YENI PURTIKA

081222210028
C’08 EDU REG
WRITING III

Death Penalty for Corruptors

In our beloved country, Indonesia, corruption has become one of the

continuous problems which never end through generations. It seems that
corruption has become a sweet culture for high officials. The issue to Statements
sentence a death penalty to a guilty corruptor has risen to the surface of Issue
because the Indonesian law dealing with corruption is very weak as many
corruptors can easily escape to overseas or only get a short time period in
prison. Some think that this is against human right, but some believe
the corruptors deserve to get the death penalty.
There are two main reasons why people disagree to sentence death
penalty to the corruptors. First, whatever the criminal case is, death penalty Contrastive
is against the human right to live. Giving the death penalty to the corruptors points to
signs basic human rights infraction. Second, giving death penalty to the death penalty
corruptors can not contribute any economic improvement to the condition for corruptors
of the society but only to give satisfaction to people to watch the corruptors
dying. The death of the corruptors will not return the money that has been
corrupted.
On the other hand, there are also two strong arguments against
this point of view. First, Indonesia should provide a strong and fair verdict
against corruption. The society has become tired to find and witness that the Supporting
corruptors who have corrupted billions just only get two year period in points to
death penalty
prison while a thief who get caught stealing chicken get five years sentence.
for corruptors
Second, to solve and stop officials from corrupting people’s money is only
by giving a death penalty. This will give wary effect to the officials not to
do corruptions anymore.
In conclusion, giving a death penalty to the corruptors, certainly, is
an action against human right. However, the government should publish
Conclusion
the verdict fairly to every criminal cases of corruption whether it is big or
&
small amount of money. It is better that the corruptors who are guilty are Recommendation
sentenced a lifetime punishment and should return the money that has been
corrupted.

Notes:
Bold : Thesis Statement
Underlined (Paragraph 1) : Arguments against the death penalty
Underlined (Paragraph 2) : Arguments for the death penalty
Font in Arial : Connectors
Grey : Modalities
Bold and Underlined : Thinking verb
Italicized : Adverb of Manner
 YENI PURTIKA
081222210028
C’08 EDU REG
WRITING III

Death Penalty for Corruptors

In our beloved country, Indonesia, corruption has become one of the continuous problems
which never ends through generations. It seems that corruption has become a sweet culture for high
officials. The issue to sentence a death penalty to a guilty corruptor has risen to the surface because
the Indonesian law dealing with corruption is very weak as many corruptors can easily escape to
overseas or only get a short time period in prison. Some think that this is against human right, but
some believe the corruptors deserve to get the death penalty.
There are two main reasons why people disagree to sentence death penalty to the corruptors.
First, whatever the criminal case is, death penalty is against the human right to live. Giving the
death penalty to the corruptors signs basic human rights infraction. Second, giving death penalty to
the corruptors can not contribute any economic improvement to the condition of the society but
only to give satisfaction to people to watch the corruptors dying. The death of the corruptors will
not return the money that has been corrupted.
On the other hand, there are also two strong arguments against this point of view. First,
Indonesia should provide a strong and fair verdict against corruption. The society has become tired
to find and witness that the corruptors who have corrupted billions just only get two year period in
prison while a thief who get caught stealing chicken get five years sentence. Second, to solve and
stop officials from corrupting people’s money is only by giving a death penalty. This will give
wary effect to the officials not to do corruptions anymore.
In conclusion, giving a death penalty to the corruptors, certainly, is an action against human
right. However, we have to think about the people who have become the victims of corruption.
Since corruption can not be vanished, society needs the definite move from the government, so the
society trusts that the government has run a clean and transparent administration. Of course before
sentence a corruptor, there are several perspectives. First is the quality of corruption. How much
numbers are corrupted and we have to see whether the person is a serial corruptor. Second, the
perspective that should be assessed is the perpetrator’s responsibility whether it is a strategic or not.
The last perspective is whether he is the main perpetrator and committed to do corruption. If those
points are confirmed, in my opinion, the death penalty may become the main option.
 YENI PURTIKA
081222210028
C’08 EDU REG
WRITING III

Euthanasia, Human Rights to Live or Die

Euthanasia is the killing process of a person who is seriously ill

and purposed to end the unbearable pain. Some people agree that a Statements
person who has no hope of recovery has the right to die, but some of Issue
people think that it will be immoral to force people to continue living
with full of pain.
There are two main reasons why some people agree in euthanasia.
First, an ill person has the right to decide how and when to end their life.
Society should allow people to die painlessly with a dignity. Second, the Supporting
sick person also has responsibility with the family. The family members points for
who are burdened by the cost of life support have life too. If the person euthanasia
has been sick for years and has already committed to do euthanasia, the
euthanasia may be the main solution to do the problem.
In contrast, some people who strongly disagree with euthanasia
have three strong arguments. First, euthanasia is against the will of God.
To end someone’s life deliberately whatever the reason is and even if the
person personally asks us to do that is still a murder. A person will die by
his time not because of someone’s hand. Furthermore, life is a gift from
God so it is God’s decision when someone has to die. Second, there are Arguments
many possibilities that euthanasia will be abused. Allowing euthanasia points against
may make the doctors discourage to search the new treatment or euthanasia
medication for the patient. In addition, euthanasia can lower the
commitment of the doctors and nurses to save patient lives. Third, the
person who commits to do euthanasia may get many influences as he
thinks about his family being burdened by the cost. Also, in our beloved
country, there are many cases of malpractices by the doctors so the verdict
of the patient life will not remain any longer might be a wrong diagnose.
To conclude, an ill person has right to die but life is certainly
sacred and precious for everyone. There are many other ways to help the
patient, for example the using of media. Nowadays, there are several Conclusion
television stations which present the care-to-others programs. If the family &
can not afford the cost, they can record the condition of the patient and ask Recommendation
the media to publish it. So people who have enough money can donate the
patients for operations or fund for life supports.

Notes:
Bold : Thesis Statement
Underlined (Paragraph 1) : Arguments against the death penalty
Underlined (Paragraph 2) : Arguments for the death penalty
Font in Arial : Connectors
Grey : Modalities
Bold and Underlined : Thinking verb
Italicized : Adverb of Manner