Should voters be given Right to reject candidates while voting - Analysis!
The demand that voters should have the right to reject all the candidates in a constituency is now picking up with many non-government organizations and even the Election Commission supporting the idea. The proposal is to give electors the choice to press the button which says "None of the Above" if they do not like to vote for any of the candidates listed in the electronic voting machine. This option will come after the name of the last candidate in the voting machine.
It has been supported mainly to check criminalization of politics and to improve transparency in regard to the antecedents of candidates via affidavits filed by them while filing nominations.
Also, under Rule 49 ( o ) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, a voter has the right to refuse to vote after he has been identified, his presence is marked in the register of electors and he is issued a ballot paper. However his decision not to vote does not remain a secret because polling officials and polling agents become aware of the voter's decision. The Commission therefore recommended that the law be amended to specifically provide for negative or neutral voting. This can be done by amending Rules 22 and 49B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and adding a provision that in the ballot paper which lists all the names of the candidates, there should be a column after the name of the last candidate which says "None of the Above". This will enable a voter to reject all the candidates in the constituency.
More recently, National Election Watch (NEW), a nationwide campaign comprising of more than 1200 NGOs and other citizen led organizations, which is working on electoral reforms and democracy and governance-related issues has demanded that the electronic voting machine must have a button which says "None of the Above". It has said that when a provision is made for "None of the Above" - which would give people the option not to vote for any candidate if they do not like any of the contesting candidates. If the "None of the Above" option gets maximum votes, it would mean that all the
contesting candidates have been rejected by the voters. If this happens, National Election Watch wants a re-election to be held in which none of the previous contestants should be allowed to contest again.
The movement to effect this reform is now really catching up in the country. However, since the Supreme Court is looking into this issue, one will have to wait until this case is decided.
Major points in favor
1. Every democracy gives each citizen right to vote and by using that vote the citizens participate in the process of electing the government that will rule them. Also every democracy grants its citizens right to express dissent.
2. It will force political parties to restructure themselves rather than playing with reservations and using power of criminals in particular regions to win seats.
Points against the same/Alternatives suggested
1. Rather than going for right to reject where lack of leadership in the country is projected to outer world, thorough assessment of a candidate's background. Candidates with criminal background should not be allowed to stand for the elections. This would result in large no. of candidates being eliminated.
2. It should be mandatory for candidates to declare all their assets & how they have amassed their wealth. So that corrupt candidates can be prevented from contesting and no need to exercise right to reject occurs.
Question of right to reject has originated from wrong or undeserving candidates being given party tickets with mere selfish interests. To cater to the same, either right to reject should be given to people OR a proper system should be brought in place by election commission where such contestants can be prevented from standing in the elections.
Should cloning of humans be allowed? - Analysis
What is cloning?
It refers to the development of offspring that are genetically identical to their parents. While cloning is often referred to as an unnatural process, it occurs quite often in nature. Identical twins are clones, for example, and asexual creatures reproduce by cloning. Artificial human cloning, however, is both very new and very complex.
Is artificial cloning safe?
Not yet. It took 277 unsuccessful embryo implantations to produce Dolly the Sheep, and clones tend to age rapidly and experience other health problems. The science of cloning is not particularly advanced.
Benefits of cloning?
Cloning can be used to:
1.Produce embryonic stem cells in large quantities.
2.Genetically alter animals to produce organs that can more easily be transplanted into humans.
3.Allow individuals or couples to reproduce through means other than sexual reproduction.
4.Grow replacement human organ tissue from scratch.
Scientists generally agree that it would be irresponsible to clone a human being until cloning has been perfected, given that the cloned human would probably face serious, and ultimately terminal, health issues.
The key objectives to Human Cloning are:-
1.That human cloning constitutes unethical experimentation.
2.That human cloning threatens identity and individuality.
3.That human cloning turns procreation into manufacture.
4.That human cloning means dictatorship over children and the perversion of parenthood.
Arguments in favor of cloning:
1.Human Cloning could save many lives : cloning could easily be used to reproduce living or deceased persons this could end the pain and suffering. The success rate of cloning (at least at first) will probably not be very high.
2. The Quality of Humans could be improved : Super humans could be created and drafted into the military and police offering better protection to society.
People could become more intelligent and offer more to society this will also reduce crime and help us advance our living a lot more. This could also enhance evolution since humans would have all the necessary characteristics to adapt to changes in the environment over time. People can live longer and are generally happier.
Would a ban on human cloning pass constitutional muster?
A ban on embryonic human cloning probably would, at least for now. The Founding Fathers didn't address the issue of human cloning, but it's possible to make an educated guess about how the Supreme Court might rule on cloning by looking at abortion law.
In abortion, there are two competing interests--the interests of the embryo or fetus, and the constitutional rights of the pregnant woman. The government has ruled that the government's interest in protecting embryonic and fetal life is legitimate at all stages, but does not become "compelling"--i.e., sufficient to outweigh the woman's constitutional rights--until the point of viability.
In human cloning cases, there is no pregnant woman whose constitutional rights would be violated by a ban. Therefore, it is quite likely that the Supreme Court would rule that there is no constitutional reason why the government cannot advance its legitimate interest in protecting embryonic life by banning human cloning.
Cloning is the short cut to curing peoples insecurities or hardships. It is also predicted that cloning may bring huge medical advances but these will only be bought out by big commercial and military companies sidelining those infertile couples, cancer patients and people who arent high up in the social class ladder. This means actual stakeholders (people who are the target or people who are affected) for cloning will be at loss since the technology supposedly designed for them will leave them out, only to be given to those who are more privileged. This will create major inequality and may cause wars and riots as a result.
Furthermore human cloning is a by product of greed and ignorance. Enhancing evolution would be extremely unfair towards other species cloning could prepare most of us for any change in the environment by equipping us with the appropriate characteristics, this will make it virtually impossible for the human race to become extinct which could lead to immortality.
" Should Capital Punishment be banned " ?- Analysis!
Capital Punishment is the legal killing punishment for a person who has been proved in a court of law to have committed.
Criminals have to be punished in many different violent ways. A King of Babylon had even claimed that An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This saying means the notion that for every wrong done there should be a compensating measure of justice.
One school of thought
Should capital punishment be banned? If it is banned, there will be more criminals on earth. Murderer, child abuser are the main criminals to get capital punishment seriously.
Murder is the worse criminal proceeding to get capital punishment. Murderer is a person who has killed somebody deliberately and illegally. In Britain, the death penalty (Capital Punishment) for murder was abolished in 1965, but it could still in theory be passed on anyone found guilty of treason until 1998. Some British people think that the death penalty should be brought back for crimes such as terrorism or the murder of a police officer. Every country decides what methods of execution will be used. This is usually a lethal injection (an injection of a poisonous chemical) but other methods used include the electric chair (a chair which sends a strong electric current through the prisoners body), and, rarely, hanging, a firing squad (a group of soldiers who shoot the prisoner), and the gas chamber (a room that is filled with poisonous gas when the prisoner is inside).
Summing up, today, the percentages of crimes is going to be less because of the sample stories of very cruel punishments. So, if we want crimes to be less happening, capital punishments shouldnt be abolished.
Another school of thought
Global terrorism is on the rise in todays world. Almost every country has witnessed it in various forms. Be it direct terrorism or unauthorized invasion. What could be the verdict for a terrorist, who kills a mass or creates a massacre to fulfill some weired dreams or just to create havoc and make the government busy all the time.
Nobody will support these guys until they themselves are somehow attached to the gang, be it direct or emotional attachment. In these cases, we can think of capital punishment.
What about the persons involved in serial killing? What about the persons indulged in pre determined killing? Someway or another the relatives of the victims and many of us may think of it as an offense worthy of capital punishment. Same happens to the child abusers and many more such crimes.
The actual motive of including this highest punishment was to make a sample to the others that if, others do this same thing again, they will be punished similarly.
But the question is could it stop crime?
Criminals are not born, they are made as a bi product of our social system. Our society has changed a lot, and so did the mentality of human beings. None of the laws are able to stop crime. If, someone falls in such condition, that chases him towards a crime, he is most unlikely to be put off by the consequences. And leave the matters of serial killers and all. They have some psychological problems, you just cant lecture them not to do so, as it may involve their death sentence.
What about the other people, frustrated with their lives for one or more persons, and willing to die after killing his enemies or after taking revenge? Will these laws create any havoc in his mind? Will he ever think of the consequences he is going to face after committing this crime? It is a proven fact that the inclusion of death sentence in the penal codes does not guarantee of a healthier environment.
So, is there any alternative?
Crimes cant be tolerated, thats true and these types of high crimes need highest punishment. But not by taking their lives. Put them under life time imprisonment, and by its true meaning. Put the person behind the bars for his entire remaining life. This may stop the persons from doing crime, who are frustrated in their lives and want to die after killing their worst enemy. If they know that killing is not the final verdict. They will be behind the bars for their remaining lives and under very hard punishment, there could be a change in their behavior.
As far the terrorist group is concerned, this problem can only be solved peacefully. There is no power on this planet that can stop terrorism by destroying one of their main bases and buildings of a particular country. Besides, this will create anger in many other peoples mind, and as Ive said earlier, terrorists are not born, they are the helpless reactions of humiliated society. Terrorism is not in buildings, but in mind. Change the minds of the terrorists. First listen to them. Ask what do they want, and then advance with extreme caution. But death sentence? Never, at least if we want to stop others from joining their gang.
Before we think of capital punishment, we must think do we have the right to kill someone? The word crime needs to be redefined. For one, something is crime, may be for the other person, it is just the last chance of his survival. How can you judge using laws and rules whether the person is guilty or not?
The criminal has done a sin by doing that crime, thats of no doubt.
But who gave us the power to act God!!!
can any help me in preparing answer for why mba is better than hospitality management (why mba-would b joining my father in hotel business)
The wonderful journey of this thread is about to end now with season nearing its end.
Shall be happy to get the feedbacks preferably critical ones so that next year, we can improve and be of more help to the users.
Thread shall be closed in another 24 -36 hours time, all the feedbacks are welcomed till then. We shall appreciate if you can help us in making this thread better next season by your valuable feedback!