A True Gentleman #3

According to Dictionary.com, a gentleman is a man regarded of having qualities of refinement associated with a good family. However, I do feel that this definition is wrong.

As mentioned in a class, a gentleman would have a few distinct qualities: being smart in appearance, knows what to speak and when to speak, is polite to all and have appropriate behaviour at all times as well as the ability to keep cool under any situation. With reference to the meaning given in Dictionary.com, not all gentleman have to have a “good family” as said. Are you saying that one with a bad background, e.g. family members in jail, does not possess the quality to be a gentleman? And if that’s the case, does that mean everyone who did not have a pleasant family history cannot be a gentleman?

In contrary wise, I do not think that being smart in appearance is an important aspect of being a gentleman. As the saying goes: don’t judge a book by its cover. However smart a man might look on the outside, he could be an all jerk in it, breaking hearts of girls. However, a man might be all filthy or so, but he could have a big heart and possesses every other quality. So in this case, does this mean that a person who doesn’t look smart, especially if it’s natural, cannot be called upon as a true gentleman?

All in all, I feel that a gentleman cannot be judged based on what you see him as and what he’s background is, but must be felt and interacted with to determine whether he is a true gentleman.

What do you think: was the state’s image “rehabilitated”? #2

After such an incident made known to public, there would definitely be a change of perception on the state of Mississippi. To me, I feel that the state's image had not been rehabilitated, even after the actions laid down by the justice system.

First of all, the victims in this case were three civil right workers, a White, a Jew, and a Black, killed by the Klu Klux Klan. According to initial reports, these three were actually caught, but released later on. Worst of all, they went missing after their release and were found dead shortly after. What did these people do to deserve such misfortune? All they were trying to do was out of goodwill, trying to help the Blacks and regain their state in the society, and because of that, they were killed?

Even though the eighteen culprits were caught and imprisoned later, I feel that just a mere imprisonment is totally insufficient. Three lives and all they got was a four to ten years of sentence to jail? That's totally absurd! Today, murder in United States would incur at least 15 years of jail term, which I still feel is not a very reasonable exchange for a life. Although the officials in Mississippi changed their perspective of prejudice in the state, which I felt made the three noble sacrifices a worthwhile one.

Till today, Mississippi is still remembered for the Civil Rights Movements. If we were to ask people their impression of Mississippi, I'm sure the majority would provide a negative one.

Civil Rights #1

When it comes to serious crimes, is it right for the justice system to pursue criminal charges several decades after the crime is said to have occurred?

I believe the justice system has every right to pursue these criminal charges after several decades after the crime is said to have occurred, even for crimes which aren't that severe.

My stand for this would be that when one commits a crime, regardless big or small, he or she should definitely face the rightful punishment for it. Should a criminal be let off that easily if the police are unable to arrest him or her in the stipulated amount of time, more and more people would bound to try commit crimes, be it out of desperation or for the fun of it. This would then lead to an overall increase in crimes rate, making the country less safe for its citizens. Moreover, according to a research on the percentage of criminals caught after committing different crimes in 2004, http://askville.amazon.com/criminals-caught-crimes-commit/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7191078 , majority of the criminals who actually commit serious crimes like murder are actually caught. So does that means that those who are lucky in their time to escape the clutches of justice can be let go that easily if caught again in the future?

Some might say that these criminals may have repented in the time where they weren't caught after committing their crime.But that is definitely an unfair statement, as of course, it does not apply to all the criminals. Most of all, are these criminals so special to be different from others, to be able to repent in a surrounding much better than those who were caught; jail? Even so, I do feel that some cases should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, as some of these criminals might have committed their crimes out of accident when they were hot in their head, or when it is obvious that the person have repented through his kind acts in the society.

Thus, overall, I feel that the justice system have every right to pursue criminal charges several decades after the crime is said to have occurred.