Crash Course World History for IELTS 3: Mesopotamia

(Crash Course World History for IELTS)

This lesson is designed to be used after 1 (The Agricultural Revolution) and 2 (Indus Valley Civilization)



Google Drive Folder HERE

Slideshow (slides, pub)


Listening Questions (docs, pub)
Transcript (docs, pub)
Quizlet (docs, pub)
Speaking Part 3 Questions (docs, pub)
Writing Task 2: Death Penalty Sample Essay (docs, pub)
Writing Homework (docs, pub)

Notes: In the slideshow, I include a reference to Donald Trump when setting up the speaking part 3 questions.  (This is in the context of discussing the Code of Hammurabi, and how Donald Trump praises "an eye for an eye".)  This is current in the year 2016 when I am creating this slideshow, but it will probably need to be updated in the future once Donald Trump fades into obscurity.
The pair of sample writing essays for Writing Task 2 is something I created myself.  The question is taken from legitimate IELTS websites, but, unable to find suitable pro and con sample answers, I just threw something together by myself.  And did it rather hastily as well (this was all thrown together just one hour before class).  Therefore the quality of theses essay is probably poor, and should be used with caution.  Among other failings, one of the essays is far too long for IELTS Task 2, and although both essays are about the death penalty in general, neither essay is specifically to address the exact question.
The task is that the paragraphs from each essay are cut up and all mixed together.  The students must separate the paragraphs into a pro and con essay, and then put each essay in order.

Answer each blank with no more than 2 words or a number.

#3—Crash Course World History

Mesopotamia

So 5,000 years ago in the land meso, or between, the Tigris and Euphrates potomoi, or rivers, cities started popping up. These early Mesopotamian cities engaged in a form of (1)________________, where farmers contributed their crops to public storehouses out of which workers, like metalworkers or builders would be paid uniform "wages" in grain.

One of the legacies of Mesopotamia is the enduring conflict between country and city.  You see this explored a lot in some of our greatest art such as in the “Epic of Gilgamesh”, one of the oldest known works of (2)________________.

Uruk was a walled city with an extensive (3)________________ system and several monumental temples, called Ziggurats. The priests of these temples initially had all the (4)________________, because they were able to communicate directly with the gods who were moody and vindictive.

The Tigris and Euphrates are decent as rivers go, but had certain disadvantages:

• A lot of slave labor was needed to make the Tigris and Euphrates useful for (5)________________;
• they're difficult to navigate; and
• flood unpredictably and (6)________________.

So I mean given that the region tends to yo-yo between devastating flood and horrible (7)________________, it follows that one would believe that the gods are kind of random and capricious, and that any priests who might be able to lead (8)________________ that placate those gods would be very useful individuals.

But about 1000 years after the first temples we find in cities like Uruk, a rival structure begins to show up, the (9)________________. This tells us that kings are starting to be as important as priests in Mesopotamia.

These kings, who probably started out as (10)________________ leaders or really rich landowners, took on a quasi-religious role. So the priests were overtaken by kings, who soon declared themselves priests.

Mesopotamia gave us a form of writing called cuneiform, which was initially created to record transactions like how many bushels of wheat were exchanged for how many goats.

I don't think you can overestimate the importance of writing but let's just make three points:

• Writing and reading are things that not everyone can do. So they create a (11)________________ distinction, one that in fact survives to this day.
• Once writing enters the picture, you have actual (12)________________ instead of just a lot of guesswork and archaeology.
• Without writing, John Green would not have a job.

So why did this writing happen in Mesopotamia? Well the Fertile Crescent, while it is fertile, is lacking in pretty much everything else. In order to get metal for tools or stone for sculptures or wood for burning, Mesopotamia had to (13)________________. This trading eventually led Mesopotamia to develop the world's first territorial (14)________________.

So the city state period in Mesopotamia ended around 2,000 BCE, probably because drought and a shift in the course of rivers led to pastoral nomads coming in and conquering the environmentally weakened cities.

These new Mesopotamian city states were similar to their predecessors but they were different in some important ways.

• First, that early proto-socialism was replaced by something that looked a lot like (15) ________________enterprise, where people could produce as much as they would like as long as they gave a cut, also known as (16)________________ to the government.
• Things were also different (17)________________ because the tribal chiefs became full-blown kings, who tried to extend their power outside of cities and also tried to pass on their power to their sons.

The most famous of these early monarchs is Hammurabi who ruled the new kingdom of Babylon from 1792 BCE to 1750 BCE. His main claim to fame is his famous (18)________________ which established everything from like the wages of ox drivers to the fact that the punishment for taking an eye should be having an eye taken.

In the law code Hammurabi tried to portray himself in two roles that might sound familiar: shepard and (19)________________. So again we see the authority for protection of the social order shifting to men, not gods, which is important, but don't worry, it'll shift back.

The thing about territorial kingdoms is that they relied on the poorest people to pay taxes, and provide labor and serve in the (20)________________, all of which made you not like your king very much so if you saw any nomadic invaders coming by you might just be like "Hey nomadic invaders! Come on in; you seem better than the last guy."

Well, that was the case until the Assyrians, who have a deserved (21)________________ for being the brutal bullies of Mesopotamia came along.

The Assyrians did give us an early example of probably the most important and durable form of political organization in world history the (22) ________________, which is the extension by conquest of control over people who do not belong to the same group as the conquerors. The biggest problem with empires is that by definition they're diverse and (23)________________, which makes them hard to unify.

Beginning around 911 BCE, the neo-Assyrian Empire grew from its hometowns of Ashur and Nineveh to include the whole of Mesopotamia, the (24)________________of the Mediterranean and even, by 680 BCE, Egypt! They did this thanks to the most brutal, terrifying and efficient army the world had ever seen.  For one thing the army was a (25)________________. Generals weren't chosen based on who their dads were, they were chosen based on if they were good at “Generalling”.

Also, they were super MEAN. Like they would deport hundreds of thousands of people to separate them from their (26) ________________and their families and also moved skilled workers around where they were most needed. Also the neo-Assyrians loved to find would-be rebels and lop off their appendages; particularly their (27)________________ for some reason.

So what happened to the Assyrians? Well, first they extended their empire beyond their (28)________________, making administration impossible. But maybe even more importantly, when your whole worldview is based on the idea that the apocalypse will come if you ever lose a battle, and then you lose one battle, the whole world view just blows up. That eventually happened and in (29)________________ BCE, the city of Nineveh was finally conquered, and the neo-Assyrian Empire had come to its end.  But the idea of Empire was just getting started.

Answers:

So 5,000 years ago in the land meso, or between, the Tigris and Euphrates potomoi, or rivers, cities started popping up. These early Mesopotamian cities engaged in a form of (1)socialism, where farmers contributed their crops to public storehouses out of which workers, like metalworkers or builders would be paid uniform "wages" in grain.

One of the legacies of Mesopotamia is the enduring conflict between country and city.  You see this explored a lot in some of our greatest art such as in the “Epic of Gilgamesh”, one of the oldest known works of (2)literature.

Uruk was a walled city with an extensive (3)canal system and several monumental temples, called Ziggurats. The priests of these temples initially had all the (4)power, because they were able to communicate directly with the gods who were moody and vindictive.

The Tigris and Euphrates are decent as rivers go, but had certain disadvantages:

• A lot of slave labor was needed to make the Tigris and Euphrates useful for (5)irrigation;
• they're difficult to navigate; and
• flood unpredictably and (6)violently.

So I mean given that the region tends to yo-yo between devastating flood and horrible (7)drought, it follows that one would believe that the gods are kind of random and capricious, and that any priests who might be able to lead (8)rituals that placate those gods would be very useful individuals.

But about 1000 years after the first temples we find in cities like Uruk, a rival structure begins to show up, the (9)palace. This tells us that kings are starting to be as important as priests in Mesopotamia.

These kings, who probably started out as (10)military leaders or really rich landowners, took on a quasi-religious role. So the priests were overtaken by kings, who soon declared themselves priests.

Mesopotamia gave us a form of writing called cuneiform, which was initially created to record transactions like how many bushels of wheat were exchanged for how many goats.

I don't think you can overestimate the importance of writing but let's just make three points:

• Writing and reading are things that not everyone can do. So they create a (11)class distinction, one that in fact survives to this day.
• Once writing enters the picture, you have actual (12)history instead of just a lot of guesswork and archaeology.
• Without writing, John Green would not have a job.

So why did this writing happen in Mesopotamia? Well the Fertile Crescent, while it is fertile, is lacking in pretty much everything else. In order to get metal for tools or stone for sculptures or wood for burning, Mesopotamia had to (13)trade. This trading eventually led Mesopotamia to develop the world's first territorial (14)kingdom.

So the city state period in Mesopotamia ended around 2,000 BCE, probably because drought and a shift in the course of rivers led to pastoral nomads coming in and conquering the environmentally weakened cities.

These new Mesopotamian city states were similar to their predecessors but they were different in some important ways.

• First, that early proto-socialism was replaced by something that looked a lot like (15) private enterprise, where people could produce as much as they would like as long as they gave a cut, also known as (16)taxes to the government.
• Things were also different (17)politically because the tribal chiefs became full-blown kings, who tried to extend their power outside of cities and also tried to pass on their power to their sons.

The most famous of these early monarchs is Hammurabi who ruled the new kingdom of Babylon from 1792 BCE to 1750 BCE. His main claim to fame is his famous (18)law code which established everything from like the wages of ox drivers to the fact that the punishment for taking an eye should be having an eye taken.

In the law code Hammurabi tried to portray himself in two roles that might sound familiar: shepard and (19)father. So again we see the authority for protection of the social order shifting to men, not gods, which is important, but don't worry, it'll shift back.

The thing about territorial kingdoms is that they relied on the poorest people to pay taxes, and provide labor and serve in the (20)army, all of which made you not like your king very much so if you saw any nomadic invaders coming by you might just be like "Hey nomadic invaders! Come on in; you seem better than the last guy."

Well, that was the case until the Assyrians, who have a deserved (21)reputation for being the brutal bullies of Mesopotamia came along.

The Assyrians did give us an early example of probably the most important and durable form of political organization in world history the (22) empire, which is the extension by conquest of control over people who do not belong to the same group as the conquerors. The biggest problem with empires is that by definition they're diverse and (23)multi-ethnic, which makes them hard to unify.

Beginning around 911 BCE, the neo-Assyrian Empire grew from its hometowns of Ashur and Nineveh to include the whole of Mesopotamia, the (24)Eastern Coast of the Mediterranean and even, by 680 BCE, Egypt! They did this thanks to the most brutal, terrifying and efficient army the world had ever seen.  For one thing the army was a (25)meritocracy. Generals weren't chosen based on who their dads were, they were chosen based on if they were good at “Generalling”.

Also, they were super MEAN. Like they would deport hundreds of thousands of people to separate them from their (26) history and their families and also moved skilled workers around where they were most needed. Also the neo-Assyrians loved to find would-be rebels and lop off their appendages; particularly their (27)noses for some reason.

So what happened to the Assyrians? Well, first they extended their empire beyond their (28)roads, making administration impossible. But maybe even more importantly, when your whole worldview is based on the idea that the apocalypse will come if you ever lose a battle, and then you lose one battle, the whole world view just blows up. That eventually happened and in (29)612 BCE, the city of Nineveh was finally conquered, and the neo-Assyrian Empire had come to its end.  But the idea of Empire was just getting started.

INTRODUCTION

Hi there, I'm John Green. You're watching Crash Course World History, and today we're going to talk about...

[globe] Iraq.

No! you purportedly smart globe. We're going to talk about Mesopotamia! I love Mesopotamia, because it helped create two of my favorite things: writing and taxes. Why do I like taxes? Because before taxes, the only certainty was death.

Past John: Mr. Green, Mr. Green, did you know you're referencing Mark Twain?

Present John: I'm not referencing Mark Twain, Me from the Past. I'm referencing Benjamin Franklin, who was probably himself referencing the unfortunately named playwright Christopher Bullock. Listen, you may be smart, kid, but I've been smart longer.

By the way, today's illustration points out that "an eye for an eye" leaves the whole world monocular.

So about 5000 years ago, in the land “meso,” or between, the Tigris and Euphrates “potomoi,” or rivers, cities started popping up, much like they had in our old friend the Indus River valley. These early Mesopotamian cities engaged in a form of socialism where farmers contributed their crops to public storehouses, out of which workers, like metalworkers, or builders, or male models, or whatever, would be paid uniform wages in grain. So basically...

Past John: Mr. Green, Mr. Green, were there really male models? Can you do Blue Steel?

Present John: Oh, younger version of myself, how I hate you. [John laughs] Oh, the humiliation I suffer for you people. That was my best Blue Steel. That was as close as I can get.

So anyway, if you lived in a city, you could be something other than a shepherd, and thanks to this proto-socialism, you could be reasonably sure you that you'd eat.

Stan! Is there anyway we can get another globe in here? I feel like this shot is inadequately globed. Yes! Much better. You know, you can tell the quality of a historian by the number of his or her globes.

But even though you could give up your flock, a lot of people didn't want to. And one of the legacies of Mesopotamia is the enduring conflict between country and city. You see this explored a lot in some of our greatest art, like The Beverly Hillbillies, and Deliverance, and the showdown between Enkidu and Gilgamesh in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Gilgamesh is one of the oldest known works of literature, and I'm not going to spoil it for you, there's a link to the poem in the video info. But suffice it to say that in the showdown between country and city, the city wins.

So what were these city-states like? Well let's take a look at one such city-state, Gilgamesh's hometown of Uruk, in the Thought Bubble.

Thought Bubble

Uruk was a walled city with an extensive canal system and several monumental temples, called ziggurats. The priests of these temples initially had all the power because they were able to communicate directly with the gods, and that was a useful talent, because Mesopotamian gods were moody and frankly pretty mean. Like according to Gilgamesh, they once got mad at us because we were making too much noise while they were trying to sleep, so they decided to destroy all of humanity with a flood.

The Tigris and Euphrates are decent as rivers go, but Mesopotamia is no Indus Valley, with its on-schedule flooding and easy irrigation. A lot of slave labor was needed to make the Tigris and Euphrates useful for irrigation. They are also difficult to navigate and flood unpredictably and violently. Violent, unpredictable, and difficult to navigate; oh, Tigris and Euphrates, how you remind me of my college girlfriend.

So I mean, given that the region tends to yo-yo between devastating flood and horrible drought it follows that one would believe that the gods are kind of random and capricious, and that any priests who might be able to lead rituals that placate those gods would be very useful individuals. But about 1000 years after the first temples, we find in cities like Uruk, a rival structure begins to show up: the palace. The responsibility for the well-being and success of the social order was shifting, from gods to people. A power shift that will see-saw throughout human history until... probably forever, actually.

But in another development we'll see again, these kings, who probably started out as military leaders or really rich landowners, took on a quasi-religious role. How? Often by engaging in "sacred marriage," specifically, skoodilypooping with the high priestess of the city's temple. So the priests were overtaken by kings, who soon declared themselves priests. Thanks, Thought Bubble.

WRITING

So how do we know that these kings were skoodilypooping with the lady priests? Because they made a skoodilypooping tape and put it on the internet? No! Because there's a written record! Mesopotamia gave us writing, specifically a form of writing called cuneiform, which was initially created not to like, woo lovers or whatever, but to record transactions, like how many bushels of wheat were exchanged for how many goats. I'm not kidding by the way: a lot of cuneiform is about wheat and goats.

I don't think you can overestimate the importance of writing, but let's just make three points here:

First, writing and reading are things that not everyone can do, so they create a class distinction, one that in fact survives to this day. Foraging social orders were relatively egalitarian but the Mesopotamians had slaves and they played this metaphorically resonant sport that was like polo, except instead of riding on horses, you rode on other people. And written language played an important role in widening the gap between classes.

Two, once writing enters the picture, you have actual history instead of just a lot of guesswork and archaeology.

And three, without writing I would not have a job. So I'd like to personally thank Mesopotamia for making it possible for me to work while reclining in my La-Z-Boy.

So why did this writing happen in Mesopotamia? Well, the Fertile Crescent, while it is fertile, is lacking pretty much everything else. In order to get metal for tools or stone for sculpture, or wood for burning, Mesopotamia had to trade. This trading eventually led Mesopotamia to develop the world's first territorial kingdom, which will become very important and will eventually culminate in some extraordinarily inbred Habsburgs.

The city-state period in Mesopotamia ended around 2000 BCE, probably because drought and a shift in the course of rivers led to pastoral nomads coming in and conquering the environmentally weakened cities, and then the nomads settled into cities of their own as nomads almost always will, unless... wait for it... you are the Mongols. [Mongoltage]

These new Mesopotamia city-states were similar to their predecessors in that they had temples and writing and their own self-glorifying stories, but they were different in some important ways:

First, that early proto-socialism was replaced by something that looked a lot like private enterprise, where people could produce as much as they would like as long as they gave a cut, also known as taxes, to the government. We talk a lot of smack about taxes but it turns out they're pretty important to create stable social orders.

Things were also different politically because the dudes that had been the tribal chiefs became like full blown kings who tried to extend their power outside of cities and also tried to pass on their power to their sons. The most famous of these early monarchs is Hammurabi, or as I remember him from my high school history class, The Hammer of Abi. Hammurabi ruled the new kingdom of Babylon from 1792 BCE to 1750 BCE.

Hammurabi's main claim to fame is his famous law code, which established everything from like the wages of ox drivers to the fact that the punishment for taking an eye should be having an eye taken. Hammurabi's law code can be pretty insanely harsh, like if a builder builds a shoddy building, and then the owner's son dies in a collapse, the punishment for that is the execution of the builder's son! The kid's like, "That's not fair! I'm just a kid. What did I do? You should kill my dad."

All of which is to say that Hammurabi's law code gives a new meaning to the phrase "tough on crime". But it did introduce the presumptions of innocence. And in the law code, Hammurabi tried to portray himself in two roles that should sound familiar: shepherd and father. “I am the shepherd who brings peace. My benevolent shade was spread over the city. I held the peoples of Sumer and Akkad safely on my lap.”

So again we see the authority for the protection of the social order shifting to men, not gods, which is important, but don't worry. It'll shift back.

Even though territorial kingdoms like Babylon were more powerful than any cities that had come before, and even though Babylon was probably the world's most populous city during Hammurabi's rule, it wasn't actually that powerful. And keeping with the pattern, it was soon taken over the formerly nomadic Cassites.

The thing about territorial kingdoms is they relied on the poorest people to pay taxes and provide labor and serve in the army, all of which made you not like your king very much, so if you saw any nomadic invaders coming by, you might just be like, 'hey, nomadic invaders, come on in, you seem better than the last guy!'

Well, that was the case until the Assyrians came along anyway. The Assyrians have a deserved reputation for being the brutal bullies of Mesopotamia. But the Assyrians did give us an early example of probably the most important and durable form of political organization in world history, and also Star Wars history, the Empire.

The biggest problem with empires is that, by definition, they're diverse and multi-ethnic, which makes them hard to unify. So beginning around 911 BCE, the neo-Assyrian Empire grew from its hometowns of Ashur and Nineveh to include the whole of Mesopotamia, the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean, and even, by 680 BCE, Egypt.

They did this thanks to the most brutal, terrifying, and efficient army the world had ever seen. More adjectives describing my college girlfriend. For one thing, the army was a meritocracy - generals weren't chosen based on who their dads were, they were chosen based on if they were good at general-ing. Stan, is general-ing a word?

[bell dings]

John: It is! Also, they were super mean, like they would deport hundreds of thousands of people to separate them from their history and their families and also moved skilled workers around where they were most needed. Also, the Neo-Assyrians loved to find would-be rebels and lop off their appendages, particularly their noses for some reason. And there was your standard raping and pillaging and torture, all of which was done in the name of Ashur, the great God of the Neo-Assyrians, whose divine regent was the King.

Ashur, through the King, kept the world going, and as long as conquest continued, the world would not end. But if conquest ever stopped, the world would end and there would be rivers of blood and weeping and gnashing of teeth, you know how apocalypses go. The Assyrians spread this worldview with propaganda, like monumental architecture and readings about how awesome the King was at public festivals, all of which was designed to inspire awe in the Empire's subjects. Oh, that reminds me, it's time for the open letter!

OPEN LETTER

An open letter to the word 'awesome'. But first, let's see what's in the secret compartment today. Oh, Stan, is this yellowcake uranium? You never find that in Mesopotamia.

Dear 'Awesome',

I love you. Like most contemporary English speakers, in fact, I probably love you a little too much. The thing about you, 'Awesome,' is that “awesome” is just so awesomely awesome at being awesome, so we lose track of what you really mean, 'Awesome,' you're not just cool, you're terrifying and wonderful. You're knees-buckling, chest-tightening, fearful encounters with something radically other, something that we know could both crush and bless us.

That is awe, and I apologize for having to water you down, but seriously, you're awesome.

Best wishes, John Green

What Happened to the Assyrians?

So what happened to the Assyrians? Well first, they extended their empire beyond their roads, making administration impossible, but more importantly, when your whole worldview is based on the idea that the apocalypse will come if you ever lose a battle, and then you lose one battle, the whole worldview just blows up. That eventually happened, and in 612 BCE, the city of Nineveh was finally conquered and the Neo-Assyrian empire had come to its end.

But the idea of 'empire' was just getting started. Next week, we'll talk about mummies! Oh, I have to talk about other things, too? Crap, I only want to talk about mummies. Anyway, we'll be talking about...

[Smart Globe] Sudan

No, dang it! We'll actually be talking about...

[Smart Globe] Egypt

Thank you, Smart Globe. See you next week.

Conclusion

Today's episode of Crash Course was produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson, the show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, with some help from myself, and our graphics team is Thought Bubble.

Last week's phrase of the week was "better boyfriend"; if you want to take a guess at this week's phrase of the week, you can do so in comments, where you can also suggest new phrases of the week and, if you have any questions about today's show, leave them in comments, and our team of semi-professional quasi-historians will endeavor to answer them.

Thanks for watching, and as we say in my hometown, Don't Forget To Be Awesome.

Crash Course World History #3: Mesopotamia

https://quizlet.com/_2dorrp

Crash Course World History #3: Mesopotamia

https://quizlet.com/_2dorrp

Crash Course World History #3: Mesopotamia

https://quizlet.com/_2dorrp

Speaking Part 3 Questions:

Question 1

Are taxes in your country too high?  

If yes, what government program would you be willing to cut in order to have lower taxes?

Or, do you want to pay more taxes, and have more government services?  (e.g. free health care, free university)

What services do you want, and how much taxes would you be willing to pay?

Question 2

What do you think about empires?  Are they always bad, or can they sometimes be good for people?

Question 3

Who do you agree with: “eye for an eye” or “turn the other cheek”?  Why?

What do you think of the death penalty?

Should the government demand “a life for a life” as punishment for murder?

Speaking Part 3 Questions:

Question 1

Are taxes in your country too high?  

If yes, what government program would you be willing to cut in order to have lower taxes?

Or, do you want to pay more taxes, and have more government services?  (e.g. free health care, free university)

What services do you want, and how much taxes would you be willing to pay?

Question 2

What do you think about empires?  Are they always bad, or can they sometimes be good for people?

Question 3

Who do you agree with: “eye for an eye” or “turn the other cheek”?  Why?

What do you think of the death penalty?

Should the government demand “a life for a life” as punishment for murder?

Talk about this issue with a partner:

Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Talk about this issue with a partner:

Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Talk about this issue with a partner:

Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Talk about this issue with a partner:

Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Talk about this issue with a partner:

Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Talk about this issue with a partner:

Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Talk about this issue with a partner:

Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Introduction/ Gives opinion, lists main reasons First main reason and supporting details Second main reason and supporting details Conclusion: re-emphasize main points

The death penalty is a very controversial issue.  Many people are against the death penalty, because they feel that the government should not have control of life and death.  Other people are in favor of the death penalty.  In my case, I believe that the death penalty is necessary because it keeps society safe, and it provides a way to punish our most serious crimes. First of all, the death penalty helps to keep the streets safe.  If someone knows that they will be put to death for a crime, they will not do that crime.  Would you do something if you knew the penalty for it would be death?  So if a criminal knew they would be put to death for murder, they would be much less likely to murder someone.  In this way, the death penalty should work to lower the murder rate. I also believe that some crimes deserve the death penalty. When someone shows that they have lost their respect for life, they forfeit their right to live.  Murder is a horrible crime and murders don’t deserve to live. When people demonstrate that they do not respect life, they should not be shown any mercy.  After all, as in the ancient saying, “an eye for an eye, a life for a life.” In conclusion, I believe that the death penalty is both necessary to keep people say, and a completely fair and just punishment for our most horrible crimes.  If we do not show that we take crimes seriously, then the criminals will not respect the justice system. (262 Words)

Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Introduction/ Gives opinion, lists main reasons First main reason and supporting details Second main reason and supporting details Third main reason and supporting details Conclusion: re-emphasize main points

Although some countries have abolished the death penalty, the death penalty is still being used in many other countries across the world.  Some people feel that the death penalty makes them safer, because it stops criminals.  Other people feel that the death penalty is sending the wrong message to society.  My own opinion is that the death penalty is wrong because it is pointless, because it does not reform criminals, and because it contributes to a culture of violence. First of all, the death penalty is pointless. As Amnesty International points out, “The death penalty has NEVER been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.”   In states which have the death penalty, the murder rate is not higher than in states without the death penalty.  In states where the death penalty is introduced, it has never caused the murder rate to go down.  In states where the death penalty has been abolished, the murder rate has never gone up. Secondly, part of the purpose of the criminal justice system is to reform criminals. The death penalty is lacking in this regard.  In the words of the Dalai Lama, “My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this.” In fact, the only purpose the death penalty serves is that of revenge, and our criminal justice system should not operate on revenge. Finally, the death penalty contributes to a culture of violence already embedded in our society. We, as a society, complain frequently about violence in the media, but if institutional violence were given as much attention, perhaps conditions would actually improve. The death penalty is not the sole instance of institutional violence, but it is part of the structure. Should we be surprised that violence is so prevalent in the streets when we help create it? Should we be surprised at the current murder rates when we as a society endorse murder? The message the death penalty sends is clear: Life is not valuable. In conclusion, I believe the death penalty is wrong for all of these reasons.  In the old times, people used to believe in “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.”  But now, we are capable of building a better society that is not based on revenge.  I hope that someday the death penalty will be eliminated in all countries. (407 Words)

Cut up and shuffle.  Have students separate the paragraphs into two separate essays, and then put the essays in order.

First of all, the death penalty is pointless. As Amnesty International points out, “The death penalty has NEVER been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.”   In states which have the death penalty, the murder rate is not higher than in states without the death penalty.  In states where the death penalty is introduced, it has never caused the murder rate to go down.  In states where the death penalty has been abolished, the murder rate has never gone up.

Finally, the death penalty contributes to a culture of violence already embedded in our society. We, as a society, complain frequently about violence in the media, but if institutional violence were given as much attention, perhaps conditions would actually improve. The death penalty is not the sole instance of institutional violence, but it is part of the structure. Should we be surprised that violence is so prevalent in the streets when we help create it? Should we be surprised at the current murder rates when we as a society endorse murder? The message the death penalty sends is clear: Life is not valuable.

First of all, the death penalty helps to keep the streets safe.  If someone knows that they will be put to death for a crime, they will not do that crime.  Would you do something if you knew the penalty for it would be death?  So if a criminal knew they would be put to death for murder, they would be much less likely to murder someone.  In this way, the death penalty should work to lower the murder rate.

Although some countries have abolished the death penalty, the death penalty is still being used in many other countries across the world.  Some people feel that the death penalty makes them safer, because it stops criminals.  Other people feel that the death penalty is sending the wrong message to society.  My own opinion is that the death penalty is wrong because it is pointless, because it does not reform criminals, and because it contributes to a culture of violence.

The death penalty is a very controversial issue.  Many people are against the death penalty, because they feel that the government should not have control of life and death.  Other people are in favor of the death penalty.  In my case, I believe that the death penalty is necessary because it keeps society safe, and it provides a way to punish our most serious crimes.

Secondly, part of the purpose of the criminal justice system is to reform criminals. The death penalty is lacking in this regard.  In the words of the Dalai Lama, “My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this.” In fact, the only purpose the death penalty serves is that of revenge, and our criminal justice system should not operate on revenge.

In conclusion, I believe that the death penalty is both necessary to keep people say, and a completely fair and just punishment for our most horrible crimes.  If we do not show that we take crimes seriously, then the criminals will not respect the justice system.

In conclusion, I believe the death penalty is wrong for all of these reasons.  In the old times, people used to believe in “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.”  But now, we are capable of building a better society that is not based on revenge.  I hope that someday the death penalty will be eliminated in all countries.

I also believe that some crimes deserve the death penalty. When someone shows that they have lost their respect for life, they forfeit their right to live.  Murder is a horrible crime and murders don’t deserve to live. When people demonstrate that they do not respect life, they should not be shown any mercy.  After all, as in the ancient saying, “an eye for an eye, a life for a life.”