Grade 7 Writing Benchmark 2: Arguments For & Against Capital Punishment

Excerpt from What Americans Don't Understand About the Death Penalty by Andrew Cohen, October 2013

Support for capital punishment has hit an all-time low, according to a new Gallup poll. But the public still has a lot to learn about how unjustly the sentence is applied.

1    The folks at Gallup released the results of a new poll yesterday about the death penalty in America under the headline: "U.S. Death Penalty Support Lowest in 40 Years." Given the arbitrary way in which capital punishment is administered today in America, that's the good news. Evidently it is dawning on more and more people that the death penalty, as now applied by our judges and juries, is broken, in ways large and small, and thus unworthy of support.

2   The bad news, however, is that public attitudes about the death penalty today remain wildly disconnected from the reality of the death penalty today. This represents a failure of our courts, and of journalists and advocates, to adequately explain the grim truths about capital punishment. And it represents a failure by millions of Americans to level with themselves, and with each other, about what the death penalty is and is not.

3   Fifty-two percent of Americans believe the death penalty is applied fairly in the United States -- a smaller figure than the 60% who favor the death penalty. Forty percent believe the death penalty is applied unfairly. 

4   This means that more than half of those surveyed are—let me be delicate—still tragically misinformed about the nature of capital punishment in America in 2013. The truth is that race plays an enormous role in determining who is and who is not sentenced to death in America. If you are black you stand a far higher chance of getting the death penalty, especially if your victim is white. Theevidence and analysis of this fact are so pervasive that it should be beyond debate: 52 percent of Americans are dead wrong in their perception of the fairness of the application of capital punishment.

5   Some people simply haven't taken the time to study the matter and are content to take the easy path and say that the criminal justice system is fair. Some people probably think that it is fair that more blacks are sentenced to death when they kill whites than whites are when they kill blacks. And what about those addled folks—eight percent, according to Gallup—who believe that the death penalty is unfairly applied but who still support it? 

6   Like all polls, this one gives us little more than a snapshot of current attitudes about a topic that clearly is evolving as a matter of both law and politics. Six states have banned capital punishment since 2006 and lawmakers in several others are contemplating similar measures. And that's really where these poll numbers ought come into play—as a reminder of how far the conversation has come on capital punishment and how far it still has to go. The numbers may change here or there, the percentages may vary a little, but the truth is that the death penalty in America either needs to be overhauled so that it is fairly and justly applied or it needs to be scrapped altogether as a capricious practice unbecoming a civilized nation of laws.

5 Arguments For And Against The Death Penalty

FLAMEHORSE JUNE 1, 2013

The existence of the death penalty in any society raises one underlying question: have we established our justice systems out of a desire for rehabilitation, or out of a desire for retribution? The author has set out to examine both sides of the debate over the ethics and legality of capital punishment, especially in the US, and chooses neither side in any of the following entries. They are not presented in any meaningful order.

1  Against: It Teaches the Condemned Nothing

                                                                                                                                                           
What is the purpose of punishment?  We take our lead from one major source, our parents—and they no doubt took their lead from their own parents. When your young child emulates what he just saw in a Rambo movie, you give him a stern lecture about what is real and what is not, what is acceptable in real life and what is not.  When your child tries some crazy acrobatic move off a piece of furniture and hurts himself, you might spank him to be sure that he remembers never to do it again.

So when the child grows up, breaks into a home, and steals electronics, he gets caught and goes to prison.  His time in prison is meant to deprive him of the freedom to go where he wants anywhere in the world, and to do what he wants when he wants.  This is the punishment, and most people do learn from it.  In general, no one wants to go back.  But if that child grows up and murders someone for their wallet or just for fun, and they are in turn put to death, they are taught precisely nothing, because they are no longer alive to learn from it.  We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing him or her.

2  For: It is the Ultimate Warning

Nevertheless, if would-be criminals know undoubtedly that they will be put to death should they murder with premeditation, very many of them are much less inclined to commit murder.  Whether or not would-be criminals are wary of committing the worst crime is an important—and probably impossible—question to answer.  Murder still happens very frequently.  So some criminals disregard this warning for various reasons.  But the fact does remain that many criminals who ride the fence on committing murder ultimately decide to spare the victim’s life.

In a larger sense, capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes.  If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to him.  Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter.  He may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be executed.  Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and enter in the first place.

3 Against: It Is Hypocritical

It is strange that a nation would denounce the practice of murder by committing the very same act.  By doing so, we’re essentially championing the right to life by taking it from others.  True—as a whole, we are not murderers, and understandably refuse to be placed in the same category as someone like Ted Bundy.  But to many opponents of the death penalty, even Ted Bundy should have been given life without parole.  The fact that he murdered at least thirty people—for the mere reason that he enjoyed doing it—has no bearing on the hypocrisy, the flagrant dishonesty, of the declaration that such a person deserves to be killed because he had no right to kill.  

If the goal of any punishment, as stated above, is to teach us those things we should not do, then the justice system should more adequately teach the criminality of killing by refusing to partake in it.

4  For: It Is the Best Answer to Murder

The justice system basically attempts to mete out punishment that fits the crime.  Severe crimes result in imprisonment.  ”Petty larceny” is not treated with the severity that is meted to “grand theft auto,” and the latter, consequently, receives more time in prison.  So if severe—but non-lethal—violence toward another is found deserving of life without parole, then why should premeditated homicide be given the very same punishment?  This fact might induce a would-be criminal to go ahead and kill the victim he has already mugged and crippled.  Why would it matter, after all?  His sentence could not get any worse.

If murder is the willful deprivation of a victim’s right to life, then the justice system’s willful deprivation of the criminal’s right to the same is—even if overly severe—a punishment which fits the most severe crime that can be committed.  Without capital punishment, it could be argued that the justice system makes no provision in response to the crime of murder, and thus provides no justice for the victim.

Grade 8 Writing Benchmark I

Goofs & Great Inventions

Lost Cities, Lost Treasure

1              In 1871, an adventurer names Heinrich Schliemann started digging in the ground of a Turkish city, seeking the lost land of Troy.  Schliemann, a businessman and scholar, was born in Germany in 1822. As a young man he dreamed of discovering the treasures of the ancient world, and even made a plan for it when he was nine years old.

2          His youthful sense of adventure eventually brought him to California, where he made a fortune in the gold rush.  With his profits, he began his second career in archaeology.

3          Archaeology was still a young science in the 1800s. In fact, it was hardly a science at all. The promise of treasure and adventure in foreign lands attracted people like Schliemann. Like a lot of treasure hunters, Schliemann was smart, curious—and hungry for gold or fame. On the other hand, he loved ancient cultures, especially Greek culture. He loved learning and traveling. By the end of his life, he spoke 13 languages, including his native German. He loved Greek history and culture so much that he and his wife Sophia named their children Agamemnon and Andromache.

4           There was another, less likeable side to Schliemann. He has been described as a trickster who didn’t always tell the truth. He was known for changing or making up details in his stories of discovery. He wrote a thrilling account of his experience in the San Francisco fire of 1849—even though he was nowhere near San Francisco at the time. And as much as he loved antiquities and learning, his love of attention and money were equally strong. They may have been too strong in the end.

5           In 1868 he had been seeking the lost city of Troy for many years. He found out that a British archaeologist name Frank Calvert owned part of a site in Turkey. It was near the modern town of Canakkale. Calvert believed that ancient Troy was founded at this site. He did not have the funds to dig or discover for himself. Schliemann agreed to fund and share in the work.

6          Calvert was very different from Schliemann. He was self-taught, modest, and liked to keep his discoveries quiet. He was serious about protecting the artifacts he found. He did not have enough money of his own to carry out his work. He had to rely on Schliemann’s funds. This proved disastrous for him, and perhaps even worse for the remains of Troy.

7         By 1871, Schliemann had started digging up Troy his way. He was convinced he knew exactly how far to dig, and how to get there. He had workers open up huge trenches in the earth, shoveling out layers of debris and artifacts that had lain undisturbed for centuries. Although he and Calvert both discovered treasure, the damage done to the site was profound. Today, archaeologists believe that the historic Troy that the Greek poet Homoer described was in a layer much higher up. We will never know for sure.

8           Schliemann’s careless actions erased important clues to Troy’s past. Schliemann took the credit for what was found, and Calvert’s contribution was almost forgotten. Calvert’s family is still fighting to give him full credit for finding ancient Troy. Schliemann is remembered not only as a great explorer but also for being dishonest. Yet both men discovered great things at the site:  ancient axes, household items, and jewels. Together, they did prove there had been an ancient city called Troy. The gold and other precious items they found are now in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow, Russia. Was the find worth the damage it caused to the site?

How a Melted Bar of Chocolate

Changed our Kitchens

9           Percy Spencer never set out to help you cook your dinner in only 5 minutes. All he did was carry a bar of chocolate in his pocket onto the factory floor. What he discovered that day was more than how to get chocolate stains out of your clothes. He discovered a completely new way to cook.

10        The events leading up to the most powerful melted candy in the world gives us a clue to the kind of person Percy Spencer was. He was born in the town of Howland, Maine in 1894. As a boy, he liked to tinker and discover how things worked. His uncle was handy with machines, and taught Spencer a lot about them. When a log hauler broke down outside their house, the young boy had fun watching and helping while his uncle worked to fix the truck.

11        Percy went to work quite early to help support his family. By the time he was 16 he was working full-time in a machine shop. He volunteered to be one of three men who helped the machine shop convert to electrical power in 1910. He had no real training at the time, but he decided to try. That experience taught him everything he needed to be an electrician.

12        Imagine for a moment what that was like for young Percy Spencer. Today, every year, computers are becoming faster and smaller. Touchscreen technology is still very new. We have hardly begun to understand what else we can discover. Imagine you are Percy Spencer in the brand-new world of electrical engineering. So much to discover! And so many mistakes to make!

13        In everything he did from then on, Percy Spencer seemed to run toward discovery and take the chance of making mistakes. He joined the navy to become a telegraph operator. Once again he did not know much about this type of work. He taught himself what he needed at night, while he was standing watch on the ship.

14        By the time he was in his early 20s, Percy Spencer had taken another big leap. He was only the fifth employee of the new company Raytheon. He continued inventing and learning. The company grew, and his knowledge grew with it. Soon he was an equal with the smartest and best educated people in the United States.

15        Before Spencer Percy’s lucky microwave discovery, Raytheon was most famous for making a device that helped shrink down the radio to a modest size and cost. That helped put radios in many American households, making it one of the first devices for broad, shared communication. Raytheon also manufactured magnetic devices used for tracking moving vehicles and other moving objects on Earth or in space. One of Raytheon’s experiments was the Magnetron. The Magnetron generated microwaves, which are exactly what they sound like: small waves that are shorter in length than a regular radio wave. Scientists at Raytheon discovered that the Magnetron gave off a lot of heat. No one made a connection between this high heat and any possibilities for progress until Percy Spencer.

16        Standing near the Magnetron one day while it was on, Spencer noticed that the bar of chocolate in his pocket melted. He had a moment of realization. He asked for popcorn kernals, and put them near the heat. Minutes later, the man we can thank for microwave popcorn had a discovery on his hands.

17        It took more than 20 years, a lot of patience and many mistakes before Raytheon perfected a microwave oven that people could use and afford. In 1967, the Amana Radarange made its debut. Movies on demand at home were still decades away, but at least now Americans were ready with the popcorn. All thanks to Percy Spencer and his mistaken snack.

In Praise of Careful Science

18        Don’t be fooled: Accidents usually do not lead to great discoveries. Although it is fun to think about how a bump on the head from an apple changed our understanding of gravity, the reality is less fun. Most of the time, scientists work for decades and make very few mistakes. When they do, most mistakes cause problems, not progress.

19         Scientist John Denker says that many “big discoveries” were actually invented, step by step. Scientists made small discoveries over time. A lot of these small discoveries were predicted, and then proven, with no mistakes. Denker describes how magnetrons and radar were discovered. They were researched for years. The work was kept secret. The scientists worked to avoid mistakes. When they were announced, the public did not imagine the years that went into that work. Then, Percy Spencer accidentally discovered the magnetron’s property for heating food. That one moment overshadowed many years of careful science.

20        It also took more than 20 years after the “melted chocolate moment” to bring a commercial microwave to the public. The equally important process after discovery is also ignored. During that long process after discovery, scientists need to test their ideas with care and make as few mistakes as possible. When Pierre and Marie Curie discovered radium, they spent years after the 1898 discovery studying it. They were still studying it when they shared the Nobel Prize for Science with Henri Becquerel in 1903.

21        As John Denker says, “I am reminded of the rock star who said it took him 15 years to become an overnight sensation.”

22        It is too easy to say, “Without mistakes, no discoveries can be made.” Most mistakes do not lead directly to discoveries. Thomas Edison said that inventing was 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. The typical roles of a mistake in science is not to lead to a brilliant invention, but to teach a scientist how to do better next time. As space physicist Carl Sagan once said, “Science is a self-correcting process.”

A Series of Quotation about Error and Discovery

23        “We learn wisdom from failure much more than from success. We often discover what will do by finding out what will not do; and probably he who never made a mistake never made a discovery.”—19^th century Scottish author Samuel Smiles

24        “Error is a hardy plant; it flourisheth in every soil.”—19^th century English writer Martin Farquhar Tupper

25        “Love truth, but pardon error.”—18^th century author and philosopher Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire

26        “The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be, “Seek simplicity and distrust it.”—20^th century philosopher Alfred North Whitehead

Grade 5 Writing Benchmark I

Arguments For & Against Keeping Animals in Zoos

What is a Zoo?

1         A zoo, which is an abbreviation for a zoological garden or zoological park, is a facility wherein animals are confined in enclosures and displayed to public. Some sources argue that a zoo need not be a facility for animal display alone, and may also encompass breeding of animal species which in itself amounts to wildlife conservation. A zoo differs from an animal sanctuary, considering the fact that the latter doesn't confine animals to enclosures or prioritizes display of animals to public as zoos do. In fact, a wildlife sanctuary doesn't even allow unescorted access or any activity that would result in undue stress for the wildlife. A zoo on the other hand resorts to enclosure which can be made from iron railings or glass walls, and this very fact has put it under the scanner for animal cruelty.

Why is it Right to Keep Animals in Zoos?

2         Even animal rights groups are divided on the issue of confining animals to zoos - with some in the favor of this practice, and others calling for a ban on the same. The foremost reason that those in favor of this practice cite is that it offers protection for wild animals, as keeping these animals in zoos is anytime better than keeping them in wild where they are vulnerable to threats like loss of habitat and poaching. For those species which are fighting for their basic existence, zoos are no short of haven wherein they are not just protected from poachers, but also get plenty of food and water along with proper medical care from trained vets as and when required.

3         Some zoos also facilitate reproduction programs which - in turn, contributes to wildlife conservation. These arguments are also backed by the fact that animals in captivity have a longer lifespan as compared to their counterparts in wilderness. The zoo is also considered to be the best bet for injured animals for whom it is difficult to survive in the wild. At the same time, we can't afford to turn a blind eye to the fact that these zoos serve as educational tool which helps people understand why it is important to conserve nature. However, even those who are in support of this practice only support it along with some stipulations - most of which revolve around the safety of these animals in enclosures.
Why is it Wrong to Keep Animals in Zoos?

4         Those who are against the practice of keeping animals in zoos argue that the basic concept of 'displaying animals to public' which forms the basis of this practice is itself a strong enough reason for banning. They further add that the practice of using animals for our own selfish gains cannot be justified under the garb of protection or conservation. The treatment of animals in these zoos is yet another matter of concern, with quite a few reports about ill-handling of animals and resulting casualties coming to surface every once in a while. Again, this may not be the issue with modern zoos which boast of state-of-the-art facility which resemble the natural habitat of the animal in question to a great extent, but we need to understand that not all zoos of the world abide by the stipulated regulations.

5          Similarly, it is impossible to create a replica of natural habitats of animals - what you can create is just a close match of their habitat which may not hamper the natural behavior of these animals. One may argue that keeping animals in zoos works in their favor as they get a chance to reproduce, but the fact is that such interference on our behalf tends to hamper their natural reproduction process. In wild, the female has the option of choosing the healthiest male of the lot. This may not be true in captivity, and that - in turn, would mean transfer of weak genes to next generation. No human would prefer to be locked into a particular area - even if it is very vast, if it doesn't allow him to explore the world. The same logic works in case of animals as well, and we can't just boast of being a superior race and snatch their freedom. A monkey on the tree is anytime a pleasant sight as compared to a monkey on the railings of a huge metal cage.

6         It's very difficult to come up with a concrete opinion on whether it is right to keep animals in zoos or not. It's no doubt true that the animals are protected in these facilities as they don't get into conflict with humans, but at the same time one can't deny the fact that confining them into enclosures (or any other means of captivity) amounts to disrespect for nature. These animals are biologically programmed to survive in wild, and we should acknowledge this fact. A cheetah which relies on its amazing speed and hunting skills to bring down a gazelle in the vast open grasslands of the African Savannah will never be happy if it is confined to an enclosure - even if it means readily available food in its enclosure.

Doris Lin, Esq. is an animal rights attorney and Director of Legal Affairs for the Animal Protection League of NJ.

Grade 6 Writing Benchmark

Goofs & Great InventionsLost Cities, Lost Treasure

1              In 1871, an adventurer names Heinrich Schliemann started digging in the ground of a Turkish city, seeking the lost land of Troy.  Schliemann, a businessman and scholar, was born in Germany in 1822. As a young man he dreamed of discovering the treasures of the ancient world, and even made a plan for it when he was nine years old.

2          His youthful sense of adventure eventually brought him to California, where he made a fortune in the gold rush.  With his profits, he began his second career in archaeology.

3          Archaeology was still a young science in the 1800s. In fact, it was hardly a science at all. The promise of treasure and adventure in foreign lands attracted people like Schliemann. Like a lot of treasure hunters, Schliemann was smart, curious—and hungry for gold or fame. On the other hand, he loved ancient cultures, especially Greek culture. He loved learning and traveling. By the end of his life, he spoke 13 languages, including his native German. He loved Greek history and culture so much that he and his wife Sophia named their children Agamemnon and Andromache.

4           There was another, less likeable side to Schliemann. He has been described as a trickster who didn’t always tell the truth. He was known for changing or making up details in his stories of discovery. He wrote a thrilling account of his experience in the San Francisco fire of 1849—even though he was nowhere near San Francisco at the time. And as much as he loved antiquities and learning, his love of attention and money were equally strong. They may have been too strong in the end.

5           In 1868 he had been seeking the lost city of Troy for many years. He found out that a British archaeologist name Frank Calvert owned part of a site in Turkey. It was near the modern town of Canakkale. Calvert believed that ancient Troy was founded at this site. He did not have the funds to dig or discover for himself. Schliemann agreed to fund and share in the work.

6          Calvert was very different from Schliemann. He was self-taught, modest, and liked to keep his discoveries quiet. He was serious about protecting the artifacts he found. He did not have enough money of his own to carry out his work. He had to rely on Schliemann’s funds. This proved disastrous for him, and perhaps even worse for the remains of Troy.

7         By 1871, Schliemann had started digging up Troy his way. He was convinced he knew exactly how far to dig, and how to get there. He had workers open up huge trenches in the earth, shoveling out layers of debris and artifacts that had lain undisturbed for centuries. Although he and Calvert both discovered treasure, the damage done to the site was profound. Today, archaeologists believe that the historic Troy that the Greek poet Homoer described was in a layer much higher up. We will never know for sure.

8           Schliemann’s careless actions erased important clues to Troy’s past. Schliemann took the credit for what was found, and Calvert’s contribution was almost forgotten. Calvert’s family is still fighting to give him full credit for finding ancient Troy. Schliemann is remembered not only as a great explorer but also for being dishonest. Yet both men discovered great things at the site:  ancient axes, household items, and jewels. Together, they did prove there had been an ancient city called Troy. The gold and other precious items they found are now in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow, Russia. Was the find worth the damage it caused to the site?

How a Melted Bar of Chocolate

Changed our Kitchens

9           Percy Spencer never set out to help you cook your dinner in only 5 minutes. All he did was carry a bar of chocolate in his pocket onto the factory floor. What he discovered that day was more than how to get chocolate stains out of your clothes. He discovered a completely new way to cook.

10        The events leading up to the most powerful melted candy in the world gives us a clue to the kind of person Percy Spencer was. He was born in the town of Howland, Maine in 1894. As a boy, he liked to tinker and discover how things worked. His uncle was handy with machines, and taught Spencer a lot about them. When a log hauler broke down outside their house, the young boy had fun watching and helping while his uncle worked to fix the truck.

11        Percy went to work quite early to help support his family. By the time he was 16 he was working full-time in a machine shop. He volunteered to be one of three men who helped the machine shop convert to electrical power in 1910. He had no real training at the time, but he decided to try. That experience taught him everything he needed to be an electrician.

12        Imagine for a moment what that was like for young Percy Spencer. Today, every year, computers are becoming faster and smaller. Touchscreen technology is still very new. We have hardly begun to understand what else we can discover. Imagine you are Percy Spencer in the brand-new world of electrical engineering. So much to discover! And so many mistakes to make!

13        In everything he did from then on, Percy Spencer seemed to run toward discovery and take the chance of making mistakes. He joined the navy to become a telegraph operator. Once again he did not know much about this type of work. He taught himself what he needed at night, while he was standing watch on the ship.

14        By the time he was in his early 20s, Percy Spencer had taken another big leap. He was only the fifth employee of the new company Raytheon. He continued inventing and learning. The company grew, and his knowledge grew with it. Soon he was an equal with the smartest and best educated people in the United States.

15        Before Spencer Percy’s lucky microwave discovery, Raytheon was most famous for making a device that helped shrink down the radio to a modest size and cost. That helped put radios in many American households, making it one of the first devices for broad, shared communication. Raytheon also manufactured magnetic devices used for tracking moving vehicles and other moving objects on Earth or in space. One of Raytheon’s experiments was the Magnetron. The Magnetron generated microwaves, which are exactly what they sound like: small waves that are shorter in length than a regular radio wave. Scientists at Raytheon discovered that the Magnetron gave off a lot of heat. No one made a connection between this high heat and any possibilities for progress until Percy Spencer.

16        Standing near the Magnetron one day while it was on, Spencer noticed that the bar of chocolate in his pocket melted. He had a moment of realization. He asked for popcorn kernals, and put them near the heat. Minutes later, the man we can thank for microwave popcorn had a discovery on his hands.

17        It took more than 20 years, a lot of patience and many mistakes before Raytheon perfected a microwave oven that people could use and afford. In 1967, the Amana Radarange made its debut. Movies on demand at home were still decades away, but at least now Americans were ready with the popcorn. All thanks to Percy Spencer and his mistaken snack.