[essay] my smart friends, please read my essay pleaseee ;(

HI, I REALLY NEED HELP FROM YOU GUYS..
I EVEN HIRED A ONE DAY TUTOR TO READ MY ESSAY BUT SHE WASN'T HELPFUL.. COULD YOU JUST READ IT AND TELL ME WHAT I NEED TO IMPROVE ON AND SOME TIPS IN WRITING ESSAYS!! :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IS THE DEATH SENTENCE AN APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT?


Is a human depriving the life of another human an ethical, righteous act in the name of justice? Despite the official abolishment of death penalties have come to pass among most nations, some countries still perform death penalties against criminals legally. However, this is becoming a controversial issue among the world and many stands up to say it is against human morality and ethics, whilst some agree it is the appropriate method to deal serious criminals. But because of the constant development of the modernised views of human ethics today, the issue of death penalty is becoming a more of a weighty matter. The death penalty has been practiced for as long as civilisation first begun. Therefore setting a particular date of its beginning is impossible. Then why is the world today turning their backs on its long, historical retribution method?

Currently, a total of 58 nations actively practice capital punishment, whilst 96 nations having abolished it legally. Some of the countries that continues execution are Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq , Japan, Libya , Malaysia , North Korea, Singapore, Taiwan , Vietnam and USA. Surprisingly, even the top wealthiest countries like Japan, China and USA continue this practice in breach of human rights. International human rights organisation 'Amnesty International' is noted for its opposition to capital punishment and have commented concerning this issue, 'The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.' They have revealed that capital punishment violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Also, their statistics disclose China alone had 1000+ executions, Iran 252+ and North Korea 60+ executions performed. Is this all really necessary? There are questions to ask ourselves to discuss this issue.

First is 'Is Death Sentence Moral and Just?’ Exempting whether or not the death sentence has a deterrent effect to lawbreakers, this is an ethically significant question for us to answer. It is up to no professionals or professors to answer this but us. Morals are principles and beliefs concerning right and wrong behavior. Is it right behavior to kill someone for killing another? There is indeed an old saying 'an eye for an eye' or 'a tooth for a tooth' but it may not be still relevant to the contemporary world. Realistically, we do not rape a rapist for raping someone nor do we injure someone back for injuring another person. The most fundamental human right is a right to their own life. It is most definitely undeniable that the killer had breached this basic right but retribution is not the 'moral' method. The death sentence is an emotionally incorrect, inappropriate method of vengeance to be materialised. Punishment by law and enforcement may be possible but punishment of their rights because they have made a sin is unethical. The correct punishment is not to repent one's life through death but to repent one's sin by rectifying their minds.

Secondly is 'Does Death Sentence Minimise Killing?'. Probably the death sentence was purely established in purpose of minimising further deaths. However the death sentence hasn't been much of a successful solution than the threat of a life sentence because outstanding change hasn't been observed. Regardless of the immolation of one's life, the outcome of a successful decrease in serious killing hasn't occurred. With no beneficial effect of a quiet police station nor a peaceful, safe social community, the purpose of killing a criminal is pointless and impractical. Many people believe capital punishment can perform as a deterrent or a hindrance to crime but it is unsuccessful and viably uncontrollable.

Thirdly is 'Do The Criminals Deserve To Die?’ Referred once again, which is better, serving punishment with a conclusion of death or repentance and suffering emotionally for their sin throughout their whole life? The fundamental concept lies whether or not a single person remorse for what they've done. A distressing, horrifying fact is that one out of eight convictions made by the juries are incorrect. Black people are more likely to be incorrectly convicted and more chances if the victim is a white. Humans have an inevitable tendency to have stereotypes that put innocent humans guilty and guilty humans innocent. This also connects with the fact that one out of ten convictions could be wrong and carried out with wrongful convictions. Unless we are all incarnations of God, we cannot be 100% confident to know whether or not a human is guilty. Unfortunately, countless executions have been later vindicated incorrect and many innocent lives have been regrettably emaciated.

The supporters of the death sentence discuss about the financial burdens the nation carries for the life of a criminal imprisoned - water, food, shelter, clothes and etcetera. The expenses are paid by everyone's tax and the supporters believe the idea of this is ludicrous. The fact everyone is paying for a criminal is seemingly very ridiculous and irritating. However, putting a person to death, with all the legal challenges and court battles, is far more expensive than housing a prisoner for the rest of his/her life.

As I conclude, I oppose capital punishment towards the criminals. Everybody is given a life equally and they should be given deaths equally too, according to their personal decisions. The bereavement of any deaths, whether the human is sinful or sinless, is equally tragic. It is imperative for the remaining nations that perform the capital punishment to abolish it for a further step towards the advancement of human rights and future generations. The concept of punishment means to suffer for repentance and this shouldn't altered or twisted for any social, political or financial profit or benefit in any way.

IS THE DEATH SENTENCE AN APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT?

I’ll go through it with a fine tooth-comb if that’s what you’re looking for - no charge - but I have to say your written English is rather poor based on this essay. No wonder your tutor wasn't much help - as you can see, your essay is a complete mess.

>> The words in CAPITALS are suggestions to replace those underlined - the italicised sentences are suggested major alterations - hope it all makes sense <<

Is a [ONE] human depriving [TAKING – how can you deprive a life? What you were trying to say was ‘deprive a person of their life’ I guess] the life of another human an ethical, righteous [no need for 2 adjectives here – pick the one you think fits best] act in the name of justice?

Despite the official abolishment of death penalties have come to pass among most nations, some countries still perform death penalties against criminals legally.
This sentence is a total mess – the underlined bit makes no sense.
Despite most nations abolishing the death penalty, this is not universally the case.

However, this is becoming a controversial issue [surely it has always been a controversial issue] among the world [the WORLD is a single place so you can’t have anything existing AMONG it – I’d suggest the word ACROSS] and many stands [either MANY PEOPLE STAND or MANY STAND] up to say it is against human morality and ethics,time to start a new sentence] whilst some [OTHERS] agree it is the appropriate method to deal [WITH]serious criminals.

But because of the constant development of the modernised views of human ethics today [what? – this is nonsense] , the issue of death penalty is becoming a more of a weighty matter.

But with more liberal attitudes the issue of the death penalty has become more emotive.

The death penalty has been practiced for as long as civilisation first begun [nonsense again – SINCE CIVILISATION BEGAN possibly, but it’s a statement that you can never support with proof so I’m wondering why you choose it as a point of argument]. Therefore setting a particular date of its beginning is impossible. [why would anyone want to do this anyway?] Then why is the world today turning their backs on its long, historical retribution method? [again – a terribly weak, muddled expression – CHOOSING TO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS SOLUTION]

Currently, a total of [no need for this phrase – keep it short] 58 nations actively practice capital punishment, whilst 96 nations having [HAVE]abolished it legally.[If that’s so how do you account for the other nations? – there are more than 200 sovereign states in the world according to Wikipedia] Some of the countries that continues execution are Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq , Japan, Libya , Malaysia , North Korea, Singapore, Taiwan , Vietnam and USA. Surprisingly, even the top [again, no need for this word]wealthiest countries like Japan, China and USA continue this practice in breach of human rights [I’d consider removing Japan, China and the USA from your first list otherwise you're repeating yourself].

International human rights organisation 'Amnesty International' is noted for its opposition to capital punishment and have [HAS] commented concerning [ON]this issue, 'The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.' They have revealed that capital punishment violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Also, their statistics disclose China alone had 1000+ executions, Iran 252+ and North Korea 60+ executions performed. Is this all really necessary?
There are questions to ask ourselves to discuss this issue. [rather clumsy again – THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED]

First [THE FIRST QUESTION TO CONSIDER] is 'Is [THE] Death Sentence Moral and Just?’ Exempting [no need for this word] whether or not the death sentence has a deterrent effect [IS A DETERRENT] to lawbreakers, this is an ethically significant question for us to answer.

It is up to no professionals or professors to answer this but us. [Uh??]
[Each of us has a moral duty to consider this issue.

Morals are principles and beliefs concerning right and wrong behavior. Is it right behaviour [no need for this word] to kill someone for [IN RESPONSE TO THEIR] killing another? There is indeed [ugh – remove this word as it adds nothing] an old saying 'an eye for an eye' or 'a tooth for a tooth' but it may not be still relevant to the contemporary world. Realistically, we do not rape a rapist for raping someone nor do we injure someone back [remove this word]for injuring another person. The most fundamental human right is a right to their own [again – remove these words] life. It is most definitely [and again – cut this bit out] undeniable that the killer had breached this basic right but retribution is not the 'moral' method.

The death sentence is an emotionally incorrect, inappropriate method of vengeance to be materialised.
[nonsense again] The death sentence is an emotionally dubious means of gaining retribution.

Punishment by law and enforcement may be possible but punishment of their rights because they have made a sin is unethical. The correct punishment is not to repent one's life through death but to repent one's sin by rectifying their minds.
[This entire piece is garbled. What you are trying to say is that just because the law allows the harshest punishment based on revenge one shouldn’t dismiss the possibility of repentance.]

Secondly is [no need for this word] 'Does [THE] Death Sentence Minimise Killing?'. Probably the death sentence was purely established in purpose of minimising [Urgh! ESTABLISHED TO REDUCE] further deaths [don’t you mean MURDERS?].[And on what basis do you make this generalisation? You need to support any statements you make. For instance, was it used in order to instil fear in potential murderers?]

However the death sentence hasn't been much of a successful solution than the threat of a life sentence because outstanding change hasn't been observed.
[again a horribly complicated sentence However, there has been no discernible reduction in murders where the death penalty is still practised.]

Regardless of the immolation [what is this supposed to mean? Sacrifice?] of one's life, the outcome of a successful decrease in serious killing hasn't occurred.
[Another nonsensical sentence – and you’re repeating what you already tried to say in the previous sentence.]

With no beneficial effect of a quiet police station nor a peaceful, safe social community, the purpose of killing a criminal is pointless and impractical. Many people believe capital punishment can perform as a deterrent or a hindrance to crime but it is unsuccessful and viably uncontrollable. [I’d consider scrapping the last 3 sentences as they are dreadful – and you’re repeating the same thing. The death sentence doesn’t make the world a safer place.]

Thirdly is [again – cut] 'Do The Criminals Deserve To Die?’
Referred once again, which is better, serving punishment with a conclusion of death or repentance and suffering emotionally for their sin throughout their whole life?

[Shockingly badly written. I almost gave up trying to translate this into English.Is it better to make a criminal repent and live with the knowledge he has sinned.is what you were trying to say I assume]

The fundamental concept lies [IN] whether or not a single person [FEELS] remorse for what they've [if it’s a single person then you mean HE HAS] done.

A distressing, horrifying [take your pick] fact is that one out of eight convictions made by the juries are [one IS not ARE] incorrect [and again you need to support such assertions with facts]. Black people are more likely to be incorrectly convicted and more chances if the victim is a white. [and yet again – where are the facts to support this statement?]

Humans have an inevitable tendency to have stereotypes that put innocent humans guilty and guilty humans innocent. This also connects with the fact that one out of ten convictions could be wrong and carried out with wrongful convictions.
[Argh!! – what a mess. And you seem to be contradicting yourself – is it 1 in 8 or 1 in 10?
It is accepted that most people prejudge others based on stereotypical views of their likely behaviour – so the question of innocence or guilt is not always dealt with fairly]

Unless we are all incarnations of God, we cannot be 100% confident to know whether or not a human is guilty. Unfortunately, countless [substantiation needed – do you mean 10, 100, 10,000? and on what timescale? Broad generalisations like this won’t do] executions have been later vindicated incorrect and many innocent lives have been regrettably emaciated.
[pure nonsense – Unfortunately there are examples where innocent people have been wrongfully executed after new evidence came to light at a later date. – and it would help if you had an example or two.]

The supporters of the death sentence discuss about [REFER TO] the financial burdens the nation carries for the life of a criminal imprisoned - water, food, shelter, clothes and etcetera. The expenses are paid by everyone's tax and the supporters believe the idea of this is ludicrous [THIS IS UNJUST]. The fact everyone is paying for a criminal is seemingly very ridiculous and irritating. [you are repeating yourself – and the adjectives you are using are inappropriate] However, putting a person to death, with all the legal challenges and court battles, is far more expensive than housing a prisoner for the rest of his/her life.

As I conclude, I oppose capital punishment towards the criminals [why include this expression???]. Everybody is given a life equally and they should be given deaths equally too, according to their personal decisions [What? Do you even know what you are saying here? It sounds as if you are advocating suicide rather than objecting to the death penalty].

The bereavement of any deaths, whether the human is sinful or sinless, is equally tragic. It is imperative for the remaining nations that perform the capital punishment to abolish it for a further step towards the advancement of human rights and future generations.
[Oh dear, you express yourself in such a convoluted manner than anyone reading this is likely to welcome the electric chair as a means of escape]

Essays are supposed to be balanced arguments – supported by hard evidence or facts rather than just the writer’s personal opinion. I’m guessing you have done your best here but your written English isn’t up to scratch. I would advise getting a Thesaurus and trying to write in a more simple, straightforward style.

H

WOWW, firstly, thanks so much for reading my terrible essay
I actually feel i needed someone like you to point out my mistakes :)
I'm a year 11 highschool student in Australia and apparently my english teacher wasn't very criticising!

Anyway thank you again, I clearly need help in English.