The correct way to punish criminals has been an ongoing mystery for many years. Various methods of punishment for criminals are in place around the world, some harsher and more effective than others. In “Time to Assert American Values” and “Rough Justice” two authors present the argument of whether or not Michael Fay’s caning was justified. After carefully analyzing the two texts, the reader realizes that the article “Rough Justice” has the most relevant and sufficient evidence to support it because of the way the author uses various forms of evidence and avoids faulty reasoning.
Throughout “Rough Justice”, author Alejandro Reyes gives different types of evidence to support the punishment of caning in singapore. There are instances of empirical, …show more content…
This is prevented due to a lack of effective sources and using too much logic. “Time to Assert American Values” briefly touches on the concept of cultures having conflicting views on different things. The author expresses how “the Western cliche” is that “a guilty person can go free than convict an innocent person” (“Time to Assert American Values” 180). From an Asian perspective, they believe “it’s better that an innocent person be convicted if the common welfare is protected than for a guilty person to be free”. Two cultures in different locations will not have the same perspective on topics, it’s a known idea created from deductive reasoning. “Time to Assert American Values” also presents their claim by using some fallacies. The idea that “this country was also founded by dissidents” who “believed it was wrong to punish pilferage with hanging or crimes of any sort with torture” is a hasty generalization (“Time to Assert American Values” 180). A statement like this is faulty reasoning because it doesn’t explore the fact we used to punish crimes the same way. Another example of the same concept is when explaining how Americans who are “express[ing] outrage over a punishment that causes permanent scarring” are being “culturally arrogant”(“Time to Assert American Values” 180). Facts and the extents of that statement are not fully explored and can be detrimental to the argument. Unlike “Rough Justice”, “Time to Assert American Values” doesn’t have strong evidence and facts to support the argument. There are too many holes in the ideas being presented which makes it less effective at developing an
Throughout “Rough Justice”, author Alejandro Reyes gives different types of evidence to support the punishment of caning in singapore. There are instances of empirical, …show more content…
This is prevented due to a lack of effective sources and using too much logic. “Time to Assert American Values” briefly touches on the concept of cultures having conflicting views on different things. The author expresses how “the Western cliche” is that “a guilty person can go free than convict an innocent person” (“Time to Assert American Values” 180). From an Asian perspective, they believe “it’s better that an innocent person be convicted if the common welfare is protected than for a guilty person to be free”. Two cultures in different locations will not have the same perspective on topics, it’s a known idea created from deductive reasoning. “Time to Assert American Values” also presents their claim by using some fallacies. The idea that “this country was also founded by dissidents” who “believed it was wrong to punish pilferage with hanging or crimes of any sort with torture” is a hasty generalization (“Time to Assert American Values” 180). A statement like this is faulty reasoning because it doesn’t explore the fact we used to punish crimes the same way. Another example of the same concept is when explaining how Americans who are “express[ing] outrage over a punishment that causes permanent scarring” are being “culturally arrogant”(“Time to Assert American Values” 180). Facts and the extents of that statement are not fully explored and can be detrimental to the argument. Unlike “Rough Justice”, “Time to Assert American Values” doesn’t have strong evidence and facts to support the argument. There are too many holes in the ideas being presented which makes it less effective at developing an