Justifying Murder - Original Writing

Defences for Murder There are only three partial defences for murder; suicide pact, provocation-the loss of self control and reaction must be instantaneous and diminished responsibility. Amongst the three mentioned two are most frequently used, these are provocation and diminished responsibility, and only one full defence, self defence. These defences are used to reduce the sentence charge by the defendant to manslaughter from murder. In the following text I will be examining how men use provocation and diminished responsibility to walk free from murder.

Schlosser describes the environment of the meat packing plants serving fast food companies in a startling straightforward narrative of his visit through a meat packing plant. He describes a brutal, and sometimes unsanitary environment. The rights of animals are a very broad and complex subject, but Schlosser touches on this as he describes the slaughterhouse floor. He describes animals in various states of disembowelment. Sometimes the animals were dead or stunned; sometimes they were thrashing about wildly in the last throws of death. The slaughter room floor was described as being covered with blood and feces. Employees worked at a furious pace to meet the day's quota. What bothered me most was the fact that this meat is not only prepared for fast food companies but also contracted out to serve our children's schools.

Doug finds himself in a very difficult situation and he cant decide whether to do what he knows is right and not except this foolish trade, or what he wants to do because of his longing for Ralph’s friendship. When Doug begins to him reminisce about these memories we see he’s changed a little bit. He hated himself as if it was his fault back then and now as things have gone on that anger has built up substantially. The difference is now that anger has redirected almost completely at Ralph. He tries to solve this conflict within himself by blaming everything on Ralph. This only makes things worse by reversing that anger to Ralph causing Doug to decide to kill him.

     There are many reasons to both support and oppose the death penalty. Many people can feel very strongly about whether or not they approve of this method of punishment. I feel that the death penalty is wrong, and I believe that there is much support to back this up. I believe that the death penalty is wrong because it is not an effective deterrent, racially and economically bias, unreliable, expensive, and morally wrong of society.

I believe that everyone should be in control of what they want to put into their bodies and furthermore, I respect everyone’s own personal decision of eating or not eating meat and other animal products.

It used to be very common just to eat any meat we pick up from our local grocery store such as Walmart or Target, but with this upcoming millennial generation’s new lifestyle expectations, people are starting to care more about what they consume and how they treat their body. It is important to understand where the food that is being put in your body is coming from and whether or not it is really what you think. Most people understand that eating meat is healthy and good for you always, but the manner in which the animals the meat is being produced from are raised affects the way it tastes and how it either damages or helps the body. I personally believe that people should eat humane meat because it is much safer for the human body due to it

I, Detective Wilde, am being assigned the opportunity of a lifetime! Solving the murder of Richard Webster is what's going to determine whether I receive a spotlight in the newspaper. Business has been slow lately so this will help pick it up. Ahead of the interrogation, I gathered data on the victim and each of the suspects. Some background research shows that the Webster Network of co-workers are troubled: Richard, a class A jerk, Hugh, a broken businessman, Rita, in a troublesome relationship, H.T., a misanthrope, Dee, too loyal, Del, a sloth and victim’s cousin, Justin, once jailed for computer hacking. I am going to tactfully style my questions so they will be spouting a fountain of truth. According to my calculations, everyone who is

For fans of the Netflix documentary, Making a Murderer, Brendan Dassey’s recent ordered release from prison may come as good news.

There were no toilets, so human and rat excrement wound up in the meat, along with the rats themselves. These unsanitary details moved readers far more than the injustices inflicted on the workers. Other examples include the rechurning of rancid butter, the cutting of ice from polluted water and the doctoring of milk with formaldehyde. The average consumer was shocked to know that the “pure beef” was in fact contaminated and unfit for human consumption. Imagine

​In conducting a rhetorical analysis of the two articles, "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them, Too" by Madeline Ostrander and "Humane Meat? No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor, both articles stand in stark contrast in terms of the viewpoints of meat that they present. In order to gain a better understanding of these viewpoints, it's important to understand the persuasive techniques that both authors use in the article for the reader. More specifically, the ethos, pathos, and logos that they employ, as well the way in which the evidence and support is presented will further elucidate upon the arguments that appear in both articles.

An intense, aggressive moral scrutiny has sparked interest in the meat eating community. Eating is an activity that we as humans do frequently, and the variety of food is immense. We decide what we are about to eat and how it will affect our bodies. In different societies, controversy has arisen over the morality of eating meat from animals. However, the moral and ethical arguments of eating meat is not a new debate. Roger Scruton’s essay, “A Carnivore’s Credo”, addresses both carnivores and vegetarians by using an appeal to pathos and ethos to persuade people of the need to “remoralize” eating meat, and extrapolating that to mean that human beings have the conscious ability to choose and stand up for moral right and wrong.

Does taking another’s life actually avenge that of another? The disciplinary act of capital punishment, punishment through death, has been a major debate in the United States for years. Those in support of capital punishment believe that it is an end to the reoccurrence of a repeat murderer. The public has, for many years, been in favor of this few and pro-death penalty. Yet as time goes on, records show a decrease in the public and the state’s support of the continuation of capital punishment. Those against capital punishment believe it is an immoral, spends taxpayers’ money improperly, and does not enforce a way to rehabilitate criminals and/or warn off future crimes.

Should one person have the right to end another human's life? It is a question most people have the answer for when it comes to capital punishment. Capital punishment is known to some people one of the cruelest punishment to humanity. Some people believe giving a person the death penalty doe's not solve anything. While other's believe it is payback to the criminal for the crime they have committed. There have been 13,000 people executed since the colonial times, among 1900 and 1985 there were 139 innocent people sentence to death only 23 were executed. In 1967 lack of support and legal challenges cut the execution rate to zero bringing the practice to a complete end by 1972. Although the supreme court authorized its resumption in 1976

Meat has been in our diet since the start of mankind. We eat meat everyday mindlessly. It is hard to avoid meat since it is everywhere we go. Meat is the majority of today’s food. There are very few vegetarian or vegan options in the food industry. Although, it has been growing more and more popular since it has become a lifestyle. The reason is to be the horrifying truth of today’s meat industry. For those who cannot bear the truth, pick up the vegetarian or vegan lifestyle.