2014년 9월 25일 목요일
Uh Oh : Change of topic
I was , until now, working on my topic called "Should autopsy be performed without the consent of families to solve a case of crime".
But when I was researching about crime autopsy, I found out that in Korea, the prosecution can take the corpse for autopsy when there is a warrant to claim the corpse a critical evidence of the crime. So my topic has nothing to convince because the police can just issue a warrant. Also, I thought that this topic was interesting but slightly out of my career so I have brainstormed a little bit more and decided to write my essay about "Cartoons have a bad effect on the brain"
I chose this topic because I have alot of interest on cartoons and in Korea many people think that cartoons do more harm than good. I want to write an essay persuading the readers that cartoons are an effective medium of trasferring information.
2014년 9월 18일 목요일
Research
Source:http://www.nyc.gov/html/ocme/html/faq/faq.shtml
My Topic:
We should perform autopsy without the consent of families to solve a case of a crime
What I hope to learn from this source:
I want to learn how crime autopsies are carried out in common cases through frequently asked questions of New York Office of Chief Medical Examiner.
Week 2 - Deciding the topic
Research proposal
What is my current topic?
My current topic is " We should perform autopsy without the consent of families to solve a case of a crime". I want to research about how autopsy after crimes are carried out so that I can argue that in case of a desperate lack of evidences or if the corpse may be the best evidence, it should be preserved, not cremated or buried even if the deceased wished so.
What are my guiding questions?
- Does autopsy solve crimes at all times?
- How does autopsy for evidence work in real life situations? (Autopsy VS The Deceased's wish)
- Why do people try to avoid autopsy?
What are my current thoughts?
I know that autopsies are not carried out when there isn't consent from the person themselves before they die or the person's familly. I thought about crimes that could not have been solved because the autopsy was denied. I want to persuade people to realize the importance of autopsy and change their negative thoughts about autopsy.
What is the opposition?
Common beliefs argue that you are killing the person twice and bothering the deceased from resting in peace when someone is under autopsy.
What is my current topic?
My current topic is " We should perform autopsy without the consent of families to solve a case of a crime". I want to research about how autopsy after crimes are carried out so that I can argue that in case of a desperate lack of evidences or if the corpse may be the best evidence, it should be preserved, not cremated or buried even if the deceased wished so.
What are my guiding questions?
- Does autopsy solve crimes at all times?
- How does autopsy for evidence work in real life situations? (Autopsy VS The Deceased's wish)
- Why do people try to avoid autopsy?
What are my current thoughts?
I know that autopsies are not carried out when there isn't consent from the person themselves before they die or the person's familly. I thought about crimes that could not have been solved because the autopsy was denied. I want to persuade people to realize the importance of autopsy and change their negative thoughts about autopsy.
What is the opposition?
Common beliefs argue that you are killing the person twice and bothering the deceased from resting in peace when someone is under autopsy.
피드 구독하기:
덧글 (Atom)