Musical Hair Critiquing Essay Example for Free

Musical Hair Critiquing Essay 1) What show are you critiquing? Hair 2) Give a brief summary of the story line. Claude Hooper Bukowski, an Oklahoma farm boy, heads to New York City to enter the Army and serve in the Vietnam War. In Central Park, he meets a troupe of free-spirited hippies led by George Berger, a young man who introduces him to debutante Sheila Franklin when they crash a dinner party at her home. Inevitably, Claude is sent off to recruit training in Nevada, but Berger and his band of merry pranksters follow him. Sheila flirts with an off-duty Sergeant in order to steal his uniform, which she gives to Berger. He uses it to extract Claude from the base for a last meeting with Sheila, taking his place, but while Claude is away, the unit flies out to Vietnam, taking Berger with them. The film ends with the main cast singing at Bergers grave, followed by scenes of a large anti-war protest outside the White House in Washington, DC. 3) What did you like best about this show? Hair succeeds at all levels—as lowdown fun, as affecting drama, as exhilarating spectacle and as provocative social observation. It achieves its goals by rigorously obeying the rules of classic American musical comedy: dialogue, plot, song and dance blend seamlessly to create a juggernaut of excitement. 4) What did you like least about this show? The film omits the songs The Bed, Dead End, Oh Great God of Power, I Believe in Love, Going Down, Air, My Conviction, Abie Baby, Frank Mills, and What a Piece of Work is Man from the musical. Many of the songs have been shortened, sped up, rearranged, or assigned to different characters to allow for the differences in plot. 5) Who was the hero/heroine? Claude Hooper Bukowski/ Sheila Franklin. 6) Who was the villain? The General. 7) Were you able to understand everything? If not what did you understand? A major plot difference between the film and the musical involves a mistake that leads Berger to go to Vietnam in Claudes place, where he is killed. The musical focuses on the U.S. peace movement, as well as the love relationships among the Tribe members, while the film focuses on the carefree antics of the hippies. But why not make the film ending a happy one? In that case, the movie will better reflect the aspect of American Culture Happy Ever After. 8) Did you get a chance to listen to the soundtrack? Unfortunately not. 9) What was your favorite song? Aquarius. 10) Did you think that the actors were well cast? Sure. The cast featured John Savage as Claude Hooper Bukowski, Treat Williams as George Berger and Beverly DAngelo as Sheila Franklin. Williams was nominated for New Star of the Year in a Motion Picture Male. 11) If you were to remake this show who would you cast in the title roles? Why? If I were to remake the show, I would sill choose the actor and actress as the hero and heroine. The actors are really good-looking, and they can sing and dance well. 12) What aspect of American Culture do you see in this show? Nothing ventured nothing gained. Berger is not only at the heart of the hippie Tribe but is assigned some of Claudes conflict involving whether or not to obey the draft. His death led to the large anti-war protest and featured the carefree antics of the hippies.

The Relevance Of Legal Positivism

The Relevance Of Legal Positivism I have chosen to critically examine The Contemporary Relevance of Legal Positivism by Professor Brian Z Tamanaha who has written on the topic of legal positivism, and this is a legal theory that greatly interests me. Though the title suggests otherwise, in his article Tamanaha argues a particular point that in its current state legal positivism fails to engage with real world matters.  [2]  Tamanaha goes on to suggest that legal positivism has been emasculated  [3]  to the point where it is no longer a relevant legal theory, as modern discussions on legal positivism have drastically shifted away from the original ideas of legal positivism proposed by Bentham and Austin. However, to make such claims effectively requires compelling evidence, and this is something that the article plainly lacks. Moreover, Tamanahas article is full of presumptions, which one can only assume that he has misinterpreted many of the theoretical debates between key characters within legal positivism. As a result, this dissertation will argue that although Tamanaha makes some important points, overall there are too many inaccuracies within the article, which make it weak and unpersuasive. There are three particular arguments that will be pursued in this dissertation. Firstly, it will be argued that Legal Positivism does in fact deal with real world matters. Secondly, that the separation thesis supported by Hart is in fact false and Tamanaha may have misunderstood his work. Thirdly, it will be argued that Tamanahas alternative is not the way to move forward; in fact we should move in a completely different direction and focus more on science rather than descriptive theory. Legal Positivism and Real World Matters To begin with, we need to clarify that Tamanahas article is not without value, as Tamanaha has made some valid arguments, which cannot be disputed. Throughout his article, Tamanaha gives us a good account of what traditional legal positivism stood for and how contemporary legal theorists have transformed this important legal theory. As a result, it is only necessary to give a brief account of the historical background of legal positivism at a later stage in the dissertation. For now, we will turn our attention to the issues within the article, the most problematic claim in the Tamanaha article is one where he states that legal positivists have divided into two different groups whereby both argue about legal theories and turn their backs on real world matters.  [4]  This is something that I strongly disagree with and will be spending a large section of the essay arguing against this point. Apologies are made in advance, as it may seem to the reader that we are going off on a tangent but it will become clear at the end of this section that Tamanaha has made a critical mistake in making this claim. My line of argument will be to look at Brian Lieters writings in Legal Realism and Legal Positivism Reconsidered and dispute Tamanahas statement through the link between American Legal Realism and Legal Positivism. Leiter argues at the outset the there are two common misconceptions within jurisprudence that he wants to rebuff. Firstly, that Legal Positivism a nd Legal Realism are not incompatible from a conceptual level. Secondly, that Legal Realism has been gravely misunderstood even by the central character of modern legal positivism, Hart.  [5]   It seems in Leiters view that only by comparing Legal Realism to Legal Positivism on a conceptual level can Hart argue that they are opposed to one another. He adds on that Positivism is essentially a theory of law-a theory, in part, about what is distinctive of any societys legal normsRealism is essentially a descriptive theory of adjudication, a theory about what it is judges really do when they decide cases.  [6]  In order for Legal Realism to work it must presuppose a theory of law and this is where according to Leiter Legal Positivism comes in.  [7]  Leiter admits that Legal Realism cannot ascertain to be a theory of law on a conceptual level because quite frankly is it a philosophical mess but he suggests that there are links between Legal Positivism and Legal Realism on an Empirical level. The empirical level will consider whether or not legal rules causally determine judicial decisions. Leiter goes on to add that even though Hart was aware of this possibility he has n ot given a convincing argument to dispute the link at the empirical level.  [8]  One has to wonder why Hart stayed clear of such debates, was there something he was afraid of discovering. Leiter is insistent that anyone writing on Legal Realism should fully understand what it stood for before attempting to define what it is or what it does. He adds on that many of the main characters within Legal Realism like Llewellyn, Frank, Radin, Moore, Yntema, Cohen, Oliphant, Green, and Hutcheson wanted to achieve the goal of understanding judicial decision-making and, in particular, shared certain substantive views about how adjudication really works.  [9]  Leiter presses the argument that Legal Realism is a descriptive theory about how judges actually decide cases based on the facts of the cases instead of looking at legal rules. Although, it does seem clear that judges can predict cases if they fall within distinct patterns. This process allows judges and lawyers to predict the outcome of a case where the facts fall within a situation type which the outcome of that type has already been determined.  [10]  Oliphant clarifies this point when referring to commercial law and dealings between parties and the fact that judges may rely on commercial norms  [11]  (i.e. what would reasonably be expected of both parties in this situation) in order to decide a case. Therefore, it seems that Realists wanted to identify and describe the way in which decisions are made by judges.  [12]  This is very similar to the way in which conceptual analysis works, which demonstrates that there is some sort of link between Legal Realism and Legal Positivism. Legal Realists wanted to push forward the idea of an empirical theory of adjudication as it gave us the best opportunity to fully understand judicial decisions.  [13]  Of course, such a theory would only work if Realists were able to presuppose an existing theory of the concept of law.  [14]   Leiter, like many others before him makes it clear that Legal Positivism is a theory of law or about the nature of law.  [15]  What this tells us is that we must use this theory as a way of understanding and analysing our concept of law. This is a task which involves establishing the criteria of legality  [16]  and determining whether a certain norm is a legal norm. Leiter then covers the two most important theses of the Positivists theory. The social thesis (which concludes it is society which decides what will count as law, social fact) and the separation thesis (which states that what the law is and what it ought to be are separate questions).  [17]  If Leiters work is read carefully, it will become clear where Hart went wrong in his analysis and the fact that Hart offers no conclusive arguments to rebut the connections between Legal Positivism and Legal Realism. So if Hart misunderstood Legal Realism himself it is inevitable that those who read Hart and interpret his work will be making the same mistakes. There are two clear arguments as to why Legal Realism and Legal Positivism are connected. Firstly, both Legal Realists and Legal Positivists accept that law is indeterminate. According to Leiter, Realists argue that trying to determine if a law is justified, based on legal rules has not worked in the past and that is not something that Realists want to do.  [18]  Therefore, Realists only wanted to find out what it is that makes judges decide cases in this way. Similarly, Hart accepted that legal rules are indeterminate because there is a limit, inherent in the nature of language, to the guidance which general language can provide.  [19]  This was because language is, in Harts opinion, open-textured: There will indeed be plain cases constantly recurring in similar contexts to which general expressions are clearly applicable (If anything is a vehicle a motor-car is one) but there will also be cases where it is not clear whether they apply or not. (Does vehicle used here include bicycles, airplanes, roller skates?). The latter are fact-situations, continually thrown up by nature or human invention, which possess only some of the features of the plain cases but others which they lack.  [20]   This then makes it clear that even the most celebrated 21st century legal positivist is aware that there are similar features between Legal Positivism and Legal Realism. The second argument is that both Positivists and Realist agree that legal rules do not determine decisions in some cases.  [21]  Realists for example argue that it will be up to judges to decide how the use a range of tools available to them when interpreting previous decisions. As Llewellyn puts it judges have the discretion to interpret a case strictly or loosely and that in most cases their interpretation will be recognised, legitimate, honorable.  [22]  It is through adjudication that private parties, such as individuals or corporations are able to sort out legal disputes. In addition, adjudication is there to review any disagreements between private parties and public officials. If then judges are involved in the legal process whereby they have to assess evidence and arguments presented to them about leg al issues surely this is something which can be considered a real world matter. Tamanaha has failed to consider these sorts of arguments in his article and as a result has opened himself up to criticism. Contrary to Tamanahas argument, Legal Positivism does deal with real world matters, as adjudication is a real world matter. Legal Realism is about highlighting how law operates in practice, and Realists wanted to locate law in its broader context (not separate). Leiter also points out that Realists challenged the myth of legal certainty- by highlighting indeterminacy of law. More importantly to our task here, it is clear that Legal Realism concerns law and study of law as an inherently practical activity associated with the real world.  [23]  As a result, these findings suggest that Tamanaha was wrong to make such an erroneous claim without looking at the evidence to back up his premise. There are also a number of other faults with Tamanahas article. In an attempt to convince the reader, Tamanaha has selected specific writings about legal positivism, which heavily criticise it in order to suit his side of argument, whilst ignoring arguments that are made in favour of legal positi vism. He quotes Waldron who said that these analytical discussions tend to be flat and repetitive in consequence, revolving in smaller and smaller circles among a diminishing band of acolytes  [24]  . What Waldron believes is that we should go back to traditional legal philosophy in order to improve our understanding of the concept of law. He states that in legal philosophy: there is less of a sense of a canon of great books stretching back to the dawn of time. If there is canonical work it is H.L.A Harts book, The Concept of Law, which analytical jurists read over and over (and the squabble amongst themselves as to what it means and whose position is now closest to what Harts is taken to be). Since Hart Developed his theory by criticizing the nineteenth-century jurisprudence of John Austin, there is also some half-hearted discussion on Austins work. Beyond that however, the canon of legal philosophy is attenuated and non-existent.  [25]   Of course, it is true that there hasnt been any standout publication on legal philosophy after Hart published The Concept of Law, but that does not mean that we should go back to the traditional ideologies on legal philosophy. Hart proved that some of the original ideas behind legal philosophy are unpractical in a modern society thus is it unproductive to keep applying them when trying to ascertain our concept of law. So common sense and reality would make us reject what Waldron suggests. Tamanaha then considers Twining, who has asserted that positivist debates are now repetitious, trivial, and almost entirely pointless.  [26]  Twining comes across as a great admirer of Bentham whose work is highly valued, however, Twining believes that Bentham should not remain as a historical figure in legal philosophy. For Twining Benthams à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦version of legal positivism; a more flexible and subtle conception of sovereignty than Austins; his penetrating attack on natural right; his progressive ideas on punishment; and his theory or adjudication  [27]  remain important topics. In fact, Twining goes one step further to suggest that we should go beyond Benthams work and look at the work of Augustine and Plato to help us understand issues we deal with today.  [28]  Whilst Benthams work was crucial, it is important to remind ourselves that what he produced was suited for the 19th century, thus it seems unlikely that it will be beneficial in dealing with issues in a contemporary society. With regards to going beyond Bentham, it is impossible to conceive how ancient ideologies would help us deal with modern issue and therefore Twinings suggestion is on the verge of being absurd. Tamanaha also refers to Schauers work to argue that large numbers of American law professors believe that analytical jurisprudence in general, and the debates about legal positivism in particular, are the largely irrelevant preoccupation of a small group of socially unaware but philosophical obsessed pedants.  [29]  The simple explanation to this is that almost everyone involved in legal philosophy is a positivist.  [30]  Even Tamanaha accepts that legal positivism is the dominant legal theory of law, as the first paragraph of his article states that: Most legal philosophers agree that legal positivism is the dominant theory of law today.  [31]  As a result, it is extremely difficult to argue on anything more than marginal issues as the main issues have already been agreed upon. Therefore, until we have another philosopher like Dworkin or Hart who is able to come up with new and radical ideas, unfortunately, marginal arguments is all that is left for contemporary legal positivists to debate. Tamanaha has presented some inconsistent arguments in support of his position. Right at the outset, he admits that legal positivism is by far the biggest camp within legal theory  [32]  but at the same time attempts to argue that it is no longer relevant. It is simply irrational to describe a theory as being both dominant and irrelevant at the same time, Tamanaha has either set out his article to be extremely provocative, or he has not really planned his arguments. Nonetheless, Tamanaha then moves on to explaining why legal positivism has reached this point of being irrelevant. One of his arguments is that for much of its existence, the primary foil for legal positivism has been natural law theory. But natural law theory no longer has the primacy it once did.  [33]  Yet, Tamanaha then says that due to an agreement reached by natural law theorists and legal positivists on certain issues legal positivism has lost and important reason for being.  [34]  It is astonishing how a professor who, according to Washington University in St Louis, is a renowned jurisprudence scholar and author  [35]  would make this sort of argument. Natural law theory might have hampered the complete domination of legal positivism but Tamanaha himself admits that natural law theory no longer has the primacy it once did. How can a legal theory lose a reason for being if it is still the dominant theory after all this this time? In fact, Tamanaha is completely wro ng as legal positivism is easily the best theory of law and there does not seem to be a theory out there that can match it.  [36]  Tamanaha seems to be confused as to what legal positivism stands for, namely that it seeks to provide a better understanding of the nature of law  [37]  and if a new idea comes along positivists are willing to adopt it. Churchill once said, I am an optimist- it does not seem to be much use being anything else.  [38]  It has become clear that Tamanahas reasoning as to why legal positivism is in a problematic state is completely flawed as natural law only had a marginal effect on the dominance of legal positivism. The most surprising error in Tamanahas article is his attribution to Harts success in the Concept of Law as on one of the reasons legal positivism has reached this point. Tamanaha writes that Hart established the parameters of the current understanding of legal positivism. Tamanaha goes on to add that legal positivism today remains trapped within Harts paradigm.  [39]  Either Tamanaha has misunderstood Harts writing or he has completely failed to grasp it. Hart made it clear in The Concept of Law that his interpretation of the concept of law is quite open in that it does not forbid the extension of the term.  [40]  Therefore, how can legal positivism be trapped in Harts paradigm if Hart himself has admitted that this is not a conclusive answer of what the concept of law is and that from time to time this term will need to be expanded in order to be applicable in a modern society. Tamanaha could at least afford Hart the courtesy of fully reading and understanding his work befo re making such erroneous presumptions, which do not portray Harts objectives. Yet, Tamanahas misinterpretation of Harts work does not stop there. One of his other arguments is that legal positivism through the separation thesis allows us to be in a better position to challenge evil law. Tamanaha relies on a quote from Hart who said that: So long as human beings can gain sufficient cooperation from some to enable them to dominate others, they will use the forms of law as one of their instruments. Wicked men will enact wicked rules which others will enforce. What surely is most needed in order to make men clear sighted in confronting the official abuse of power, is that they should preserve the sense that the certification of something as legally valid is not conclusive of the question of obedience, and that, however great the aura of majesty or authority which the official system may have, its demands must in the end be submitted to a moral scrutiny.  [41]   According to Tamanaha, only if we separate the question of law and morality we can be in a position to judge whether a law is moral or not, Tamanaha writes that Hart is Reminding everyone of the separation between law and morality, according to this view, should enable citizens and legal officials to recognize, resist, and disavow evil law.  [42]  To drive this point home Tamanaha also relies on Schauers work,  [43]  but in a few pages within the same work Schauer concludes that the separation of law and morality does not necessary allow people to resist bad law.  [44]  To add further misery to Tamanahas argument, Bix writes that there are no conclusive arguments either logical or psychological, for favouring legal positivism or natural law theory (or any other alternative) for the resistance to evil law.  [45]  Again, Bix is another source Tamanaha has quoted in his article but somehow he has either misread his own sources or has chosen to simply construct them in a way which would better suit his argument. In summary, it has become clear that Tamanaha has presented a number of unfounded arguments, which can easily be rebutted. In fact, some of his arguments come across as unprofessional and it is surprising that that someone who is highly regarded in legal philosophy would see any value in presenting such arguments to the reader. Having discovered that Tamanahas claim that legal positivism does not connect with real world matters is misguided, we will now move on to the second part of the dissertation, which will argue that contrary to Tamanahas belief the separation thesis is in fact false. Separation Thesis is False One of the key arguments Tamanaha makes in the article is that the shift away from traditional legal positivism has had a wider affect to the point that one of the fundamental ideas behind it namely, the separation thesis, has been dramatically transformed to a point where it no longer resembles the original ideas.  [46]  Looking at legal philosophy from a historical context, it is clear that Benthams contribution helped shape the way in which law is perceived today. As a result, it would be almost impossible to talk about legal positivism without mention his work. Classical legal positivism as portrayed by Bentham and Austin suggests that the notion of law is simply a command of the sovereign, which obliges subjects to obey the law and gives official authority to carry out punishment. Modern legal positivists adopt a considerably more sophisticated approach to the concept of law, but, like their distinguished predecessors,  [47]  they deny the relationship between law and mo rals.  [48]   Bentham single-handedly sought to transform English common law in order to achieve a greater good in society.  [49]  Through his critical analysis of the common law Bentham made it possible to construct a comprehensive theory of law. Bentham wanted to unmask the true meaning of the common law and make all of the common laws misconceptions clearer.  [50]  In his opinion, the common law was so indeterminate, and in such chaos that it was close to being pervasive. His main argument was that in order to achieve clarity and certainty common law had to be written and recorded in a manner, which could be traced when a similar legal issue arises, thus allowing for them to be deal with in the same manner throughout England.  [51]  Bentham wanted to organise the common law in a way that it could control the behaviour of society as citizens would have a clearer idea of how they would be punished if they disobeyed the law.  [52]  In addition, by systematically setting these rules it meant judges had less power in making the law and it made it easier to understand your legal rights and obligations. John Austin followed in the work of his predecessor as he advocated the idea of commands as notions of law. Austin was concerned about state power and which laws subjects had to obey. It can be argued that both Bentham and Austin wanted to achieve a greater understanding of the principal features of the law. However, it has been suggested that Austins definition of law as commands is limited in its application only to criminal law.  [53]  In addition, other writers have observed that whilst Bentham was concerned about a single complete law Austin wanted to create a science of law.  [54]  Austin also made it clear that what the law is and what it should be are two separate questions and they should always stay separate.  [55]  It is in no doubt that Bentham and Austin laid the foundations for modern legal positivism. However, their ideas have been considerably refined, developed, and even rejected, by contemporary legal positivists. H.L.A. Hart is often credited with providing a more sophisticated account of legal positivism than provided in Bentham and Austins writings. In doing so, Hart advises us that we must apply analytical, linguistic and philosophical techniques to the study of law in order to achieve a greater understand of the concept of law.  [56]  In The Concept of Law, Hart made this point clear from the outset in the preface that his task is about achieving a descriptive sociology [or in other words, hermeneutic description] thus a deeper meaning in the nature of words and law.  [57]  Hart considers legal concepts and the ideals we may have about the law and legal systems in a different point of view. He asks questions which had not been asked before, focusing specifically on the conceptual context of law. Whilst advocating some of the previous ideas about legal positivism, Hart strenuously denies that law should be seen as an imperative theory of law.  [58]  Harts interpretation of posi tivism is completely different to the accounts given by Bentham and Austin. This may be because society has changed dramatically since their time; as a result, contemporary legal positivism focuses less attention on a coercive picture of law. Hart made it clear that the only way to understand the true nature of law is to look at actual social practices that apply within our own communities.  [59]   Law, in Harts analysis, is a system of rules, which our society constructs and transforms as time goes by. Legal rules are divisible into primary rules and secondary rules.  [60]  Primary rules prohibited committing certain acts which would have jeopardised the close coexistence in our community (e.g. theft, murder etc.). However, as a society becomes more complex, there is obviously a need to change these primary rules, hence why Hart advocates secondary rules. Unlike primary rules, secondary rules do not generally impose duties, but usually confer power to adjudicate on breaches of primary rules, and to identify which rules are actually obligation rules.  [61]  For Hart, there are tw

The Mexican Revolution: An Overview Essay -- Essays Papers

The Mexican Revolution: An Overview Throughout its history Mexico has had many revolutions. The most famous perhaps is the Mexican Revolution from 1910-1920. The people of Mexico were getting tired of the dictator rule of President Porfino Diaz. People of all classes were fighting in the revolution. The middle and upper classes were dissatisfied with the President’s ways. The lower and working class people had many factors such as poor working conditions, inflation, inferior housing, low wages, and deficient social services. Within the classes everyone was fighting; men, women, and children all contributed to the fight for freedom from Diaz (Baxman 2). This revolution proved to be the rise and fall of many leaders. In the beginning of his reign, Diaz was almost ideal and had great intentions for Mexico. He created a more stable government and got rid of crime. The quality of life was improved. The government was made stronger by dispatching governors to the various areas of Mexico. The army was also made stronger by professionializing it. The police force readily enforced Diaz’s laws. Diaz also relied on a group of aristocrats as advisors. As Mexico grew, structurally and economically, foreign films invested in the area. The money from the films helped Diaz to build highways, railroads, telegraph lines, oil fields, and rejuvenate the mining industry. New industries were also created and in fifty years Mexico had transformed itself from a third world country to the ideal model of a developing country (Summary 3-4). Although these things helped to build up Mexico, they also were the factors in the destruction of Diaz. The people in power became wealthy but the rest of the population remained impoverishe... ...r lifestyle (Baxman 2-3). Everyone in Mexico was affected by The Mexican Revolution. Whether they were fighting for their freedom or wanted to escape the chaos, they were affected by the rise and fall of power. It also affected some people in the United States as Mexican immigrants came into the U.S. People fought for their freedom and after many years of fighting were able to achieve that. Sources: Author Unknown. Summary of the Mexican Revolution. [Online] http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9980/PAPER.HTML,year unknown. (Accessed 3/12/99). Baxman, Cindy. History of the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1920. [Online] http://ac.acusd.edu/History/projects/border/page03.html, 1998. (Accessed 3/12/99). Consul General. The Mexican Revolution. [Online] http://www.mexconnect.com/MEX/austin/revolution.html, 1996. (Accessed 3/12/99).

Capital Punishment Essay: Death Penalty Not Consistent with Democracy

Death Penalty Not Consistent with Democracy    Many laws consider a premeditated crime more serious than a crime of pure violence. But what then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated it may be, can be compared? For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for years.    The Council of Europe declares, "The death penalty can no longer be regarded as an acceptable form of punishment from a human rights perspective. It is an arbitrary, discriminatory and irreversible sanction when judicial errors, which can never be entirely ruled out, cannot be reversed."   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In fact, the Council went so far as to create a Protocol No. 6 in 1983, which abolished capital punishment in peacetime. All new member states must ratify this legislation and, so far, 39 of the 41 member states of the council have done so.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Nonetheless, 17 years after the Council of Europe adopted Protocol No. 6, the United States remains one of the few staunch Western defenders of capital punishment. Both mainstream Presidential candidates in the United States firmly supported the death penalty, and one candidate, George W. Bush, personally signed off on 35 executions in 1999 while governor of Texas. Why has capital punishment, which has been condemned by most Western democracies, continued to have such strong support in the United States?      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Obviously, Europe and the United States are very different places, but it is ... ...ms cited by the Council as justification for the abolition of capital punishment remain unaddressed in the United States today. Capital punishment is still arbitrary, discriminatory, and irreversible in America. Yet, despite these, and other, compelling reasons to abolish capital punishment, our nation still defends this barbaric, uncivilized and cruel practice.    To many Americans, capital punishment is a quick fix to a national crime problem. We have been willing to overlook the gross injustices of the practice because we have convinced ourselves that it is making America a safer community. Acceptance of this myth must stop. The United States should follow Europe's lead and acknowledge that the administration of capital punishment in this country is an inherently unfair judicial practice. We must demand a moratorium on the death penalty in America now.   

Sociology of Racial and Cultural Groups Essay -- Sociology Racism Prej

We live in a culturally diverse society where there are many differences among various racial and ethnic groups. When these different groups come into contact with one another they interact in many different ways. Prejudice and discrimination are key factors in understanding intergroup relationships. Competition, religious ideas, fear of strangers and nationalism are elements that contribute to prejudice. Many expressions of negative prejudicial attitudes, stereotyping and discriminatory behavior can have negative impact on the social relationships between dominant and minority groups. Many prejudices are passed along from child to parent and the influence of television and movies perpetuate demeaning portrayals about specific groups. Although prejudice continues to flourish, education plays an import role in combating prejudice and racism by providing courses and programs that help to recognize the distinction between various ethnic groups and develop an appreciation of these cul tural differences. The word prejudice is derived from the Latin word " praejudicium" and refers to prejudging without any factual evidence. Being prejudiced usually means having preconceived beliefs about groups of people or cultural practices. Discrimination is the "differential and unequal treatment of other groups of people, usually along racial, religious or ethnic lines." The distinction is that prejudice then refers to people's attitudes and beliefs, and discrimination to their overt behavior directed at another group. (Parrillo 76) Prejudices shape our perceptions of various people and influence our attitudes and actions toward particular groups and prejudicial attitudes that are negative often lead to hostile relations between domi... ...and appreciate the cultural values and be tolerant of diversity. Changes in the law have also helped to alter some prejudicial attitudes. REFERENCES >>Chang, Mitchell. "Measuring the Impact of a Diversity Requirement on Students' Level of Racial Prejudice" Retrieved September 19, 2014 (http://www.diversityweb.org/Digest/W00/research2.html) >>Dugan, Maire A. "Prejudice" (Retrieved September 15, 2014 (http://www.beyondintractability.org/m/prejudice.jsp) >>Parrillo, Vincent J. 2003. Strangers to These Shores. New York: Allyn and Bacon. >>Sandhu, Daya Singh and Sherlton Pack Brown. 1996. " Empowering ethnically and racially diverse clients through prejudice reduction." Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development"

Day Care in New York

Currently there are only about twelve or so day-care investigators on Long Island, whose responsibilities are to inspect and monitor all 1,659 providers caring for 35,319 preschool children in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. This number of investigators is insufficient, and has hindered the ability of these two counties to properly inspect the quality of day care in These inspectors are called licensors or licensing representatives, who are civil servants and make a maximum of $44,739 this year. For an individual to be able to become an inspector of child care in the state of New York, the requirements are at least six years of experience as an inspector of day-care or other children's programs or as a designer or reviewer of various social services programs, as well as some background The requirements in New York appear to be much stiffer than those in many other states. For example, California requires simply a college degree or six months experience with the state. Top officials have stated that all over the state of New York investigators have been struggling with their work as a result of the recent surge in day-care providers. The state has said that licensors will arquire help in the very near future. The help will arrive in two forms: In New York State this year, the number of cases per licensor is at its lowest since five years ago. It has dropped from 165 to 156 cases per licensor. During the next year, the state of New York will commission eleven or so workers at the Suffolk Department of Social Services and the Child Care Council of Suffolk to, working under contract with the state, inspect day-care providers in the county. This is in an attemp to lighten he work loads of the licensors in Suffolk county. â€Å"It swells our ranks in terms of people who are out there actually doing inspections and are able to recommend an enforcement act,† said Suzanne Zafonte Sennett, director of the state Bureau of Early Childhood Services. Nassau county has not yet voulenteered to participate because of doubts about the magnatudes of its potential positive effects. This year, for the first time ever, the state began giving formal training to licensing representatives. Experts from the State University of New York have developed two new training tools for the investigators. This past summer, the Long Island representatives went for their first ever formal training in day-care regulation, and have also in the past year obtained copies of a two volume manual of the state regulations, policy statements, state social services law and other guidelines to help investigators do their jobs more efficiently. Suzanne Zafonte Sennett also said that by next February investigators will have the aid of a new laptop-based computer network called the Child Care Facility System. This system will allow investigators to track each provider's complete history that can be updated as necessary at a quite rapid rate and used by everyone working in the field of day-care regulation. The system will do away with the current abundance of stacks of paper and manila folders that are the core of the state's system now, and will allow investigators to do their jobs quicker and with more efficiency. She said the plan is â€Å"basically, get rid of the paper and put the entire licensing inspection process and the monitoring process online through a The intense desire to improve the regulation of day-care recently has shown greatly. The percentage of child care complaints that were substantiated in the past five years is at its lowest, with drastic drops from 35% on Long Island to 19%, and 35% in New York State to 23%. If the current interest in improving the regulation of child care in the state of New York continues, the inspectors jobs will become less stressful, and child care will improve substantially and with great impact.

Saint Augustine of Hippo

Biography: Aurelius Augustinus (referred to as â€Å"St. Augustine of Hippo) was born in Tagaste (now Souk- Ahras), North Africa on November 13, 354. His family was not rich growing up but Augustine still received a Christian education. Wild as a child he had a long-term relationship with a freedwoman who bore him a son. When he was 19 he was introduced to philosophy at Carthage where he became a brilliant student who mastered Latin and knew Greek. He worked as a professor at Carthage for a while but sometimes the students didn’t pay the professors after attending all the classes, so he got annoyed and traveled to Rome to seek a fortune.When he was in his thirties he converted to Christianity and entered a monastery. He spent the rest of his life working on his philosophical writings. In 395 he was ordained Bishop of Hippo. He died of a fever on August 28, 430 during the third month of the siege of Hippo by the barbarians. Philosophy on Law: St. Augustine believed and wrote e xtensively about natural law. He defines natural law as â€Å"an instilled law written on the human heart or conscience†. Augustine believed natural law was one of the ways God governs humans. His notions of natural law lead him to a discussion about just and unjust laws.He believed just laws were derived from natural law. Additionally he believed, those laws not following natural law, were unjust and â€Å"is no law at all† Strengths and Weaknesses: There are a few weaknesses when it comes to Augustine’s belief on natural law. Natural law is grounded in religion and in todays world people want a different legal system between the church and state. This makes them tend to avoid the reference to â€Å"natural law†. Another weakness is Augustine’s believed that some laws were written on peoples hearts. This leads to the question, why is there bad people?Not to say all of natural law is a weakness because it does have some strengths. One strength, to natural law is despite all the different religions and geography’s most societies have a common set of principals that lands credibility to the theory of natural law. Another strength is the argument of natural law allows for separation between church and state in laws of punishments. St. Augustine would definitely support civil disobedience. He believed if a law was unjust than it was no law at all. He thought that there were laws written on your heart and if a law wasn’t written on your heart than it was an unjust law.Therefore he didn’t consider it a law. Below is a short video of Martin Luther King saying his famous speech â€Å"Letter from a Birmingham jail†. St. Augustine is known for his creation of natural law. Augustine discovered that God creates at least some moral aspects. St. Augustine, along with St. Paul, and St. Thomas Aquinas founded the notion of an instilled law written on the human heart or conscience. It was created through the synthe sis of notions such as natural justice and the biblical belief in a greater being and lawgiver that we think of as being natural law.Augustine’s most famous quote is also has the greatest impact on natural law. His quote was â€Å"an unjust law is no law at all†. He means that justice is the sole purpose of law and if the law isn’t fair, than it is not serving justice. Augustine on Free Choice of the Will: â€Å"Now every punishment is a punishment for sin, if it is just, and is called a penalty; but if the punishment is unjust, since none doubts it is a punishment, it is imposed on man by an unjust ruler. This piece of writing by Augustine talks about just and unjust laws and the reason for punishments.It reinforces his position that an unjust law is no law at all. The Problem of Free Choice: Book One. Will not any intelligent man regard that law as unchangeable and eternal, which is termed the law of reason? We must always obey it; it is the law through which wicked men deserve an unhappy, and good men a happy life, and through which the law we have said should be called temporal is rightly decreed and rightly changed. Can it even be unjust that the wicked should be unhappy and the good happy, or that a well-disciplined people should be self-governing, while an ill-disciplined people should be deprived of this privilege.I see that this law is eternal and unchangeable. I think you also see that men derive all that is just and lawful in temporal law from eternal law. For if a nation is justly not self-governing at one time, and justify not self-governing at another time, the justice of this temporal change is derived from that eternal principle by which it is always right for a disciplined people to be self-governing, but not a people that is undisciplined. This part of Augustine’s writing backs up his theory of natural law. He is attempting to reconcile the relationship between natural law and mans free will.He believes that natur al law is a part of every human being and freewill is the ability of man to choose between what is the right thing and what is wrong. All of Augustine’s writing and books were originally written in Latin and have been translated into several different languages over the years. Most of his writing was religious in nature and his views on laws were derived from his desire to understand god’s relationship with society. Two Questions: 1) How is the concept of natural law relevant in today’s society and courts? ) What do you think some of the natural laws are? Examples of natural law: human rights, etc. Natural law is the theory or belief that certain rights exist independently of any government's granting of those rights. Generally, whenever a group rebels against their government and asserts rights that the government hasn't granted them, they are making a claim of natural law. Many children, for example, appeal to a sense of fairness in disputes, and most people a round the world agree that murder is a severe  infraction  of natural law.For example, the declaration of independence was an assertion of natural law – the right to be free, the right not to be taxed without representation, etc. , if you believe you are entitled to these rights just by virtue of the fact that you are alive/human, you believe in natural law. It can also work the other way; certain actions are criminal just by virtue of the acts themselves, such as murder (malum per se). Positive law, on the other hand, is the theory or belief that all law comes from the government/lawmakers (Malum prohibitum).Basically, you have no rights that are not granted to you from the government, and no action is inherently right or wrong under the law unless there is legislature or court-created law that says so. Basically, murder isn't illegal because it's â€Å"evil† or bad, it's illegal because there's a written law in the books that says so. Natural law and natural righ ts follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are.True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. Natural law has objective, external existence. It follows from the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) for the use of force that is natural for humans and similar animals. The ability to make moral judgments, the capacity to know good and evil, has immediate evolutionary benefits: just as the capacity to perceive three dimensionally tells me when I am standing on the edge of a cliff, so the capacity to know good and evil tells me if my companions are liable to cut my throat.It evolved in the same way, for the same straightforward and uncomplicated reasons, as our ability to throw rocks accurately. Read more:  http://wiki. answers. com/Q/What_are_examples_of_a_natural_law#ixzz27LOHpIBl http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/augustine/ http://americanengli shdoctor. com/wordpress/literacy/basic-literacy/general-knowledge-2/basic-literature/letter-from-birmingham-jail/1758