Sending criminals to prison is the regular way of punishment. Yet it has also long been argued that education might prove to be a better method to prevent crimes. Personally, I believe that although education is helpful to a certain degree in transforming a criminal into a normal person, it cannot replace imprisonment in reducing crimes. It is true that some people go astray in their lives because of a lack of education, which deprives them an opportunity to make a decent living and prompts them to illegal acts. However, not every crime falls into the category of violent behaviors. There are the so-called white-collar crimes such as fraud, typically committed by management personnel who tend to be degree-holders. Some of them even have obtained master’s or doctor’s degree, with an education profile far above the general public. Yet high level of education does not necessarily transform into an equal high level of ethical consciousness. That is why education alone cannot eradicate crimes, at least the non-violent crimes. Secondly, putting education in place of imprisonment may push up crime rates rather than bring them down. It may not be a solution but a catalyst as it tremendously lowers the price people need to pay once they break the laws. If people are aware of the severe punishment ahead, they might have a second thought before doing something nasty. But when realizing that they only need to be educated rather than penalized, it might actually encourage them to make the move. A case in point is that some teenagers commit crimes because they know they haven’t reached the age that is punishable by jail terms. They would only be disciplined instead of paying a heavy price of time. Young as they are, they know how to take advantage of the loophole and get away with what they do, not to mention the more sophisticated adults. In conclusion, education might help some people realize their wrongdoings, but it is by no means the rightful substitute for legal sentence.

Some people believe in the benefits of owning guns. On the one hand, it is a great power equalizer when one is confronted with criminals who are usually physically stronger. For instance, women tend to be the target of heinous crimes due to their weakness in strength and at most of time, the police cannot come to the rescue in time. But with a weapon in hand, intended perpetrators might be deterred from making an assault on them. On the other, guns are not the ultimate reason for crimes, people are. A kitchen knife, a baseball stick, or simply a big stone can all be the tools used in fatally attacking people. To limit the rate of crimes, it is more useful to reform people than gun laws. Strict control on guns would probably only reduce law-abiding citizens’ abilities of self-defense without an actual proportional decrease in crime rates. Despite the alleged benefits, I am still in the camp of banning guns because of their destructive power. I think guns make killing so much easier than other conventional tools used for attack, which definitely would lead to more lives lost. Human beings, are not as rational as they might normally seem. Like any other animal, they could be angered, getting furious, or they could feel constantly desperate, feeling there is no point living in the world. In both cases, guns serve as a perfect tool for them to either unleash their rage on others or release their own mental burden in the most tragic way. The consequences are deadly. According to statistics, gun violence has caused more deaths than other crimes, and they have also be the number one source of death in suicides. Besides, the prevalence of guns undercuts the power of the police, making police enforcement difficult and the environment less safe. And sometimes the police overreact as they worry about their own safety, which has also caused unnecessary casualties.

Today we often see exhaustive description of crimes in the media which prompts some people’s worries about potential problems like imitations of crimes. While this could be possible in some cases, I still believe it is necessary for the public to be aware of how some crimes might happen, and the restrictions put on this kind of information has more drawbacks than benefits. The benefits of a full exposure of crime details are multiple. First of all, it can raise people’s precaution of not falling into the same trap again. For instance, there once was a widespread problem of telecom scam in which perpetrators disguised as police officers allured victims to transfer their money out to other account. The tactic was devious and deceiving, and some people suffered enormous economic damages as a result. However, ever since thorough reports by the media, the crime rate declined, as many people fostered a stronger sense of self-protection. They would not easily believe in the claims made by strangers. Media intervention therefore, served as an effective tool to prevent more people being victimized. Secondly, reports of this kind can help the police solve cases to a large extent. For years, some cases have remained unsolved because of a lack of information. Those cold cases are the reasons why the victims’ families can never have closure and often agonize over the fact that justice still hasn’t been served. With media reports widely spread, there is a chance for more helpful clues to come to light, helping the police to solve the mystery. For example, some children who have been taken by human traffickers are safely returned to their families as media reports let the public be more aware of the suspects that might be hidden among them. Although the worries about the imitation of crimes are real, the possibility of people implementing them is low. So I believe it is still worthwhile for them to be thoroughly known, both for the sake of prevention and investigation.

The role that medicine companies play in our society has always been one of the controversial ones. While some feel they are like any other private entities that can prioritize revenues, others believe that their uniqueness means they should also carry with them a sense social responsibility, which I agree. Admittedly, medicine companies have to attach importance to profits if they are going to survive in a fierce market. The research of new drugs takes a huge amount of funds, with some going up to billions of dollars, and a lot of these investments may never yield returns. It is therefore reasonable for them to charge high prices for their medical products to offset costs. After all, they are companies not charities. Without sufficient economic returns, those researchers would lose not only incentive but also basic financial support to keep on with their medical experiments, which would also cause enormous damage to medical development, in turn hurting everyone’s well-being. Yet on the other hand, I still believe that it is against both humanity and morality if medicine companies ignore the plight of the poor for the sole purpose of maximizing their profits. Unlike some other products that people can live without in their daily life, medicines are essential in helping patients recover and even saving people’s lives. While it is not a violation of law for medicine companies to ask for high prices of their products, it is morally unacceptable to let people perish merely because they cannot afford the prices of the medicines which are usually many times higher than the cost of actual production. Without a compassion for the disadvantaged, our society would be reduced to a place where profits overrides everything, including humanity and love. Being an important part of society, I firmly believe medicine companies should give certain preferential treatment to those in need when they can. It would be such a decadence of morality if money is put above life.

Today I scrolled through some shopping websites as I wanted to buy a shoulder bag for next term. While I own several should bags, of different designs and sizes, I just couldn't help myself longing for more. Every time I got a new one, I was deeply gratified. Yet the gratification waned over time, and it seems that only a new, shiny replacement can stir the same kind of emotion again. At the same time, I am also a somewhat thrifty person, rarely spending big on things that don't last long( maybe except food), or things that are of little practice value. So at this moment, half of me nags in my ears, telling me I should seize the time and reward myself with the pleasure of carrying a bag of my dream. After all, what is the point of earning if you don't have a chance to spend it? The other half of me, however, would caution me against wasteful spending. It keeps reminding me that my old bags are in good conditions. Why would I need to add more burden to my already cramped room? Well, maybe I need to wait, wait until I have enough money to buy a more spacious room while at the same time won't feel guilt of splurging on a name-brand bag which is of good quality but surely overpriced.

Haven't been on this site for a while, because some of its changes previously made me hard to adapt to. I am not a fan of writing posts on my phone. So it is nice to see certain old features back. Early this month, one of my favorite apps closed it business. For years it had not been able to find a way to turn a profit, and the investors lost their patience. I was deeply saddened by it and even shed tears for its doomed fate. At the same time, a feeling of guilt overwhelmed me as I had always been one of the beneficiaries rather than contributors to the app. It wanted to sell memberships to its fans, yet I was not the kind of people willing to pay for online service. I guess many people are like me: we like to enjoy the free service offered on the internet by various companies, and feel disgruntled if they ever dare to charge us. The whole incident makes me think over, maybe next time I will start to book lessons...

Are People Born to Be Snobbish? An article I read this morning gave me some thought. It is a report on a talent show for a group of matured actresses, all above the age of 30. Some of them are household names, some are much less known. And with a professionally sharp observation, the reporter found something incongruous with the charming smiles underneath these beauties. When those women first gathered for the show, many of them were eager to be introduced to other actresses, usually the more celebrated ones, while those with little fame were left standing up against the wall, being completely ignored and feeling overwhelmingly embarrassed. The reporter's view is that people would only recognize those who are strong. If she is strong and powerful, with a high status, her arrogance and mistakes are easily forgiven and forgotten, whereas the small potatoes are mercilessly mocked and shamed, both by other contestants and the audiences, for just saying one sentence wrong. I think this is truth. It seems to me that in the adult world, especially among colleagues, people prefer to mingle with the ones in some way better than them, or those they might need to ask for help one day. Few people would be keen to waste time on an apparently less useful person, no matter how kind or nice he is. This is unfortunate, and probably explains why it is hard to make genuine friendship at work. The longer you come out to society, the stronger the feeling of interest, or doing thing that are in your interest. Gone is the happy times when you were at school with classmates and friends, when sincerity and innocence still played a bigger role in human relationships than snobbery and calculation.

To Own or to Buy a Home? In some parts of the world, people have a stronger preference for owning a home than renting a home. In this essay, the author is going to analyse the reasons for this inclination and state why it could be insidious to social development. Two reason might explain people’s passion for possessing property. To start with, in many cultures, it is traditionally believed that owning a home is the foundation as well as the necessity of starting a new family, which also signals the beginning of a stable life. For example in many cities of China, owning a home is one of the premises for a couple to get married. Without a place that they can permanently call home, some of the couples may even reject or delay their marriage. Secondly, having a home of their own offers a sense of ease, avoiding an unwanted situation and the trouble of moving places if the landlord decides to discontinue their lease. Although it is true that a home of ones’ own provides stability and easiness, in my opinion, the emphasis on ownership may hobble social progress. The obvious reason is that it could hold back the flow of talents in society. As we can see, renting a home can give a person more flexibility of moving to a place that may suit him the best. If he finds the current environment does not meet his expectation, he can just pack and leave for another city. That is actually quite common in some other countries where the match of talents and places can better tap human potential, contributing to social growth. However, people might be more reluctant to sell a home and leave for a new place, as the process of property sales is too much hassle for some to take. In conclusion, I believe a wish for a stable and easy life leads to the importance of having a home, yet this immobility of talents may in some sense retard social progress.