It will be more beneficial to society as a whole if we abolish double jeopardy, to correct the mistakes of the justice system and essential for progression. Double jeopardy is the sole reason why some criminals walk free. The justice court is fallible: ineffective representation or perjury testimony would ultimately cause a wrongful conviction. Wrongful convictions are a concern of everybody, the families of the victims or the lawyers
If the public allows for these crimes to be forgotten, it only benefits those who committed such inhumane acts of violence. In his preface, Wiesel states that he is “... a witness who believes he has a moral obligation to try to prevent the enemy one last victory by allowing his crimes to be erased from human memory.” (Wiesel viii) Even after their reign of terror is over, letting the stories of those who suffered to be lost in time allows the Nazis and their allies one last victory over the Jews. Already, the victims had felt abandoned. “For [Wiesel] belongs to a traumatized generation, one that has experienced the abandonment and solitude of [his] people…” (Wiesel 119) To act as if nothing happened would be abandoning them once more. Furthermore, forgetting makes the public accomplices.
How much courage does it take to speak up? Elie Wiesel (a holocaust survivor) says that “…remaining silent encourages even more evil to happen”. Not speaking up in difficult times does nothing but make matters worse. There are two reasons that staying silent should be discouraged; speaking instead of being silent can change the outcome of an event, and prevent the doubts victims have about their abilities in life.In reality, speaking instead of staying silent can change the outcome of an event. For example, in the book Terrible Things (an allegory of the holocaust), a character says, “If only we creatures had stuck together, it could have been different”.
In a letter found in one of the camps from an unknown person wrote “...Why can we not cry, why can we not defend ourselves? How can one see so much innocent blood flow and say nothing, do nothing and await the same death oneself? We are compelled to go under so miserably, so pitilessly…” (Unknown). This victim of the Holocaust is pointing out on how someone can see innocent people’s blood be shed. I do not even know the answer and it is almost 72 years later.
Possibly so, as any major social issue back then affects how it appears in the present (violence, for example). Maybe the belief that racism is over isn 't entirely true, especially with the presence of a presumptive presidential candidate who wants to ban all Muslim immigrants and deport all 11.2 million illegal immigrants. With this reality, is it an outrageous goal to think that we as humanity can change our ways for the better? Can we really experience the redemptive power of God in this day and age? Let us consider the words of Father Jim Martin as he reflects on Jesus 's claim on the believer, saying, "His teachings are invitations, to be sure, but they are also commands: Love your neighbors. "
Why would people just want to get rid of something that is shown everywhere, even in historical Reenactments. Reenactments are there for a reason, to show history. Why get rid of it if it was in history and needs to be shown. Some people say that the confederate flag is a sign of treason in America. This is saying that the people that support the flag want the nation to break apart again.
Wiesel’s speech shows how he worked to keep the memory of those people alive because he knows that people will continue to be guilty, to be accomplices if they forget. Furthermore, Wiesel knows that keeping the memory of those poor, innocent will avoid the repetition of the atrocity done in the future. The stories and experiences of Wiesel allowed for people to see the true horrors of what occurs when people who keep silence become “accomplices” of those who inflict pain towards humans. To conclude, Wiesel chose to use parallelism in his speech to emphasize the fault people had for keeping silence and allowing the torture of innocent
Thesis: Frederick Exley ruins his entire life (or at least the section we read about in the book) by his own accord. The general intent of my paper will describe the relationship between Frederick Exley and self-pity. In other words, what I hope to demonstrate in my analysis is that Exley did, in fact, ruin everything good that happened to him, rather than it being fate or others that caused his life to be in such shambles. I will highlight sections of the book that are pertinent to my thesis and use chosen sources to prove my thesis. I will note how Exley seems to mock/pity others for their simple mentalities and “inability to understand him” while at the same time he wants to be like them and to simply feel like he fits in.
As stated in the text “Our people made that choice the choice to go to sameness”. (Lois Lowry pg 95) This proves that the society changed to sameness. He told him how differences and emotions played a role in the creation of a war. The people of the community do not miss the freedom of choice because they have not yet experienced it so if they do experience this freedom they can make wrong decisions and lead to deaths, war and lies. In this society there is sameness so there is no love as well as sadness so the people
In the Panopticon, it is more implied that those imprisoned were forcibly stripped of their rights and liberties after committing a crime, though it could be argued that by committing the crime while knowing the implications of being caught, the prisoners willingly accepted the loss of their individual freedoms. An example of the loss of freedom in the Panopticon, is the essence of the entire structure, “He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication” (200). Bentham conspires to completely strip the individual of his or her individuality by allowing them enough information to ascertain the extent of their imprisonment, without any human contact. 1984 takes a different approach to the notion of protection, only employing the idea of constant war with Eurasia and Eastasia as a method to distract Oceanians from their own