Argumentative Essay- Michael Fay Case
In 1994, the United States grew buzzing with debate about a particular case of vandalism
in Singapore. The defendant’s name? Michael Fay; an American teenager living in Singapore
arrested for stealing street signs and vandalizing cars. Everyone from all around the US began to
debate on whether or not caning- the punishment received for vandalism in Singapore- was well-
deserved or “cruel and unusual punishment.” While The New York Times’ editorial called
“Time to Assert American Values” tries to look for more “humanitarian” solutions for Michael
Fay’s acts, the Chicago Tribune’s editorial article “Michael Fay Got What he Deserved” by
Michael F. Mazza as well as Alejandro Reyes’ article “Rough …show more content…
Mazza claimed that “Clinton does not seem to be
coherent on foreign policy, yet he has time to plead the case of a boy accused of what boils down
to simple delinquency.” The author proves a valid point, considering that the Clinton
administration had bigger problems to deal with, both economically and in terms of crime rate, to
be trying to plead a case that doesn’t need any clemency or pardon. The United States tries to be
the “police man” of the world, but in defending Michael Fay’s case, that proved that being the
police man doesn’t always mean you’re in the right, and that can backfire if not handled
Apart from Mazza’s editorial, Reyes’ article “Rough Justice” supports Michael Fay’s
punishment, and proves that “ends justify the means.” Due to their “harsh punishments”
Singapore has a pretty low crime rate. Reyes wrote: “Since 1988, government statistics show
there has been a steady decline in the crime rate from 223 per 10,000 residents to 175 per 10,000
last year.” If caning and other “harsh” punishments keep a country “safe and relatively …show more content…
The law has to be enforced effectively and fairly.” Law isn’t just
what is written on paper; it’s how it’s enforced that makes a society orderly and safe.
Although most Americans were in favor of Michael Fay’s punishment, certain members
of Congress and the press didn’t seem to think that it was fair. The New York Times stated:
“Americans concerned with the propagation of traditional values at home should be equally
energetic in asserting constitutional principles in the international contest of ideas.” Singapore’s
laws have been successfully running before Michael Fay’s caning, and no complaints have
arisen from its laws until now. This “cruel” form of punishment keeps an entire country almost
free from crime, and although Western civilization seemed appalled by its laws that, unlike the
US’s laws, assert better order than them. The New York Times called out to “call for American
companies doing business in Singapore to bring their influence to bear.” Singapore’s relationship
with the United States has nothing to do with the laws being enforced in that country. Stopping
business, trade, or any sort of treaty won’t stop a country from carrying out punishments
In 1994, the United States grew buzzing with debate about a particular case of vandalism
in Singapore. The defendant’s name? Michael Fay; an American teenager living in Singapore
arrested for stealing street signs and vandalizing cars. Everyone from all around the US began to
debate on whether or not caning- the punishment received for vandalism in Singapore- was well-
deserved or “cruel and unusual punishment.” While The New York Times’ editorial called
“Time to Assert American Values” tries to look for more “humanitarian” solutions for Michael
Fay’s acts, the Chicago Tribune’s editorial article “Michael Fay Got What he Deserved” by
Michael F. Mazza as well as Alejandro Reyes’ article “Rough …show more content…
Mazza claimed that “Clinton does not seem to be
coherent on foreign policy, yet he has time to plead the case of a boy accused of what boils down
to simple delinquency.” The author proves a valid point, considering that the Clinton
administration had bigger problems to deal with, both economically and in terms of crime rate, to
be trying to plead a case that doesn’t need any clemency or pardon. The United States tries to be
the “police man” of the world, but in defending Michael Fay’s case, that proved that being the
police man doesn’t always mean you’re in the right, and that can backfire if not handled
Apart from Mazza’s editorial, Reyes’ article “Rough Justice” supports Michael Fay’s
punishment, and proves that “ends justify the means.” Due to their “harsh punishments”
Singapore has a pretty low crime rate. Reyes wrote: “Since 1988, government statistics show
there has been a steady decline in the crime rate from 223 per 10,000 residents to 175 per 10,000
last year.” If caning and other “harsh” punishments keep a country “safe and relatively …show more content…
The law has to be enforced effectively and fairly.” Law isn’t just
what is written on paper; it’s how it’s enforced that makes a society orderly and safe.
Although most Americans were in favor of Michael Fay’s punishment, certain members
of Congress and the press didn’t seem to think that it was fair. The New York Times stated:
“Americans concerned with the propagation of traditional values at home should be equally
energetic in asserting constitutional principles in the international contest of ideas.” Singapore’s
laws have been successfully running before Michael Fay’s caning, and no complaints have
arisen from its laws until now. This “cruel” form of punishment keeps an entire country almost
free from crime, and although Western civilization seemed appalled by its laws that, unlike the
US’s laws, assert better order than them. The New York Times called out to “call for American
companies doing business in Singapore to bring their influence to bear.” Singapore’s relationship
with the United States has nothing to do with the laws being enforced in that country. Stopping
business, trade, or any sort of treaty won’t stop a country from carrying out punishments