We've been set a class task to read two articles and answer the question : after reading the articles, do you think Linnel could learn something from the Methven approach?
Linnel article: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bali-nine-why-i-wont-be-lighting-a-candle-for-myuran-sukumaran-and-andrew-chan-20150129-130v38.htm
Methven article:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bali-nine-executions-as-an-abolitionist-state-we-cannot-turn-a-blind-eye-to-the-death-penalty-20150209-139d2c.html
we have 300 words to answer this question in the form of a mini essay; additionally we need to use footnotes as well - something im not too confident with.
Any ideas as to what i should say?
From what i read, i thought that Methven approach is more morally acceptable since Linnel seems to just stick to cold hard law without considering many other things. But i'm not sure how to use this thought and make it into 300 words.
Linnel article: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bali-nine-why-i-wont-be-lighting-a-candle-for-myuran-sukumaran-and-andrew-chan-20150129-130v38.htm
Methven article:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bali-nine-executions-as-an-abolitionist-state-we-cannot-turn-a-blind-eye-to-the-death-penalty-20150209-139d2c.html
we have 300 words to answer this question in the form of a mini essay; additionally we need to use footnotes as well - something im not too confident with.
Any ideas as to what i should say?
From what i read, i thought that Methven approach is more morally acceptable since Linnel seems to just stick to cold hard law without considering many other things. But i'm not sure how to use this thought and make it into 300 words.
Last edited:
