Sample Argument--3

Sample Argument--3 GENERAL AMNESTY OR GENERAL MAYHEM General amnesty is usually just a populist ploy used by politicians whose insatiable desire to harness more votes in the upcoming elections makes us, the tax-paying, law-abiding ordinary citizens, take the toll for the freedom of a garden variety of good-for-nothing criminals. This may have very dire consequences indeed like a sudden increase in crime rate, employment and social adaptation difficulties and a related social unrest. If the amnesty decree initially included political prisoners, we would be talking about quite a different issue altogether. However, usually it does not serve the interests of powers-that-be to release writers, journalists, cartoonists or musicians since political dissenters have always been perceived as a threat to those in power. Ideas and their advocates are infinitely more dangerous than a bunch of low-life bums sentenced to prison on charges of murder, theft, grand larceny, sexual offences or fraud. From the social perspective, though, the real harm often comes in the form of these ex-convicts pardoned and placed in our midst without any proper preparation either on their or our side for the necessary social readjustment. Another reason for issuing a general amnesty decree is sometimes to relieve the burden of overcrowded prisons. However, since it is more often than not ill-planned, general amnesty tends to backfire and generate more crime, resentment and uneasiness than any kind of social benefit or reintegration. Deep down we all know correctional facilities do not in fact “correct” anything. It’s an unfortunate euphemism. Prison inmates do not get to adequately learn specific job skills that can come in handy back in society. Compounded with the reluctance and suspiciousness of regular citizens and businesses or corporations towards ex-convicts, this fact may lead to a severe unemployment problem facing the newly-released convicts. Feeling cornered and out of options, these ex-convicts may resort to a life of crime again. Actually, when every door they knock on for a job is slammed shut on them, it is not so easy to blame them, is it? It can be a great challenge to convince shopkeepers or human resources staff in factories or small to medium enterprises to hire unskilled workers with a criminal record. Some applicants, therefore, feel compelled to lie on the job application form about their prison sentence. It is ironic that the state that sees it fit to put these unreformed, probably non-penitent criminals back on the street, but refuses to employ them in its own institutions. The very first screening criterion in applications for a government job is a clean slate, i.e., a crime-free past. Dumping the surplus of penitentiaries on us, the hapless dunces, will not make social ills go away. It will not really compensate for the lost years in prison because of a possibly wrongful conviction, either. If anything, it will only serve to aggravate an already grim situation. On the regular citizens’ front, the ensuing social reaction may turn out to be the opposite of what the politicians intended. The most pertinent example in our recent past is the 1999 amnesty a.k.a. Rahsan Ecevit pardon, which she reported later to have been regrettably expanded to include murderers and perverts with the appeal cases that followed. She said she only intended for a group of small kids serving a cruelly harsh prison sentence on shoplifting charges to be released. However, this declaration of good intentions did little good for the Ecevits. After all, the path to hell is paved with good intentions, as the old adage wisely states. Once the floodgates have been opened, there is no stopping its gruesome effects. In retrospect, we know this political move did not enhance DSP’s voter or member potential. On the contrary, the whole nation blamed them for the mayhem at least a quarter of the pardoned convicts created between the time of their release and being sent back to their ever-crowded abodes a.k.a. prison. So, in the face of such a gloomy picture, you might well ask why governments insist on decreeing general amnesty every five to ten years. Well, why indeed? The answer is still blowing in the wind.