Research Paper Revisions

Original:

As previously stated, after the horrific acts that were witnessed during WWII the naitons of the world felt the need to address torture as a legal issue. Laws were set in place through the 1948 Universal Declaraction of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1984 Convention Against Torture. During these conventions torture was defined as:

"Severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person; for such purposes as; obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him/her for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person" (Amnesty International USA).

However because of the vagueness of these laws torture still continues to be used in up to as many as 160 countries today. For example, Soviet and Chinese communist regimes in the second half of the century tortured political and religious dissdents. This is all possible because all these nations deny any claim of torture through either interperative denial, implicatory denial, or literal denial (Hajjar).


Revised:

During WWII the Allied nations watched as Germany and Japan tortured their prisoners of war for information. Once the war ended torture was addressed as a legal issue because it was seen as cruel and inhuman. Laws were set in place through the 1948 Universal Declaraction of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1984 Convention Against Torture. During these conventions torture was defined as:

"Severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person; for such purposes as; obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him/her for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person" (Amnesty International USA).

Torture however, continued throughout the late 20th century. For example Soviet and Chinese communist regimes in the second half of the century tortured political and religious dissdents. This was possible because the definition of torture is vague. Countries use three distinct types of denial to evade punishment for using torture techniques; interperative denial, implicatory denial, and literal denial (Hajjar).

Journal 12: thesis statement

Since the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. actions that can be considered act of torture have been taking place on "terrorists." Though some of these actions violate international laws on torture it has been considered necessary to stop further terrorist acts. By comparing the modern methods of information retrival used by the U.S. to other countries', accessing the effectiveness of these methods and showing its importance of helping the United States win the war on terror moraly justifies the U.S. use of torture.

Revisions

Bad version:
From listening to the words of the students and seeing the rush to buy what was left of the shot glasses downtown it can be said that this decision really won’t help much of anything. A common reaction to the ban can be seen in a letter to the editor written after an article was posted in the Daily Collegian on the subject. In his letter Blaze Linette said “God knows the student body doesn’t need shot glasses with logos to consume 1.5 fl oz of liquor — plastic cups, drinking straight out of the bottle, or slurping it off the kitchen counter all work fine.” With this being the main consensus of the students it can be seen that this ban really isn’t doing anything to stop excessive student drinking. As Blaze also says in his letter, Penn State should address the actual issue of excessive drinking instead of trying to run away and separate themselves from it. However, Penn State has taken into consideration the amount their students drink and will continue to drink regardless of any bans set in place. With that consideration Penn State took some steps into improving the safety of their students by mandating an online education course. Those some students say the course was a waste of time it did force some other students who weren’t aware of some of the risks of alcohol to learn some new safety tips and facts. Though the online education course didn’t make a huge impact it at least forced student’s to know some of the general rules of alcohol safety. If Penn State truly wants to curve their image they should continue with perhaps a more interactive or improved online alcohol course. Also a since all students are required to take a first year seminar it would be helpful to offer an alcohol and general safety course. Though students may disagree with some of the things they hear they will be forced to learn about alcohol and how to drink responsibly, at least to some extent, to pass the course. Though this may be annoying for some they will have no real reason to lash out against it.

Revised version:

Students from Penn State had a very negative response to this ban. An example of this can be seen in a letter to the editor written after an article was posted in the Daily Collegian;

“God knows the student body doesn’t need shot glasses with logos to consume 1.5 fl oz of liquor — plastic cups, drinking straight out of the bottle, or slurping it off the kitchen counter all work fine” (Blaze Linette).

Many students feel the same way as Blaze. As Blaze also says in his letter, Penn State should address the actual issue of excessive drinking instead of running away and separating themselves from the problem. However, Penn State has taken into consideration the amount their students drink, and will continue to drink, regardless of any bans set in place. Because of that Penn State took some steps into improving the safety of their students by mandating an online education course. Some students say the course is a waste of time, but there were no real complaints made. The online education course may not have made a huge impact but it at least forced students to know some of the general rules of alcohol safety. If Penn State truly wants to change their image they should approach the issue through education.

This can be accomplished by Penn State having a more effective online alcohol course. Also since all students are required to take a first year seminar it would be helpful to offer an alcohol and general safety course. Though students may disagree with some of the things they hear they will be forced to learn about alcohol and how to drink responsibly, at least to some extent, to pass the course. Though this may be annoying for some they will have no real reason to lash out against it.