Exams Nearly Over! Extended Project

I'm nearly finished, so I'm not as stressed as I was, say, about a week ago - yes, I was awake at 1.45am this morning making flashcards for my Politics and Critical Thinking exams... but only one more to go until it's all over!  C2 maths in the morning, and then freedom until Results day, and probably some more stress in-between.

I've started thinking about life after exams, and what I'm going to be doing over the next few weeks: my new pet project is going to be my Extended Project.  I really want to have a legal theme, but don't really know what do beyond that - I think a little bit of research is in order.  I'd quite like to write to the Ministry of Justice and lecturers from various Universities, but obviously I'll need to have a really good theme sorted out first: I might have a look into what some Cambridge lecturers specialise in for inspiration, it'd be a brilliant way to really get a grip on what the top lecturers are researching.

I'll report back with some ideas soon...

"Muslim Appearance" and the "Islamist Threat"

It's a pet hate.  I watch the news: a crime has been committed; it looks like they might be terrorists; they are of Middle-Eastern appearance.  "Muslim appearance."

To be of the Islamic faith is not the same as being a terrorist, nor does it mean that you automatically look like a terrorist either; it might not even mean that you're from the Middle-East.  So going around on the news talking about these "Muslims" going around chopping people up in London does nothing except make some sectors of society have an increasingly deep seated dislike of Islamic people.

The same thing can be said for "Islamist threats."  Yes, they may be Islamic people, and yes, they may be a threat, but they're not a threat because they're Islamic.  They're a threat because they're terrorists!

BBC, I'm taking to you.  And anybody else who goes around saying either of these things.

Thank you and goodnight.

Supporting a Claim: No Shorter Sentences for Single Parents!

It happened again!  Life is getting on top of everything at the moment, I apologise.  The last week has been really eventful, I now have a beautiful baby cousin called Thomas and he's an absolute sweetheart.    Additionally, I'm training hard for Ten Tors which is happening this weekend - I have been made "Squad Leader" and joint "Team Leader" which is a whole load of responsibility, but I'm really excited to complete the challenge!

Last Tuesday, I also attended a brilliant presentation from two solicitors from Michelmores (from Exeter) which talked about where the business of soliciting in general was going over the next decade or two.  I'll probably return to what I learned in another post.  But one bonus was the fact that I got a bag of free merchandise: a bottle, a pen, booklets, etc.  Probably the most significant thing I got from them though was a possibility of some work experience!  Only a couple of days, but should be fantastic.

So, today I went to a meeting at lunch regarding Critical Thinking Mock results, and I received another Further Argument back that I'd given in as homework (full marks: 12/12).  I'd written it having been inspired by a talk given by Gill Riley at the Nottingham Law 2013 conference.

Picture from http://en.lpj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/prison.jpg

"Criminals should not receive reduced sentences on account of being a single parent"

Support this conclusion

(CAs) Many people would assert that reduced sentences for prisoners should be allowed if they are a single parent  (CR1) as it would mean that the children would not have to be put into care for as long and (Pr) children should be raised by their own parents.  (R1) However, it stands to reason that the children are protected from the potentially negative influence of a destructive parent, and (Exp) often children find safe and stable homes through the adoption or foster systems.  (IC1) It should be considered that separating these children from their parents is likely in their best interest (Exp) as they would be taken outside of the influence of their parent.  (R2) Moreover, reducing these sentences may allow dangerous people back onto the streets to reoffend.  (Ex1) For example, in the case of Maria Miller in 1997, (couldn't find a specific case, so I made one up - I only had 15 minutes to write this argument!) she was released on account of having a three year old son and went on to commit further drug offences.

(R3) Furthermore, this system could be easily abused (HR) as if women are facing criminal charges, then they could get pregnant in the hopes of reducing their sentence.  (R4) Also, the system could arguably provide some gender discrimination (Ev) as a 2009 survey by the NSPCC showed that 78% of single parents are single mothers (couldn't find this statistic either, the thought that counts) (Exp) meaning that women are likely the ones to benefit from this policy (Pr) and besides, the punishment should fit the crime (IC2) and justice should not be interfered with by factors outside of the crime (Exp) as having a child is not likely to make a person more likely to commit murder.  (HR) If it is merely because a child is dependent on their parent that causes a 'need' to reduce prison sentences, then the emotional attachment between human and pet should be equally regarded.  (Ac) However, we do generally accept that the owning of a pet should in no way effect sentencing, so neither should the having of a child.  (MC)  Therefore, criminals should not receive reduced sentences on account of being a single parent.