Critical Analysis

Instruction in the file below

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

4-5 page, double space, mla format

Rubric for the

A

ssessment of the Argumentative Essay

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

GRADE

A

B

C

D_F

INTRODUCTION
Background/
History

Problem Definition
Thesis Statement

Competencies

The well-developed introduction engages the readers. It contains detailed background information, develops a significant and compelling position, and a clear explanation or definition of the problem. Finally, it creates interest in the topic.

The well-formed, perceptive, and properly placed thesis statement clearly states the topic, the writer’s position and foreshadows the three main points.

The satisfactory introduction contains some background information, uses a technique for creating interest, develops a clearly stated position, and states the problem, using sufficient details.

 

The clear and properly placed thesis statement obviously states the writer’s position, but does not state the roadmap clearly, or fails to address the topic.

Introduction does not adequately explain the background of the problem nor does the writer attempt to create interest.  The problem is stated, but lacks detail. The introduction is evident, but position may not be clearly stated.

 

The thesis statement is present; however, it does not clearly state the writer’s position and/or it is improperly placed and does not provide a roadmap.

Writer does not attempt to create interest. Background details are a seemingly random collection of information, unclear, or not related to the topic. The problem is not stated or it is vague. Introduction is vague or fails to establish a position that responds to the topic.

The thesis statement is vague/unclear, improperly placed, and/or does not clearly state the writer’s position; thus making the text difficult or impossible to follow.

F—no thesis statement OR introduction not developed or missing.

MAIN POINTS
Body Paragraphs
Refutation

Competencies

Main points are well developed and directly related to the thesis. The supporting details are concrete and so rich that the readers learn by reading the essay. The writer is obviously comfortable with his/her material and knows enough about the subject to explain it in great detail.

Support uses appropriate patterns of development and style. Each aspect relates to thesis, providing coherence and continuity.

IF REFUTATION is REQUIRED: Refutation acknowledges the opposing view and argues it completely and logically.

Main points are present and directly related to the thesis, but one or more may lack enough detail and development. Yet, the essay is worth reading. The writer knows his/her material well enough to clearly explain it.

Patterns of development used for support and the style are not necessarily appropriate. Each aspect of argument is present, but the writer may not have shown connection to thesis.

IF REFUTATION IS REQUIRED: Refutation acknowledges the opposing view and argues it logically, but not necessarily completely.

Main points are present, but one or more may lack development and/or may not directly relate to the thesis. The essay minimally meets the requirements of the assignment and contains sufficient details to make the overall point clear, but it leaves the reader with unanswered questions.

Support for argument is logical, but pattern of development and style is simplistic. Some aspects of argument do not relate to thesis.

IF REFUTATION IS REQUIRED: Refutation acknowledges the opposing view, but does not argue it logically or completely.

The main points are not sufficient. There is a poor/skimpy/ vague development of ideas and a weak or nonexistent link to the thesis. 

Body is too brief to develop a convincing argument; exhibits no style. Essay lacks focus and tends to wander.

IF REFUTATION IS REQUIRED: Refutation is missing or vague.

 

GRADE

B

C

A

D-F

ORGANIZATION

Structure

Transitions

Competency

Logical, compelling progression of ideas in essay; clear structure which enhances and showcases the central idea or theme and moves the reader through the text. Organization flows smoothly from the most to the least important points.

Effective, mature, graceful transitions exist throughout the essay.

Overall, the paper is logically developed. Progression of ideas in essay makes sense and moves the reader easily through the text.

Strong transitions exist throughout and add to the essay’s coherence.

Progression of ideas in essay is awkward, yet moves the reader through the text without too much confusion. The writer sometimes lunges ahead too quickly or spends too much time on details that do not matter.

Transitions appear sporadically, but not equally throughout essay.

Arrangement of essay is unclear and illogical. The writing lacks a clear sense of direction. Ideas, details or events seem strung together in a loose or random fashion; there is no identifiable internal structure and readers have trouble following the writer’s line of thought.

Few, forced transitions in the essay or no transitions are present.

MECHANICS AND STYLE
Sentence Structure Punctuation  Capitalization Spelling

   

     Diction         

Sentence Variety     

Competencies
   

Mature writing is smooth, skillful, and coherent throughout the essay.

Sentences are well built with strong and varied structure that invites expressive oral reading.

Diction is at a college level or the appropriate level for the audience.

Punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are correct.

Virtually error free

Writing is smooth and coherent throughout most of the essay.

Most sentences are varied in length and style, with an occasional (1 or 2) repetition of sentence beginnings or a number of consecutive sentences of the same length or type. The sentence structure is generally correct, though some awkward sentences do appear.

Diction is mostly at the college level, but may have some examples of unsophisticated or poor/incorrect word choices.

There are one or two errors in punctuation, spelling, capitalization and/or other mechanics.

Few, if any, errors distract the reader from the text.

Writing lacks flow to achieve coherence throughout the essay.

Work contains some sentence errors (2 or 3) and grammatical errors. Many consecutive sentences begin with the same words, are of the same length or the same sentence construction; the sentences hang together, and get the job done in a routine fashion.

Diction is very elementary and lacks flair.

There are three or four errors in punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and/or other mechanics. 

Errors are distracting; however, the reader can still follow the basic intentions of the writer.

Writing is incoherent.

Work contains multiple incorrect sentence structures (more than 3).

Diction is elementary and/or inappropriate, and often writing is awkward due to many examples of poor/incorrect word choice.

There are more than 4 errors in punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and/or other mechanics.

Errors are beyond distracting; they make the essay difficult to follow and unacceptable for college-level writing.

 

GRADE

A

B

C

D-F

CONCLUSION

Competency 7

Powerful conclusion wraps up point and goes beyond restating the thesis/ introduction. Conclusion summarizes the main topics without repeating. The writer’s commentary is logical, well thought out, and compelling.

Conclusion effectively summarizes main topics and goes beyond restating the thesis/introduction.  Conclusion may lack a compelling aspect.

Conclusion summarizes main topics, but is repetitive. Conclusion may end abruptly or simply restate the position

Conclusion does not adequately summarize the main points.

 

0—no conclusion

WORKS CITED

(if Required)

All source material is used and smoothly integrated into the text. All sources are accurately documented and in the desired format on the Works Cited page.

All sources are relevant and reliable.

OR

Resource material is acknowledged and integrated logically.

All source material is used. All sources are accurately documented, but a few are not in the desired format on the Works Cited page.

Most sources are relevant and reliable.

OR

Resource material is acknowledged but may not be logically integrated into test.

Most source material is used, but integration may be awkward. All sources are accurately documented, but many are not in the desired format on the Works Cited page. Some sources are relevant and reliable.

OR

Material from outside sources is evident but not necessarily acknowledged.

Lacks sources and/or sources are not accurately documented. Incorrect format is used.

Sources are not relevant nor reliable.

OR

0—Works Cited page and documentation were required but are missing.

Critical Analysis

Paper Format

Papers should be 4-5 pages, titled, typed double-spaced, numbered and stapled
together.

Remember your goal is to get the reader to understand and possibly accept your
interpretation and argument. Keep in mind that your reader will be unbiased but
critical; therefore, evidence, not rhetoric, will be needed to accomplish your goal.

Grammatical and stylistic problems detract significantly from the impact of a paper.
Please use MLA Documentation for all essays in this class.

Topics

To advance your study beyond the text itself, reflect on one of the topics below. Make
connections to your own experience, and think how and why do you agree or
disagree with the writer. Think also of issues and questions that surfaced while you
were studying the text. Make sure you use quotes from the text to support your
ideas. Don’t forget to use the MLA citation format. Choose one of the following
topics for your essay:

1. Do you believe that “personal rights should be elevated above the
common good”? Why or why not? Explain your response, using examples
from the text.

2. Should there be such a movement as “globalization of human rights”?
Prove your position with examples from your readings, experience and
research.

3. Do you believe that if women voluntarily choose to present themselves in
sexualized ways, society or media should not be blamed for objectifying
them? Discuss your response with reasoning and justification, using
references to the text and current media portrayals of women.

4. Do you agree or disagree with the authors’ views on the presence of
women in tech and sportscasting? Argue your position with examples
from the readings and current representations of women in these fields.

READING ONE

Global Citizenship What Are We Talking About and Why Does it Matter? By Madeleine F.
Green

D

uring the past decade higher education’s interest in internationalization has intensified, and
the concept of civic education or engagement has broadened from a national focus to a

more global

one, thus expanding the concept that civic responsibility extends beyond national borders.
As Schattle (2009)1

points out, the concept of global citizenship is not a new one; it can be traced

back to ancient Greece. But the concept and the term seem to have new currency and are
now widely used in higher education. Many institutions cite global citizenship in their mission
statements and/ or as an outcome of liberal education and internationalization efforts. Many

have “centers for global citizenship” or programs with this label. Additionally, national and
international organizations and networks have devoted themselves to

helping institutions promote global citizenship, although they do not necessarily use that
term. For example, the Association of American Colleges and Universities sponsors a series
of programs con-cerned with civic learning, a broad concept that includes several goals for
undergraduate education: strengthening U.S. democracy, preparing globally responsible

citizenry, developing personal and social responsibility, and promoting global learning and
diversity. The Salzburg Seminar’s International Study Program provides week-long

workshops for faculty to consider the concepts of global citizenship and their integration into
undergraduate education. It also provides college students with programs on global issues.

The Talloires Network is an international alliance formed in 2005 that includes 20

2

institutions in

58 countries “devoted to strengthening the civic roles and social responsibilities of higher
education.” The Talloires declaration refers specifically to “preparing students to contribute
positively to local, national, and global communities.” Founded in 1985, the oldest of these

networks, Campus Compact, retains its predominant, but not exclusive, focus on the United
States.

Defining Global Citizenship A foray into the literature or a look at the many ways colleges
and universities talk about global cit-izenship reveals how broad a concept it is and how

different the emphasis can be depending on who uses the term. This essay can only outline
a few important elements of global citizenship, but a brief

2

Reading One Global Citizenship | 3

overview of the many meanings should help institutions formulate or clarify their own
definition of it, identify those elements that are central to their educational vision, and add
other dimensions. The following are among the most salient features of global citizenship

(this section draws from a variety of sources but primarily relies on Schattle (2007)2

).

Global citizenship as a choice and a way of thinking. National citizenship is an accident of
birth; global citizenship is different. It is a voluntary association with a concept that signifies

“ways of thinking and living within multiple cross-cutting communities—cities, regions, states,
nations, and international collectives…” (Schattle 2007, 9ii). People come to consider

themselves as global citizens through different formative life experiences and have different
interpretations of what it means to them. The practice of global citizenship is, for many,

exercised primarily at home, through engagement in global issues or with different cultures
in a local setting. For others, global citizenship means firsthand experience with different

countries, peoples, and cultures. For most, there exists a connection between the global and
the local. Whatever an individual’s particular “take” on global citizenship may be, that person

makes a choice in whether or how to practice it.

Global citizenship as self-awareness and awareness of others. As one international educator
put it, it is difficult to teach intercultural understanding to students who are unaware they, too,

live in a culture that colors their perceptions. Thus, awareness of the world around each
student begins with self-awareness. Self-awareness also enables students to identify with
the universalities of the human experience, thus increasing their identification with fellow

human beings and their sense of responsibility toward them.

Global citizenship as they practice cultural empathy. Cultural empathy or intercultural
compe-tence is commonly articulated as a goal of global education, and there is significant

literature on these topics. Intercultural competence occupies a central position in higher
education’s thinking about global citizenship and is seen as an important skill in

the

workplace. There are more than 30 instruments or inventories to assess intercultural
competence. Cultural empathy helps people see questions from multiple perspectives and
move deftly among cultures—sometimes navigating their own multiple cultural identities,

sometimes moving out to experience unfamiliar cultures.

Global citizenship as the cultivation of principled decision-making. Global citizenship entails
an awareness of the interdependence of individuals and systems and a sense of
responsibility that follows from it. Navigating “the treacherous waters of our epic

interdependence (Altinay 2010, 43

)

requires a set of guiding principles that will shape ethical and fair responses. Although the
goal of undergraduate education should not be to impose a “correct” set of answers, critical
thinking, cultural empathy, and ethical systems and choices are an essential foundation to

principled decisionmaking.

Global citizenship as participation in the social and political life of one’s community. There
are many different types of communities, from the local to the global, from religious to

political groups. Global citizens feel a connection to their communities (however they define
them) and translate that sense of connection into participation. Participation can take the
form of making responsible personal choices (such as limiting fossil fuel consumption),

voting, volunteering, advocacy, and political activism. The issues may include the
environment, poverty, trade, health, and human rights. Participation is the action dimension

of global citizenship.

4 | Global Rights and Perceptions

Why Does Global Citizenship Matter? The preceding list could be much longer and more
detailed; global citizenship covers a lot of ground. Thus, it is useful to consider the term

global citizenship as shorthand for the habits of mind and com-plex learning associated with
global education. The concept is useful and important in several respects. First, a focus on

global citizenship puts the spotlight on why internationalization is central to a

quality education and emphasizes that internationalization is a means, not an end. Serious
con-sideration of the goals of internationalization makes student learning the key concern
rather than counting inputs. Second, the benefits of encouraging students to consider their

responsibilities to their communities

and to the world redound to them, institutions, and society. As Altinay (2010, 1iii ) put it, “a
univer-sity education which does not provide effective tools and forums for students to think
through their responsibilities and rights as one of the several billions on planet Earth, and

along the way develop their moral compass, would be a failure.” Strengthening institutional
commitment to serving society enriches the institution, affirms its relevance and contributions
to society, and benefits communities (however expansive the definition) and the lives of their

members. Third, the concept of global citizenship creates conceptual and practical
connections rather than

cleavages. The commonalities between what happens at home and “over there” become
visible. The characteristics that human beings share are balanced against the differences

that are so conspicuous. On a practical level, global citizenship provides a concept that can
create bridges between the work of internationalization and multicultural education. Although

these efforts have different histories and trajectories, they also share important goals of
cultural empathy and intercultural competence (Olson et al. 2007iv ). No concept or term is

trouble-free; no idea goes uncontested by some faculty member or

group.

For better or for worse, global citizenship will undoubtedly provoke disagreements that
reflect larger academic and philosophical debates. There is plenty of skepticism about global

citizenship. Some object to any concept that suggests a diminished role for the nation and
allegiance to it or the ascendancy of global governance systems. The idea of developing
students’ moral compasses can raise questions about whose values and morals and how

institutions undertake this delicate task. Some students will choose not to accept
responsibility for the fate of others far away, or may see inequality as an irremediable fact of

life. Some faculty will stand by the efficacy and wisdom of the market; others will see
redressing inequality as the key issue for the future of humankind. And so on. Such debates,

whether civil or acrimonious, are, for better or worse, the stuff of academe. Imple-menting
new ideas—even if they have been around for a very long time as in the case of global
citizenship—can be slow and painful. However, if colleges and universities can produce

graduates with the knowledge and the disposition to be global citizens, the world would
certainly be a better place.

Conceptual Divides What was once simply called “international education” is now a field
awash with varied terminology, different conceptual frameworks, goals, and underlying

assumptions.* Although “internationalization” is widely used, many use globalization—with
all its different defi-nitions and connotations—in its stead. Rather than take on the job of

sorting out the terminology, let me point out two significant conceptual divides in the
conversation. Both center on the purpose of internationalization. In the first divide, we see
one face of internationalization as referring to a series of activities closely associated with

institutional prestige, profile, and revenue. These activities are generally

Reading One Global Citizenship | 5

quantifiable, lend themselves to institutional comparisons and benchmarking, and provide
metrics for internationalization performance that resonate with trustees and presidents.
Examples include hosting international students, sending students abroad, developing

international agreements, and delivering programs abroad. The other face of
internationalization—student learning—is much more difficult to capture and

assess, but it provides an important answer to the “so what?” question. Why does
international-ization matter? What impact do internationalization activities have on student
learning? How do they contribute to preparing students to live and work in a globalized and
culturally diverse world? Different terms with overlapping meanings are used to describe the

student learning dimension

of internationalization. Global learning, global education, and global competence are familiar
terms; they, too, are often used synonymously. The global in all three terms often includes
the concepts of international (between and among nations), global (transcending national
borders), and intercultural (referring often to cultural differences at home and around the
world). Also prevalent in the student learning discussion is another cluster of terms that

focus specifically

on deepening students’ understanding of global issues and interdependence, and
encouraging them to engage socially and politically to address societal issues. These terms

include global citizenship, world citizenship (Nussbaum 19975

20106). These terms, too, share several key concepts, and are often used interchangeably.
The second divide focuses on the divergent, but not incompatible goals of workforce

development

(developing workers to compete in the global marketplace) or as a means of social
development (developing globally competent citizens.) Global competitiveness is primarily

associated with mastery of math, science, technology, and occasionally language
competence, whereas “global competence” (a broad term, to be sure), puts greater

emphasis on intercultural understanding and knowledge of global systems and issues,
culture, and language. As the field grows increasingly complex and the instrumental goals of

internationalization become

more prominent, it is important that campus discussions and planning efforts sort out their
language, underlying concepts, and implied or explicit values. Otherwise, people run the risk

of talking past each other and developing strategies that may not match their goals.

*It is important for U.S. readers to note that the goals of and assumptions about
interna-tionalization vary widely around the world. The Third Global Survey of

Internationalization conducted by the International Association of Universities found that
there are divergent views among institutions in different regions of the risks and benefits of
international-izations. Based on their findings, IAU has launched an initiative to take a fresh

look at internationalization from a global perspective.

Notes 1 Schattle, Hans. 2009. “Global Citizenship in Theory and Practice.” In The Handbook
of Practice and Research in Study Abroad:Higher Education and the Quest for Global

Citizenship, ed. R. Lewin. New York: Routledge.

2 Schattle, Hans. 2007. The Practices ofGlobal Citizenship. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers, Inc. 3 Altinay, Hakan. “The Case for Global Civics.” Global Economy and
Development Working Paper 35, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2010.

4 Olson, Christa, Rhodri Evans, and Robert Shoenberg. 2007. At Home in the World:
Bridging the Gap Between Internationalization and Multi-Cultural Education. Washington DC:

American Council on Education.

), civic learning, civic engagement, and global civics (Altinay

—————————————————————————————————————————

READING TWO

Are Human Rights Universal? By Thomas M. Franck

The Rise of Cultural Exceptionalism In May 2000, the Taliban, who rule most of Afghanistan,
ordered a mother of seven to be stoned to death for adultery in front of an ecstatic stadium

of men and children. The year before, the House of Lords—Britain’s highest court—had
allowed two Pakistani women accused of adultery to claim ref-ugee status in the United

Kingdom, since they risked public flogging and death by stoning at home. Women today are
denied the vote and the right to drive cars in several Arab states, and harsh versions of
sharia (Islamic law) punishment are spreading to Sudan, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Still, the
Taliban’s repression remains in a class by itself: denying women the right to leave home

except when accompanied by a brother or husband and forbidding them all access to public
education. Not only do the Taliban seek to spread their militant vision to other states, they

also demand to be left alone to implement their own religious and cultural values at home
without foreign interference. Leaders in Kabul insist that they not be judged by the norms of
others—especially in the West. Of course the Taliban are not the only ones to reject outside

scrutiny. Florida’s government, after

frying several prisoners in a faulty electric chair, has only reluctantly turned to other methods
of exe-cution to conform to the U.S. Constitutions prohibition of “cruel and unusual

punishment.” Yet when America’s Western allies tell it that the U.S. system of capital
punishment is barbaric, local politicians and courts reply that it is their way and no one else’

business. Which is precisely what the Taliban say. This is not to indulge in what Jeane
Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. permanent representative to the

U.N., has called the “sin of moral equivalence.” The United States is not Afghanistan. What
the Islamic fundamentalist regime is doing there violates well-established global law. Article

7 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) echoes the U.S. Constitution in proclaiming
that “no one shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”

which certainly covers stoning and flogging—but not execution by lethal injection or
(functioning) electric chair. And the 1980 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) prohibits almost everything the Taliban have done
to subordinate women. The difference has been widely recognized. In October 1999, the
U.N. Security Council duly cen-sured the Taliban by a unanimous resolution. The General

Assembly, too, has shown its disapproval by refusing to accept the credentials of the
Taliban’s delegation. But Taliban leaders and other radical

Thomas M. Franck, “Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs, pp. 191-204. Copyright
© 2001 by Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

7

8 | Global Rights and Perceptions

fundamentalists in Pakistan, Sudan, and elsewhere reply to such condemnation by arguing
that their codes have reintroduced social cohesion, decency, and family values into societies

corrupted by colonialism and globalization. They point scornfully to the degradation of
Western women through pornography, prostitution, and other forms of exploitation, and

argue that their wives and daughters have been liberated from public obligations to focus
instead on home and family. Although huge differences in degree do exist between

repression in Afghanistan and executions

in Florida, the point is that the arguments of Islamic extremists parallel those used by U.S.
courts and politicians: namely, that states have a sovereign right to be let alone and not be
judged by inter-national human rights standards. The United States insists, for example, on
the right to execute persons who committed crimes as minors. Never mind that this violates

U.S. obligations under the ICCPR. It is the American way, representing American values and
ethics. Such assertions are made nowadays by many varieties of cultural exceptionalists.

For most of the

55 years since the collapse of Hitler’s own extravagant form of cultural exceptionalism, this
sort of claim tended to be suppressed, or at least muted. The Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and the several ensuing legal treaties setting out civil, political, cultural, and
economic rights as well as the rights of children, women, ethnic groups, and religions, were
meant to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all persons, everywhere. Although
these legal instruments allow some restrictions in time of national emergency, they brook no
cultural exceptionalism. But more and more, such universalist claims are being challenged.

And so the argument must

be joined: are human rights truly universal, or are they a product of the decadent West that
has no relevance in other societies?

Common Cause The postwar flourishing of human rights has featured two dynamic
elements: globalization and individualization. Against both a backlash has emerged.

Globalization has been achieved by drafting basic codes of protection and, to the extent
possible

in a decentralized world, by monitoring and promoting compliance. Inevitably, this scrutiny
has come into conflict with notions of state sovereignty. When the Commission of Experts

overseeing compliance with the ICCPR found Jamaica to have violated the treaty through its
administration of the death penalty, Jamaica responded by withdrawing from the ICCPR

provision that allows individuals to make complaints to the commission. Jamaica’s defense
in that case was typical: respect our culture, our unique problems. When it comes to the

treatment of our own people, we want sovereignty, not globalism. Sovereignty, however, is
not what it used to be. Beginning in the mid-1950s, the global system

began to take humanitarian crimes more seriously. The U.N. barely hesitated before telling
even quite seriously sovereign states—Belgium, the United Kingdom, France, the

Netherlands, and the United States—to emancipate their colonies. And they did. By 1965,
the Security Council was imposing mandatory sanctions on a white racist regime in

Rhodesia and, in 1977, on South Africa—although they, too, had asked in vain to be let
alone to pursue the cultural exceptionalism of apartheid. By last fall, the secretary-general of

the U.N., Kofi Annan, felt emboldened enough to tell the General Assembly that their core
challenge was:

to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human
rights—wherever they may take place—should not be allowed to stand … .If states bent on

criminal behavior know that frontiers are not the absolute defense; if they know that the
Security

Reading Two Are Human Rights Universal? | 9

Council will take action to halt crimes against humanity, then they will not embark on such a
course of action in expectation of sovereign immunity.

Annan called for a redefinition of national interests that will “induce states to find far greater

unity in the pursuit of such basic [U.N.] Charter values as democracy, pluralism, human
rights, and the rule of law.” This bold call drew quite a hostile reaction from member states.

Governments seeking to preserve their sovereignty, however, are not the only ones offended
by this most recent call for the enforcement of global values. Some cultures perceive the

global human rights canon as a threat to their very identity. The Taliban may brandish
national sovereignty as a shield, but they

also see themselves as militant guardians of a religion and culture that should be exempted
from a “Western” system of human rights that is inimical to Islam as they practice it. Other

governments, notably Singapore’s, have similarly advanced their claim of exceptionalism by
referring to “Asian values” that are supposedly antithetical to universal or Western norms. In
taking a stand against global human rights, the Taliban have made common cause not with

the

tired nationalist defenders of state sovereignty, but with a powerful and growing subset of
cultural exceptionalists. These include some traditional indigenous tribes, theocratic national

regimes, fun-damentalists of many religions, and surprisingly, a mixed bag of Western
intellectuals who deplore the emphasis placed by modern human rights rhetoric on individual

autonomy. Although these exceptionalists have little else in common, they share an
antipathy for the whole human rights system: the treaties, intergovernmental assemblies,

councils, committees, commissions, rapporteurs of the secretary-general, and the supporting
coterie of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), each seeking to advance the cause of
personal self-determination and individual rights. The exceptionalists view this system as
corrosive of social cohesion and a solvent of community, eroding the social customs and
traditions that become unsustainable once the individual ceases to be subordinate to the

group.

Rights or Responsibilities? Although the struggle for human rights as seen through the prism
of, say, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch looks like a tug of war between

governments and individual dissidents, the real action has moved elsewhere: to the battle
lines between the forces of communitarian conformity and the growing network of

free-thinking, autonomy-asserting individualists everywhere. And although a physical
struggle is undoubtedly occurring for control of Chechnya’s hills, the Khyber Pass, and the
White Nile, a crucial intellectual struggle is also being waged between the forces of Lockian

individual liberty and those championing communitarian values. The communitarian
argument is well paraphrased by professor Adeno Addis of Tulane University:

“One cannot have a right as an abstract individual. Rather, one has a right as a member of a
particular group and tradition within a given context.” To this, Princeton’s Michael Walzer
adds that the recent emphasis on individual rights has fostered a “concept of self that is
normatively undesirable” because it “generates a radical individualism and then a radical

competition among self-seeking individuals.” This, Addis asserts, “breeds social dislocation
and social pathology among members of the group.” Harvard professor Michael Sandel, in

his recent book Democracy’s Discontent, criticizes the

accommodations made by U.S. law—judge-made law, in particular—to an ethos of individual
rights that, he claims, undermines the civic virtues that sustain Americans’ sense of

communal responsi-bility. Sandel complains that the emphasis placed on individualism in
recent years has neutered the state and elevated personal rights above the common good.

At the international level, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad espouses a

variation on the same theme. In 1997, he urged the U.N. to mark the fiftieth anniversary of
the Declaration of Human Rights by revising or, better,

10 | Global Rights and Perceptions

repealing it, because its human rights norms focus excessively on individual rights while
neglecting the rights of society and the common good. Meanwhile, Australia’s former prime
minister Malcolm Fraser has dismissed the declaration as reflecting only the views of the

Northern and Eurocentric states that, when the declaration was adopted in 1948, dominated
the General Assembly. Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, too, says that the

declaration reflects “the philosophical and cultural background of its Western drafters” and
has called for a new “balance” between “the notions of freedom and of responsibility”

because the “concept of rights can itself be abused and lead to anarchy.”

Building New Bonds The argument against this cultural relativism weaves together three
strands. The first demonstrates that those advancing the exceptionalist claim do not

genuinely and legitimately represent those on whose behalf that claim is made. The second
shows that human rights are grounded not in a regional culture but in modern transcultural
social, economic, and scientific developments. And the third maintains that individual rights

are not the enemy of the common good, social responsibility, and community but rather
contribute to the emergence of new, multilayered, and voluntary affiliations that can

supplement those long imposed by tradition, territory, and genetics. First, the matter of
exceptionalist legitimacy—or the lack thereof. Many prominent voices in

non-Western societies reject the claims of exceptionalists who supposedly speak for them.
Sri Lan-ka’s president, Chandrika Kumaratunga, points out that “the free market has become

universal,

and it implies democracy and human rights.” She dismisses talk about “a conflict of values”
as “an excuse that can be used to cover a multitude of sins.” Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy,

the former chair of the Malaysian Bar Council and a U.N. special rapporteur on the
independence of judges, points to widespread non-Western ratification of human rights

treaties as proof of their “universal acceptance.” Former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali bluntly states that there “is no one set of European rights, and another of

African rights … They belong inherently to each person, each individual.” How, then, does
one explain the increasing frequency and vehemence of exceptionalist claims

made on behalf of culturally specific “values?” It often turns out that oppressive practices
defended by leaders of a culture, far from being pedigreed, are little more than the current

self-interested preferences of a power elite. If Afghan women were given a chance at
equality, would they freely choose subordination as an expression of unique community

values? We are unlikely to find out. Some guidance can be drawn, however, from the parallel
case of Sandra Lovelace, a Maliseet Indian

from New Brunswick. Under Canadian law, which incorporates Indian customary law, she
lost her right to live on tribal land when she “married out” of the tribe. When Lovelace took
her complaint to the ICCPR’s Human Rights Committee, she pointed out that no similar

penalty applied to men. The global group of experts upheld her claim. Pushed to conform to
its international human rights obligations, the Canadian government then repealed the

gender-discriminatory Indian law. Although that change disturbed some traditionalist leaders,
they were soon repudiated in monitored tribal elections. As with much that passes for

authentic custom, the rules turned out to have been imposed, quite recently, by those who
stood to benefit. Discrimination against women by the Maliseet, far from being a traditional

requisite of group survival, was shown by recent anthropological research to have been
copied from male-dominated Victorian society. In a similar fashion, many of the

exceptionalist claims made in the name of cultural diversity have been challenged by others
in the non-Western world. Radhika Coomaraswami, the U.N. special

Reading Two Are Human Rights Universal? | 11

rapporteur on violence against women, says that practices such as female genital mutilation,
flogging, stoning, and amputation of limbs, as well as laws restricting women’s rights to
marriage, divorce, maintenance, and custody, are all inauthentic perversions of various

religious dogmas. Moreover, she insists that “cultural diversity should be celebrated only if
those enjoying their cultural attributes are doing so voluntarily.” In her landmark study of

Islam and human rights, Professor Ann Elizabeth Mayer concludes that much of the
pedigree claimed by fundamentalists does “not represent the result of rigorous, scholarly

analysis of Islamic sources or a coherent approach to Islamic jurisprudence.” The Egyptian
art historian Professor Nasr Abu-Zaid puts it simply: “It is the militants who are … hijacking
Islam.” Just as many of the idiosyncratic customs that alienate non-Western traditionalists

from the human

rights system are inauthentic, so too are the attempts to portray these rights as aspects of
Western cultural imperialism. The human rights canon is full of rules that, far from being

deeply rooted in Western culture, are actually the products of recent
developments—industrialization, urbanization, the communications and information

revolutions—that are replicable anywhere, even if they have not occurred everywhere at
once. They are hardly Western; if examined historically, traditional Western culture comes to
look more like everyone else’s zealous fundamentalism. Look closely through this lens, and
even the Taliban begin to seem “Western” in their practices. Alcibiades, a commander of the

Athenian army, was condemned to death for impiety in 415 B.C., as was Socrates years
later. And remember that stoning for blasphemy is recommended by the Old Testament
(Leviticus 24:16). As this suggests, there is nothing remotely Western about religious

freedom and tolerance. Islamic

fundamentalists insist that tolerance is not for them, that non-Muslims must not be allowed to
pros-elytize in their societies, that Islam’s followers may not exit the “true” religion, and that
blasphemy is to be punished severely. As it happens, Western Christian civilization insisted

on much the same for most of its first two millennia. St. Augustine, citing his favorite text
(“Compel them to come in,” Luke 14:16-23), advocated death for heretics. According to St.

Thomas Aquinas, heretics “by right … can be put to death and despoiled of their possessions
… even if they do not corrupt others, for they are blasphemers against God” and thus commit
“high treason.” There was certainly no trace of religious toleration in Tudor England, where,
during the first hundred years after the establish-ment of the Church of England, hundreds
were executed by zealots. During the brief restoration of Catholicism under Queen Mary
(1553–58), 273 subjects, including 4 bishops and an archbishop, were burned for heresy.

Meanwhile, in Geneva, the reformer John Calvin was executing the anti-Trinitar-ian Michael

Servetus. Back in Britain, under Cromwell’s Protectorate, dissenting Protestants were jailed,
whipped, hanged, or had their tongues bored through with hot irons at the insistence of the

Presbyterian establishment. And in the 1729 case of Rex v. Woolston, Sir William
Blackstone, the great jurist of the common law, declared blasphemy a criminal libel, a “public
affront to religion and morality, on which all government must depend for support.” Nor are
such events limited to ancient history. The last blasphemy prosecution to have succeeded

in England was brought in 1979 against James Kirkup, a poet teaching at Amherst who
depicted Jesus as homosexual. In the House of Lords, his conviction was sustained by Lord

Scarman, who thought it essential to protect “religious beliefs … from scurrility, vilification,
ridicule, and contempt.” In the United States, criminal blasphemy convictions resulting in

imprisonment, with solitary

confinement and large fines, were imposed throughout the nineteenth century under state or
common law. In New York in 1811, Chief Justice James Kent admonished a convicted
blasphemer “that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply
ingrafted upon Christianity and not upon the doctrines of worship of those impostors

Mahomet and the Grand Lama.” Kent him-self was a Unitarian, nowadays a rather liberal
faith, but he believed that religion was the bulwark

12 | Global Rights and Perceptions

of social order and that expressions of irreligiosity had to be punished because they “strike at
the roots of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties.” Ayatollah Khomeini
could not have said it better. Other parts of the human rights canon have little more claim to

being “Western” than does freedom

of religion. France did not extend the franchise to women until the end of World War II.
Harvard Law School began admitting women only in the 1950s. The first American female

candidate for a medical degree was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from a rural medical
college in Geneva, New York, in 1849 but had to complete her training in Paris. Slavery,
sanctioned by the Old Testament (Exodus 21: 2, 26, 27,32), was abolished in the United

States only in 1865, and the Supreme Court ruled in 1897 that sailors could be compelled,
on pain of criminal penalties, to perform indentured labor because, as a class, they were

“deficient in that full and intelligent responsibility for their acts which is accredited to ordinary
adults” and should thus be recommitted to ship-owners as their putative “parents and

guardians.” What brought about the transformation to personal autonomy in religion, speech,
and employment

as well as equal legal rights for the races and sexes? Although these recent developments
occurred first in the West, they were caused not by some inherent cultural factor but by
changes occurring, at different rates, everywhere: universal education, industrialization,

urbanization, the rise of a middle class, advances in transportation and communications, and
the spread of new information technology. These changes were driven by scientific

developments capable of affecting equally any society. It is these trends, and not some
historical or social determinant, that—almost as a byprod-uct—generated the move to global

human rights. In the United Kingdom, it was the growth of a capitalist middle class in the
eighteenth-century

Industrial Revolution that fueled the demand for quality children’s education and thereby
com-pelled the admission of women to the teaching profession. In the United States, the
demographic consequences of the Civil War gradually forced an opening for women in

medicine and law. After World War II, veterans’ benefits and the need for a large peacetime
army profoundly affected the opportunities of African–Americans. Improved and cheaper

transportation loosened the ties that long bound people to the place where they were born
and generated a demand for the right to travel and emigrate. The advent of information

globalization through CNN and the Internet has profoundly affected individual participation in
discourses on foreign and domestic politics, just as the invention of the printing press and
Gutenberg’s vulgate Bible unleashed the social forces leading to the Reformation. These

changes, wherever they have occurred, have boosted the capacity for individual autonomy

and, in consequence, fueled the demand for more personal liberty. Does this trend, as the
cultural exceptionalists warn, presage the unraveling of community and social responsibility?

Elites in author-itarian societies have always professed to think so. When, in 1867, the
Boston School Committee rejected a petition signed by, among others, Harvard President

Thomas Hill and the poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow calling for abolition of corporal
punishment, the committee, employing the common Benthamite communitarian litany,
defended beatings as advancing “the greatest good of the greatest number.” Modern

individualists, however, believe that the good of the greatest number should not be achieved
by sacrificing the human rights of even the smallest number. They also believe that, set free
of unnecessary communal constraints, individuals will not retreat into social anomie but, on
the contrary, will freely choose multilayered affinities and complex, variegated interpersonal

loyalties that redefine community without the loss of social responsibility. Modern human
rights-based claims to individual autonomy arise primarily not out of opposi-tion to

community, but from the desires of modern persons to use intellectual and technological

Reading Two Are Human Rights Universal? | 13

innovations to supplement their continued traditional ties with genetically and geographically
based communities. Liberated from predetermined definitions of racial, religious, and

national identities, people still tend to choose to belong to groups. This threatens the state
and the traditional group only to the extent that traditional communities are no longer able,

alone, to resolve some of the most difficult global problems facing humanity: epidemics,
trade flows, environmental degradation, or global warming. Few quarrel with Aristotle’s
observation that “he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is

sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a God.” But many, freed to do so, now define
themselves, at least in part, as “new communitarians,” seeking additional transnational

forums of association. According to policy analyst Hazel Henderson, “Citizen movements
and people’s associations of

all kinds cover the whole range of human concerns. … The rise of such organizations [is] one
of the most striking phenomena of the twentieth century.” For example, whereas there were

5 interna-tional NGOs in 1850 and 176 in 1909, now more than 18,000 are listed by the
U.N., which reports that “people’s participation is becoming the central issue of our time.”
Most of these NGOs, from Médecins Sans Frontières to the International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions, are engaged globally in socially responsible activities that promote the

well-being of others.

Joining the Battle It appears, then, that the globalization of human rights and personal
freedoms is rarely an affront to any legitimate interest in cultural self-preservation. Nor do

human rights represent Western cul-tural imperialism; instead, they are the consequence of
modernizing forces that are not culturally specific. And the social consequences of

expanding human rights have been far more benign than traditional communitarians have
feared. To the Taliban’s claim of cultural exceptionalism one might more specifically reply,

first, that the Taliban’s interpretation of the culture they claim to defend is considered
incorrect by most Islamic historians and theologians; second, that their claim to speak on

behalf of Afghan culture is undermined by their silencing of half the population; third, that the
force of individual rights is becoming irresistible in a world of globalizing fiscal, commercial,
cul-tural, and informational forces; and fourth, that many persons freed to choose their own

identities will still decide to affiliate along religious, cultural, and national lines. These
arguments are unlikely to carry weight, however, with those whose claim of cultural

excep-tionalism is only a flimsy disguise for totalitarian tendencies. To some, the problem
with freedom is not cultural or social, but political. After the recent victory of reformists in the
Iranian parliamentary elections, for example, Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi reportedly said that
the victorious reformers were more dangerous to the system than a military coup because

they promote greater freedom for Irani-ans to write, read, and behave as they wish. Such an
argument is hard to refute. It will be overcome, eventually, by the irresistible forces of

modernization and the demands for personal freedom those forces unleash. Meanwhile,
however, it is essential to defend the universality of human rights and expose and oppose

cultural exceptionalism’s self-serving fallacies. But why bother? If the global triumph of
human rights truly is predestined, encoded in the genome

of scientific and technological progress, why not simply await the inevitable? One answer is
that waiting is immoral. In the short run, scientific and technological progress may actually

strengthen the hand of oppression. For women in Afghanistan, Kurds in Iraq, Indians in Fiji,
and others, their inevitable liberation is still far away and provides scant comfort. In harder
strategic terms, too, waiting is a flawed approach. Autocratic elites have learned to fight
historical inevitability by destroying the engines of social progress. The cultural Luddites

14 | Global Rights and Perceptions

of the Taliban, by disempowering women and dismantling their society’s educational and
health infrastructure, hope to delay their own eventual overthrow. Idi Amin had that in mind
when he demolished Uganda’s Indian mercantile community in the 1970s. Pol Pot almost
succeeded with a similar project in Cambodia. And George Speight recently pursued the
same goal in Fiji. Each sought to catapult society back to a premodern age when race or
class purification justified everything. Waiting for the inevitable globalization of personal

freedoms is also made untenable by the reviving

militance of cultural exceptionalism. From the Balkans to the Horn of Africa, from the
southern tier of the former Soviet Union to western China, from Indonesia to Mindanao in the

Philippines, extremist tribalism is on the rise. To the extent that this is a political
problem—the use of terrorism and the export of guns and money—it must be countered by

political and economic support for the governments and societies that firmly oppose it. When
such measures fail, international, regional, governmental, and nongovernmental means

must be mobilized to carry on the fight against the more egregious forms of cultural
oppression. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. In the instance of the Taliban, the U.N. has
wielded the stick of nonrecognition and the carrot of food relief. It withdrew relief agencies
when Afghan women were arrested for working with its field offices, and it sent them back
when those measures were revoked. When a racist government comes to power—such as
Speight’s recent junta in Fiji—the international community has many sanctions that can be
deployed to protect universal values. These range from diplomatic nonrecognition to the
suspension of air traffic and the withholding of World Bank loans, International Monetary

Fund credits, and bilateral trading privileges. They should be used. Such steps could, for a
time, harden the resolve of the cultural extremists. The principal objective

of a concerted strategy against cultural extremism, however, must not be the quick reversal
of any one outbreak of racism or intolerance, but the forging of a unified global stance

against radical cultural exceptionalism in general. This process will not be easy, for when it
comes to global human rights norms, even some U.S.

politicians, judges, and intellectuals are quite skeptical of universalism. And a superficial but
subtly effective nexus joins the cause of cultural exceptionalism and other forms of

resentment against globalization and its alleged parent: Western, or U.S., hegemony. For
example, it is not always readily apparent to people why, if France claims the right to protect

its culturally unique movie industry, Afghanistan should not protect its policy on women.
Leaders of liberal societies everywhere—polit-ical, intellectual, industrial—are being
challenged to defend values and clarify distinctions they may have assumed were

self-evident. If the fight against cultural exceptionalism is to be made effective, it needs
military and fiscal

resources. It needs a common strategy involving governments, intergovernmental
organizations, NGOs, business, and labor. But let there be no mistake: the fight is essentially
one between powerful ideas, the kind that shake the pillars of history. It is a deadly earnest

conflict between an imagined world in which each person is free to pursue his or her
individual potential and one in which per-sons must derive their identities and meanings

exclusively in accordance with immutable factors: genetics, territoriality, and culture. This,
then, is a wake-up call. Waging this war of ideas successfully—and it cannot be evaded or

postponed for long—will require intellectual rearmament for thinkers lulled by the warm,
fuzzy triumph of liberalism and the supposed end of ideology.

Globalization of Human Rights

There should be a movement such as the globalization of human rights.(Place your thesis

statement at the end of the introduction). Human rights are things that we should enjoy because

we exist as human beings and should not be outlined by any state, but they should be natural and

universal. Every person in the world should be allowed to enjoy the same rights, whether male or

female white or black, from birth until we die. Globalization of human rights is essential to

ensure that some groups are not undermined or oppressed in their respective countries and enjoy

the same rights. Governments can powerfully control the freedoms of their groups and

individuals; thus, it is difficult for some groups to win their freedoms without international

pressure and agreement. Globalization of human rights will minimize rising cultural

exceptionalism, fight for minorities, expel oppressive regulations and promote accountability.

(The thesis doesn’t address your position on the globalization of human rights. Your thesis should

illustrate whether or not you think there should be a movement. Try combining your first sentence

(your stance) with the final sentence (the reasons) to formulate a stronger thesis statement.)

Globalization of human rights will reduce the current rise of cultural exceptionalism. The

author provides an example of cultural exceptionalism in May 2000, where the Taliban, the

majority rake in Afghanistan, mandated that a mother of seven be stoned to death for a crime of

adultery (Franck 5). She was executed in front of men and children. Before that, Britain’s most

significant court had allowed two Pakistani women accused of adultery to claim refugee status

because they were at risk of punishment through death by stoning back home (Franck 5). These

things should call for an international status regarding human rights. This means that human

rights will be equalized globally. With the globalization of human rights, such an occurrence

would not occur because women have equal rights as men in some countries such as the United

States. Countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan hold less regard for women, which should be

different. Human rights do not involve a divide between men, women, children, or adults.

Human rights cover us all as humans, and everyone must be given their rights.

Additionally, globalization of human rights means that there would be a forum where

words like minorities or majorities will no longer be the norm. This is because today’s world

involves a situation where governments and other agencies dictate who has rights and who does

not. For example, prisoners in most places, including some states in the United States, do not

vote during general elections. This is different for other countries, including Africa, where

prisoners are counted as part of the voting population. For example, in Columbia, Maine, and

Vermont, convicted individuals do not lose their right to vote even when they are in prison

(NCSL). In contrast, 21 states deny their felons their right to vote when imprisoned, but they

regain them after release (NCSL). In other sixteen states, criminals no longer have their voting

rights during their incarceration period and for a period after that, probably when they are on

parole or probation (NCSL). Their voting rights are restored after this, and they might also be

needed to pay for outstanding fees or outstanding fines to have their fines restored.

Globalization of human rights will help reduce the injustices against vulnerable people

globally, with women being affected in most regions of the world. Women face the harshest

punishments amongst their communities. The Taliban is the most significant regime coming up

in discussions where oppression of women comes up. The Taliban have always imposed

stringent rules pinning their women down instead of uplifting and empowering them, like in the

west, where women are part of the corporate world and government. For example, the United

States vice president, Kamala Harris. Women under the Taliban cannot leave home alone except

in the company of men in their lives, such as their brothers and husbands. They cannot also

access education, a powerful eyeopener for the world. The Taliban believe that their rules ad

cultural values should also apply elsewhere outside Afghanistan. This shows the level of power

in such governments, denying their citizens human rights. The government can decide who gets

which right and who does not. This would be different from the globalization of human rights

because it would be that basic human rights are universally recognized even in areas like

Afghanistan, where their cultural and religious values are deeply rooted.

Another long-standing issue is the issue of death punishment. The debate surrounding death

punishment has been going on for years since early history. There are various views about

whether it is moral with individuals basing their arguments on religion or other domains.

However, some governments have been on the spot for executing individuals inhumanely. For

example, the Florida government executed several prisoners on a faulty electric chair. The

United States mandates against cruel and unusual punishment, thus forcing such a government to

turn to other methods of execution (Franck 6). Other countries in the world are against such a

notion by the United States. However, the United States and other local governments supporting

capital punishment have the right to say that they can do it because it is within their law.

Therefore nobody else has a business in such matters. Ironically, such a government upholds the

right to life for all human beings yet still supports execution by ‘safer’ wats such as lethal

injection or a functional electric chair. Most countries in Africa, for example, have banned

capital punishment, including Gabon, Burundi, Angola, Djibouti, and Kenya (DPIC). Therefore,

the lack of a movement such as “Globalization of Human Rights” allows governments to do

whatever they wish in the name of their laws on humans. Without considering religion, every

human being indeed has a right to live, whether a criminal or not. Therefore, countries should

turn to another form of punishment, including rehabilitation, since everybody deserves a second

chance.

I think such a movement will go a long way toward equalizing individuals eve in foreign

societies. With such a movement, some aspects of society, such as law enforcement, will feel the

pressure of respecting and upholding all persons’ quality of life and humanity. With the

globalization of human rights, I think the police in the United States, for example, will be more

pressured to respect the human rights of minorities. Although the United States and their code of

ethics mandate them to respect human rights regardless of age and race, such a movement will

reinforce these principles and ensure that they are faced with severe consequences for how they

act with the public. One such example which could have turned out different with such a

movement is the death of George Floyd. George Floyd died in the hands of a white police officer

who knelt on his neck against the ground for around eight minutes. This led to his demise and

attracted internodal attention. Globalization of human rights holds a stricter restrain on

individuals in society to maintain a higher value for human life and freedoms. No single force

would feel like they have more power over others.

In conclusion, there should be a movement pushing for the globalization of human rights.

Although every human has their natural rights, today, most of these rights rest in the power of the

governments. The globalization of human rights will ensure that the importance of human rights

is recognized and appreciated across the globe, including in Afghanistan, where the Taliban

continue to oppress women. However, they are a significant part of society. Today, there should

be global rights where no one can undermine the value of human rights despite their position in

power.

Works Cited.

Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). Countries that have Abolished the Death Penalty

Since 1976. (n.d). Retrieved From:

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/international/countries-that-have-abolished-the-death-p

enalty-since-1976

Franck, Thomas. Reading Two: Are human rights Universal? (n.d).

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Felon Voting Rights. (2021). Retrieved

From: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/international/countries-that-have-abolished-the-death-penalty-since-1976

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/international/countries-that-have-abolished-the-death-penalty-since-1976

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/international/countries-that-have-abolished-the-death-penalty-since-1976

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

Order a unique copy of this paper

600 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
Top Academic Writers Ready to Help
with Your Research Proposal

Order your essay today and save 25% with the discount code GREEN