their station by providing news broadcasts tailor made to suit their listeners’ preferences. Programmes specialising in pop music or TV soap operas focus more on local news, home issues and up to date traffic reports. The more serious stations and newspapers like to provide “so called” objective news reports with editorial comment aimed at analysing the situation.

If it is true, then, that newspapers and TV stations are tailoring their news to their readers’ and viewers’ requirements, how can they possibly be reporting real world events in an honest and objective light? Many radio and TV stations do, in fact, report items of good news but they no longer call this news. They refer to these as human interest stories and package them in programmes specialising, for instance, in consumer affairs or local issues. Good news now comes to us in the form of documentaries the fight against children’s cancer or AIDS, or the latest developments in the fight to save the planet from environmental pollution.