Critical Thinking: I need a 2.2 paper written for my second assignment

 

Assignment 1.2: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay – Part II
Synthesizing and Writing
Due Week 4 and worth 100 points

When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking.

The assignment is divided into two (2) parts.
For Part I of the assignment (due Week 2), you read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes, reviewed the Procon.org Website in order to gather information, and engaged in prewriting to examine your thoughts.
* Remember that in the Week 2 Discussion, you examined the biases discussed in Chapter 2 of the webtext.

In Part II of the assignment (due Week 4), you will write a paper to synthesize your ideas.
Part II – Writing
Write at three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:
1. State your position on the topic you selected for Assignment 1.1.
2. Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position    and explain why you selected these specific reasons.
3. Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website.
4. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position.   
5. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases.
6. Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the “Believing Game,” even if your position on the issue has stayed the same.

The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing:

Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph.

Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.

Ad

here

to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA Style format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

• Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language.
• Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking.
• Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.

Click here to view the grading rubric.

Attachaed 

Running head: PERCEPTION AND DISEFRANCHISEMENT 1

PERCEPTION AND DISEFRANCHISEMENT 5

Perception of Permanent Disenfranchisement in the State of Kentucky

Vanessa Woodard

Professor Mario de Carril

Ph120 Critical Thinking

January 12, 2018

Disenfranchisement laws have prevented many people from taking part in the nation’s democratic processes. Many people across the entire nation are affected this draconian. In the strongest possible terms, the introduction of limitations to felony convicts to vote must be discouraged because they are doing injustice to the very people who are supposed to have a say in the democratic affairs of the nation. The perceptions being promoted by these laws are wide off the mark. There are forty eight states that do not allow inmates to take part in voting.

Thirty six states prevent convicted felons from voting during the time they are on parole. Thirty one states also exclude ex-felony probationers from voting even after they are through with serving their prison terms. Nine other states bar people convicted of particular crimes from voting, or they allow for voting rights to be restored after a particular period of time. The big question is does the crimes that these people commit stop them from being human beings? The perceptions that are being created in the minds of these people are very dangerous since they tend to alienate them further from the society rather than rehabilitating them.

It is high time we as a nation reconsidered this position in order to save our future. We do not want to create enemies from our own people and then feel threatened when they turn against us due to their inhuman and dangerous mindsets that we so actively took part in creating (Kalan, 2015). Clearly, the policy of disenfranchisement together with the civil rights restoration of the application is doing more harm than good in our nation. It is estimated that 2.5% (53 million) of the whole population have lost their voting rights as a result of felony convictions.

3 Cons. of disenfranchisement

The most enduring consequence of disenfranchisement is the loss of voting rights. Depending on the jurisdiction, others may as well be disqualified from many types of employment thus adding onto their frustrations. They may be denied access to quality and affordable housing apart from having parental rights terminated. The common perception is that these harsh penalties are based on a misplaced premise of improving public safety.

There are punitive measures requiring sex offenders to maintain their information on a public registry. Convicted felony offenders with a history of drug crimes are prevented from applying for income-based housing, educational loans and other public welfare benefits. This revelation of the dire repercussions of disfranchisement is an enough reason to oppose it especially with the new facts. What’s most interesting about this view is that these people are treated as enemies of the land and not nationals of the country who ought to be corrected in love. Perhaps, the only thing that I would have believed from this scenario is the fact that this people had violated the law. However, that does not mean that a wrong can be corrected by treating the offender in an inhuman manner.

Another reason that I am strongly opposed to the so called legal actions is because it denies a very large portion of people from taking part in their democratic rights like voting. Over 57.5% of the convicts reported having voted again before being punished for felony. Two thirds of the people who had not voted before their conviction reported an increased desire to take part in the voting process now that they were grownups with families and an immense appreciation for the value of voting.

A third factor is that over 90% of the offenders did not know the due process for the restoration of the voting rights. A further 10% said that they did not know of the existence of an application process. These individuals always feel demeaned by the reality of having to apply for their voting rights. All convicts felt that the disenfranchisement was unfair and that they did not deserve it. Eighty-three percent of the convicts do not have the resources and skills required for them to successfully apply for the restoration of their voting rights, with 35% not having even a high school diploma or GED. Three quarters of the convicts reported that they had no knowledge of a person that could have aided them to complete the registration process.

Kentucky is a good example of a place where such like cases are rampant. One thing is true however; that crimes are committed and people are punished for their mistakes. Imprisonment and fines are already enough punitive measures that can teach the offenders a lifetime lesson. Going an extra mile of denying them their basic human right of voting is simply demoralizing. We are creating baggage that at one point in time is going to be very big for the society to deal with and sustain. Let there be avenues that can be used in dealing with highly sensitive cases other than making people feel guilty indefinitely over something that they are already paying for. This is the time to do away with all the wrong perceptions about these individuals make them feel loved and wanted.

References

P. S. Kalan. March 20, 2006. “Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate over Felon Disenfranchisement” from Stanford Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, as accessed from http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/karlan-stanford-fvr.