A Cry in the Night essays

A Cry in the Night essays 1. The title of my book is A Cry in the Night by Mary Higgins Clark. 2. The place settings of my book are Granite Place, Minnesota and New York City. The time setting is over a period of a year. 3. The main characters in A Cry in the Night are: Erich Krueger-Erich is a 34-year-old man that is a very good artist. Erich is a very rich man whos mother died when he was a little boy. Jenny- Jenny is one of the main characters in my book. Jenny looks just like Caroline who is Erichs mother. Jenny was married to Kevin, but is know married to Erich. Jenny has two girls named Beth and Tina. Jenny was very busy until she married Erich. Kevin-Kevin is Jennys ex-husband who was killed by Erich, but the town thought Jenny killed Kevin. Tina and Beth-Tina and Beth are Jennys daughters who are in a difficult situation. Their situation is Erich wants the girls to forget that Kevin was their father. Tina is 2-years-old and Beth is 3-years-old. Mark-Mark is Erichs best friend who helps Jenny through a very hard time. This time was when the town thought Jenny killed Kevin. Emily-Emily is Erichs friend who is the main talker in the town. If anything went wrong Emily would be sure to tell everyone in the town. Rooney-Rooney is Jennys new best friend. Erich killed Rooneys daughter, but Erich told Rooney that some day her daughter will return. Everyone in town thought Rooney should be put in a mental home except for her husband. Clyde-Clyde is Rooneys husband who comforts her whenever she needs it. Clyde is the main keeper of the Krueger Farm. Erich was very jealous of Clydes relationship with Jenny. Erich thought Clyde and Jenny were more than just friends, but they werent. Person vs. Person-is on of the main conflicts in my book. Person vs. Person is shown when Kevin and Erich got in a fight over Jenny. ...

Discover the History of the ENIAC Computer

Discover the History of the ENIAC Computer As technology progressed in the early and mid-1900s, the need for enhanced computational speed grew. In response to this deficit, the American military invested half a million dollars to create the ideal computing machine. Who Invented the ENIAC? On May 31, 1943, the military commission for the new computer began with  the partnership of John Mauchly and John Presper Eckert, with the former serving as the chief consultant and Eckert as the chief engineer. Eckert had been a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvanias Moore School of Electrical Engineering when he and Mauchly met in 1943. It took the team about one year to design the ENIAC and then 18 months plus half a million dollars in tax money to build it. The machine wasnt officially turned on until November 1945, by which time the war was over. However, not all was lost, and the military still put ENIAC to work, performing calculations for the design of a hydrogen bomb, weather predictions, cosmic-ray studies, thermal ignition, random-number studies, and wind-tunnel design. The ENIAC In 1946, Mauchly and Eckert developed the Electrical Numerical Integrator And Calculator (ENIAC). The American military sponsored this research because it needed a computer for calculating artillery-firing tables, the settings used for different weapons under varied conditions for target accuracy. As the branch of the military responsible for calculating the tables, the Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL) became interested after hearing about Mauchlys research at the Moore School. Mauchly had previously created several calculating machines and in 1942  began designing a better calculating machine based on the work of John Atanasoff, an inventor who  used vacuum tubes to speed up calculations. The patent for ENIAC was filed in 1947. An excerpt from that patent, (U.S.#3,120,606) filed on June 26, read, With the advent of everyday use of elaborate calculations, speed has become paramount to such a high degree that there is no machine on the market today capable of satisfying the full demand of modern computational methods. What Eas Inside the ENIAC? The ENIAC was an intricate and elaborate piece of technology for the time. Housed within 40 9-foot-tall cabinets, the machine contained 17,468 vacuum tubes  along with 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors, 1,500 relays, 6,000 manual switches, and 5 million soldered joints. Its dimensions covered 1,800 square feet (167 square meters) of floor space and weighed 30 tons, and running it consumed 160 kilowatts of electrical power. Two 20-horsepower blowers delivered cool air to keep the machine from overheating. The vast extent of energy being used led to a rumor that turning on the machine would cause the city of Philadelphia to experience brownouts. However, the story, which was first reported incorrectly by the Philadelphia Bulletin in 1946, has since been discounted as an urban myth. In just one second, the ENIAC (1,000 times faster than any other calculating machine to date) could perform 5,000 additions, 357 multiplications, or 38 divisions. The use of vacuum tubes instead of switches and relays resulted in the increase in speed, but it was not a quick machine to reprogram. Programming changes would take the technicians weeks, and the machine always required long hours of maintenance. As a side note, research on the ENIAC led to many improvements in the vacuum tube. Contributions of Dr. John Von Neumann In 1948, Dr. John Von Neumann made several modifications to the ENIAC. The ENIAC had performed arithmetic and transfer operations concurrently, which caused programming difficulties. Von Neumann suggested that using switches to control code selection would make it so that pluggable cable connections could remain fixed. He added a converter code to enable serial operation. Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation Eckert and Mauchlys work extended beyond just ENIAC. In 1946, Eckert and Mauchly started the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation. In 1949, their company launched the BINAC (BINary Automatic Computer) that used magnetic tape to store data. In 1950, the Remington Rand Corporation bought the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation and changed the name to the Univac Division of Remington Rand. Their research resulted in the UNIVAC (UNIVersal Automatic Computer), an essential forerunner to todays computers. In 1955, Remington Rand merged with the Sperry Corporation and formed Sperry-Rand. Eckert remained with the company as an executive and continued with the company when it later merged with the Burroughs Corporation to become Unisys. Eckert and Mauchly both received the IEEE Computer Society Pioneer Award in 1980. The End of the ENIAC Despite its significant advances in computation in the 1940s, ENIACs tenure was short. On October 2, 1955, at 11:45 p.m.,  the power was finally shut off, and the ENIAC was retired. In 1996, precisely 50 years after ENIAC was publicly acknowledged by the government, the massive computer received its place in history. According to the Smithsonian, ENIAC was the center of attention in the city of Philadelphia as they celebrated being the birthplace of computation. ENIAC was ultimately dismantled, with sections of the massive machine on display at both Penn and the Smithsonian.

Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Communities of Writing and Discourse Essay

Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Communities of Writing and Discourse in the Technical Fields - Essay Example Notably, each journal has its own purpose and has defined academic traits and levels of academic integrity that authors and contributors should have. This paper will present a rhetorical analysis of five journals using an article from each of the journals as an example, and highlighting the differences and similarities in the purpose, content, use of tone and language. This journal contains both English and French articles and invites peers to review articles in different publications. The purpose of the journal is publishing articles related to fundamental studies of the transfer processes on thermal aspects as well as related applications. It has a defined scope of the articles it publishes which must be related to thermal processes in physics. The reason why this journal publishes in both English and French in an effort to increase the readers considering these languages are the most widely used international languages. One of the articles selected from this journal titled â€Å"thermal conductivity measurement of amorphous si/ sige multilayer films by three omega method,† it becomes evident that the journal places emphasis on the use of an academic tone while presenting the research finding (Shen et al 20). The structure of presentation of the research findings should be very elaborate as revealed in this article. Moreover, the authors contributing articles to this journal must back up their finding with graphical representations, diagrams, and illustrations as required by the physics field. Since the journal targets readers who are either students specializing in the field or other professional with advanced knowledge in the field, the tone and language level reflect an advanced academic level (Shen et al 22). This journal targets to cover articles that discuss any of the scientific and technological processes related to fatigue. In this case, the

Vacco vs. Quill Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Vacco vs. Quill - Research Paper Example Vacco vs. Quill The United States Constitution allowed the states the democratic space to pass state laws that were for the benefit of the state citizens. The doctors felt that the law was interfering with the medical standards that allowed them to assist terminally ill patients to end their lives so as to relieve them the pain associated with the disease. The District Court upheld the state law since it was the state that was allowed to make laws that govern the state so long as they don’t contradict the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeal reversed the ruling on the basis that the prohibition led to violation of Fourteenth Amendment clause that called for Equal Protection. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court finally for further clarification. The New York state had passed a law in 1965 that barred physicians from assisting terminally patients end their life although it allowed patients to refuse treatment even if it is life saving to them. According to Enotes, the respondents Samuel C. Klagsbrun, Timothy E. Quill and Howard A. Grossman who were physicians in New York backed by three terminally ill patients who wanted to be allowed to terminate their lives. They presented their case in the United States District Court accusing the New York State Attorney, Dennis Vacco, of the state barring them from prescribing l ethal medicine to mentally stable but very ill patients who are under unendurable pain and desire to end their suffering through the doctor’s assistance to end their lives although the medical standards allow them. ... The court based its argument on the fact that the United states Constitution allowed the states normal democratic processes and that meant that New York had a legitimate right to protect vulnerable citizens and generally preserve life. The second circuit was reversed by the Court of Appeal; it determined that despite the general application of the ban on the assisted suicide, the New York state law did not exercise equality for not treating equally all the mentally competent people who are in their last stages of their sickness and are opting to end their suffering by prematurely terminating their lives (Tannsjo 90). Those in the their final stages of their illness and in the life support machines could direct the removal of those machines thus terminating their life in the process as opposed to those who are in a similar situation except the use of life support machines on them, who could not be allowed to order for the hastening of their life end through drug administration. The Co urt viewed the ending of one’s life through the withdrawal of the life support machines as similar to assisted suicide. The court was to determine whether the unequal treatment of the patients related in any way legitimately to the state interests, the conclusion of the court was that the New York statutes that prohibited a terminally ill patient with sound mind on the final stages from assisted suicide were not rationally in any way legitimately related to the state interests. The Court Of Appeal therefore reversed the District Court’s ruling. The State Attorney, Dennis Vacco, appealed in the Supreme Court and it gave a landmark ruling regarding the

The Death Penalty Pros And Cons Philosophy Essay

The Death Penalty Pros And Cons Philosophy Essay Death penalty has been a topic of concern throughout the world by large. Different countries and different societal communities have reservations or have believed that death penalty is just (acceptable). Many authors have published books on the debate on death penalty in the light of law and order. Death penalty which is often hailed as Capital Punishment, is a thought-out and designed execution of human life by government in reaction to a crime done by that convict. There has been an ongoing argument debating this matter, such as Amnesty International considers that The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life; it is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment. In an opposing argument to the above statement for death penalty, the Clark County Indiana Prosecuting Attorney says that there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no rights to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent. Murdering Myths: the Story behind the Death Penalty a book by Judith W. Kay, focuses on debate that Americans contributes to a counteract-dynamism idea of justice, i.e. punishment corrects bad behavior. Sufferings disburse for wrong actions, and a victims wish for vengeance is quiet understandable and usual. She had an interview with both victims and convict, and she concluded that how this credence harms executors, victims and society and calls for a latest plot that identifies humanity in all of us. The narrative about the bad guys becomes joined with at first reluctantly, and later carelessly, contribution in various disciplinary practices, which together put the carry out of punishment afar balanced debate. Two unremitting deformations in image seem to be made, one by liberals and another by conservatives. Liberals be apt to see offenders as victims of bad society. Vicious persecution certainly is frequently the practice of murder ­ers. Liberals, though, make a mistake in seeing the humanity of the criminal without seeing the enduring effects of such brutalization. Liberals tend to under ­play the murderers resulting in brutal and risky habits, frankly assuming that an better environment will be satisfactory for the murderers rehabili ­tation. Because liberals see the community as at least partially accountable for producing violent criminals, liberals tend to get into the idea that criminals are victims too. Liberals fall short to see the culprits possible cleverness and in ­tegrity as well as his addition to his brutal habits. They go wrong by letting mur ­derers get away with Twinkie defenses, failing to grasp treacherous people guilty for their crimes. Liberals, with their single focal point, are scorned as bleeding hearts and soft on crime. Liberals are blamed of supporting the untimely release of treacherous criminals, turning a blind eye to the pain of vic ­tims and their families. Another mistake is made by conservatives, who lessen the criminals to embodiments of the most terrible things they ever did; misdeeds become uniqueness. Despite of merely disapproving evil behavior, conservatives criticize certain people as basically evil by underplaying the communitys accountability for infusing people with the same disciplinary, revengeful, and brutal motives that force the criminal justice system. Unwilling to name and criticize the dehu ­manizing social experiences that formed a human with the nature to devastate and kill, they blame persons as if their difficulties leaped from nowhere. Conservatives are blamed of being naive, classifying different hu ­mans as either entirely fine or wicked. The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies by Hugo Adam Bedau; is the most detailed book that focuses on the death penalty, discussing its pros and cons which gets a massive attention of the world. Considering this volume, one view can emerge that undeniably, criminals who commit dreadful offenses deserve to be a contender of capital punishment. There should be no disagreement there. In ones observation, child molesters, killers and rapists have lost their lawful right to live in our society. It should be worried that a horrible deed must not be warranted under any situation; if a criminal has had a hard youth, this cannot justify. Let alone give reason for his actions. This is unquestionable, as is renowned, mentally ill are usually cunning, dangerous, scheming, self-absorbed and amiable. Moreover, they are unable to feel guiltiness and regret. Psychoanalysis is effectual in some cases but in most cases it does not work. Disreputable criminals are recognized for their deter ioration into felony upon discharge. Criminals can often mislead their psychiatrists because they are calculative and astute. Consequently, capital punishment is the most positive punishment next to life sentence. Several problems can occur with the capital punishment, such as ethical matters and guiltless lives being put to death, which possibly shouldnt. For instance, there is much more that requires to be completed prior to the preliminary action happens. This explains that there are steps that need to be apparent and proper evident on the suspect in accusation. For that reason, the new expertise that has been offered to people, for instance, DNA test system, a lot of faults must not be made in these critical verdicts. New expertise must be worn as a definite approach that the judgment to capital punishment is correct. Many people think that the capital punishment is honorably incorrect since they believe that only God ought to have the ultimate authority in death penalty. This brings up that the death penalty is only a type of brutal and unusual punishment. Consequently, they consider that the convict must not be penalized with death, still however; the verdicts had no leniency on their victim. For instance, in mid-summer of 1999, Allan Lee Davis was electrocuted in the Florida electric chair. Throughout the moment in time of his execution he undergone a blood loss and snapshots were sent all over the Internet. This illustrated and helped ones against death penalty, proving it to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment. In recent times the Supreme Court has decided to evaluate all electric chairs to observe whether or not it is a type of physical brutality, defacement, and or suffering. At the moment there are continually somewhat a small number of types of urbane forms to execute. There are poisonous injection, electric chair, gas, hanged execution, and gunfire. The majority of people think poisonous injection must be the only type of death penalty. In general, death penalty looks like the single way to guarantee convicts that the justice method is bona fide. This will permit the convicts to see the penalty of ending the lives of innocents. This technique will guarantee that they will not commit murder again. Is the Death Penalty Cruel and Unusual Punishment? One can consider the death penalty to be is too harsh in some case; however the U.S. do consent the Capital punishment in various cases. Whether the capital punishment will be obligated is reliant on the state in which one lives, since a large number of convicted cases are tried footed on state bylaws. For some cases so as to make it to the federal level there are unusual examples where the capital punishment can be forced. One of the cases is Daryl Reynard Atkins, who went on track that leads to death pit on the date of August 16, 1996. He and his friend William Jones make off with Eric Nesbitt and robbed him with a semi-automatic pistol. Atkins and Jones took all the cash Nesbitt had on his self, and then drove him off to an automated teller machine (ATM). At the same time as there, they were caught on camera pushing him off to withdraw more cash. Later than receiving the further cash, they drove Nesbitt to a remote locality and murdered him by bursting off eight shots of gunfire on him. Atkins was convicted of abduction, robbery by aimed weapon, and capital kill and was concluded to the judgment of capital punishment. Both Jones and Atkins bear out in the guiltiness phase of the Atkins trial. They each confirmed the event, but varied on whom really shot and murdered Nesbitt. Jones, whose statement was more reasoned and convincing to the panel of judges than the psychologically retarded Atkins, allowed the jury to criminalize Atkins and blame him for the killing. For the duration of the punishment stage of the trial, the state brought in the victim-impact proof and verified two infuriating situations to press on for the capital punishment. The state proved to the board of judges that Atkins posed a future risk for the reason that of his preceding crime convictions. Additionally, the state called four victims of previous robberies and physical attacks to give evidence against Atkins. In addition, the state proved the vileness of the offense by spotting to the films of the deceaseds body and the autopsy report, which were element of the early trial testimony. Dr. Evan Nelson, a forensic psychologist, gave evidence in the punishment phase that based on his assessment of Atkins, he was mildly mentally retarded. He testified that after evaluating Atkins school and court records and additionally administering a typical intelligence test, Atkins had a full scale IQ of 59 and was working anywhere between the ages of 9 and 12. Founded on this testimony, the jury sentenced Atkins to Capital punishment, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a subsequent sentencing trial because the trial court used a deceptive judgment form. At the following sentencing trial, the similar forensic psychologist gave evidence, but extra proof was added for the state by specialist observer Dr. Stanton Samenow, who said that Atkins was not mentally retarded, but was of average intelligence, at slightest and diagnosable as having disruptive character disorder. The panel of judges again sentenced Atkins to death. Subsequent to the second sentencing trial, the Virginia Supreme Court confirmed the imposition of the capital punishment. Atkins did not debate facing the Virginia Supreme Court that his sentence was inconsistent to penalties forced for comparable crimes in Virginia, but he did assert he is mentally retarded and thus cannot be sentenced to death. The Virginia Supreme Court refused his petition, saying it was not willing to commute Atkins verdict of death to life sentence simply for the reason that of his IQ score. Two Virginia justices dissented; saying that they casted off Dr. Samenows view that Atkins possesses usual aptitude as incredulous as a matter of law, and accomplished that the imposition of the sentence of death upon a criminal defendant who has the mental age of a child between the ages of 9 and 12 is excessive. In their disagreement, they said it is indefensible to conclude that individuals who are mentally retarded are not to some degree less culpable for their criminal acts. By definition, such individuals have substantial limitations not shared by the general population. A moral and civilized society diminishes itself if its system of justice does not afford recognition and consideration of those limitations in a meaningful way. Whereas in a 1989 trial, Penry v. Lynaugh, the United States Supreme Court did regulated that people with psychological retardation could be penalized to capital punishment, numerous states have in view of the fact that distorted their laws on this matter. The United States Supreme Court decided to take notice of Atkins appeal in 2002 given that of the dramatic change in the situation of state legislatures during the preceding 13 years. Throughout the years, the United States Supreme Court has detained that judging whether penalty is extreme is not based on principles that succeeded when the Bill of Rights was approved, but somewhat by those that at present overcome. Consequently, in influencing whether penalties are cruel and unusual the Supreme Court looks to present day standards placed by current legislatures. In 1989, while the Supreme Court last looked at the matter of ruling mentally retarded people to death penalty, the majority states did permit that. In 2002, when the Supreme Court determined to re-examine the matter, the political winds had distorted and state legislatures were deciding not in favor of the death penalty in cases relating people with mental retardation. So the justices upturned Penry and ruled in favor of Atkins, upturned the Virginia Supreme Court, and remanded the case back to the subordinate courts for more verdicts. The 6 to 3 decision that the capital punishment for Atkins was cruel and unusual punishment, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was coupled by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, OConnor, and Souter. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a dissenting view and was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Scalia also wrote a dissenting judgment and was joined by Rehnquist and Thomas. In writing for the Court, Stevens said: Those mentally retarded persons who meet the laws requirements for criminal responsibility should be tried and punished when they commit crimes. Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct. Moreover, their impairments can jeopardize the reliability and fairness of capital proceedings against mentally retarded defendants. Presumably for these reasons, in the 13 years since we decided Penry v. Lynaugh, (1989), the American public, legislators, scholars, and judges have deliberated over the question whether the death penalty should ever be imposed on a mentally retarded criminal. The consensus reflected in those deliberations informs our answer to the question presented by this case: whether such executions are cruel and unusual punishments prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. In writing his dissent, Chief Justice Rehnquist said: There are strong reasons for limiting our inquiry into what constitutes an evolving standard of decency under the Eighth Amendment to the laws passed by legislatures and the practices of sentencing juries in America. Here, the Court goes beyond these well-established objective indicators of contemporary values. It finds further support to [its] conclusion that a national consensus has developed against imposing the death penalty on all mentally retarded defendants in international opinion, the views of professional and religious organizations, and opinion polls not demonstrated to be reliable à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Believing this view to be seriously mistaken, I dissent. Justice Scalia added in his dissent, This newest innovation promises to be more effective than any of the others in turning the process of capital trial into a game. How this competition will be played out will be seen in upcoming capital punishment cases that determine their way to the Supreme Court. Should the Death Penalty exist? At present the argument on the legitimacy of the Capital punishment continues. Current court decisions have ruled that a death sentence for rape and kidnapping as it was excessive for the crime and thus unconstitutional (Everheart v. Georgia 1977). The Court has in addition alleged it was unlawful to put to death the insane (Ford v. Wainright, 1986), however it was lawful to put to death the mentally retarded (Penry v. Lynaugh, 1989) and it is unlawful to put to death an criminal who was 15 or younger when the crime was committed (Thompson v. Oklahoma, 1988), but the Constitution does not bar the capital punishment for 16-year-olds who commit murder (Stanford v. Kentucky, 1989). The court will certainly carry on refining its policy in the upcoming years. Public support for death penalty remains high. A 1994 Gallop poll found that 80% of Americans keep on supporting the death penalty in theory; though that figure had dropped to 62% by 2000 according to a NBC News poll. Justice is not at all times to be unwavering by view census and lawful pattern conversely. Individual have to think that the civil law of men ought to be hindered to a standard exterior of itself in order to decide if it is just or unfair. This is the natural law viewpoint. This viewpoint holds that the natural law is the groundwork of all human law in to the extent that it ordains that man shall survive in society, and society for its foundation requires the survival of an influence, which shall hold the moral power essential to organize the members and direct them to the widespread good. A full argument of the inside and obligations of the natural law is outside of the range of this thesis. On the other hand suffice it to say, according to this viewpoint, that human laws are legal and reasonable only in up to now as they communicate with, and put into effect or supplement the natural law; they are null and void when they conflict with it. The natural law is distinct as mans contribution in the heavenly law thru the light of natural reason. This means, certainly, that human law is resulting from an accepting of God. A dialogue of the novel understanding of separation of church and state that has evolved in the United States and somewhere else in the West more than the past 40 years is also exterior of the capacity of this thesis. As a reality of history the Western legal tradition is derived from Christian beliefs. The mass of theological conjecture is derived from the Catholic belief. Catholic religion and social philosophy rests on a chord of authority: 1) Sacred Scripture the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments 2) Sacred Tradition that which is always been taught and held to be factual whether on paper or unwritten 3) The Magisterium the teaching office the Church which consists of all the Bishops in the world in unity with the Pope in Rome. It is the Magisterium that is approved to understand Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, also called the Deposit of Faith, to address contemporary questions. The huge bulk of theological conjecture on the topic of capital punishment remains in the monarchy of confidentially held opinions which may be held or unnoticed according to the sense of right and wrong of the individual. Canon law forbids clergy to shed human blood and consequently the Church does not and has never carried out capital punishment. on the other hand, it has long been held that the state may utilize capital punishment. In the middle ages the Church was asked to occupy her know-how adjudicating crimes such as dissent and profanity. In these cases it was the only apprehension of the inquisitional body to decide the legitimacy of the offense charged, not to resolve or carry out the suitable punishment. The association among the modern Catholic Church and liberal democratic states is not as close as in the earlier period. The Church seeks to educate the faithful and to give confidence to them to contribute in the supporting life of the secular state. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1997, in paragraph 2267 states: Assuming that the guilty partys identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect peoples safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent. This is in fact a slight reformulation of the customary teaching; in this declaration it would appear that the lone explanation for capital punishment is explicit avoidance i.e. to get rid of the likelihood that a murderer will murder yet again. Preceding catechetical credentials such as the Baltimore Catechism, published in 1898 or the Roman Catechism published in 1566 make no bring up of capital punishment. Conventional Catholics are more liable to refer to the past writings of diverse theologians and Doctors of the Church which are constantly more constructive towards the utilizing of capital punishment. Avery Cardinal Dulles writing for the traditional Catholic periodical First Things summarized the whole of Catholic teaching on capital punishment in 10 points. 1) The purpose of punishment in secular courts is fourfold: the rehabilitation of the criminal, the protection of society from the criminal, the deterrence of other potential criminals, and retributive justice. 2) Just retribution, which seeks to establish the right order of things, should not be confused with vindictiveness, which is reprehensible. 3) Punishment may and should be administered with respect and love for the person punished. 4) The person who does evil may deserve death. According to the biblical accounts, God sometimes administers the penalty himself and sometimes directs others to do so. 5) Individuals and private groups may not take it upon themselves to inflict death as a penalty. 6) The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused. 7) The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment. 8) The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life. 9) Persons who specially represent the Church, such as clergy and religious, in view of their specific vocation, should abstain from pronouncing or executing the sentence of death. 10) Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition. In this observation the condition which is agreed upon its authority by God acts His agent and consequently possesses the authority to perform justice. In this thesis to address these following questions are chosen to be addressed concerning Death Penalty: 1) Is the capital punishment in itself neutrally morally wrong? 2) Does the state own the authority to make use of capital punishment? The answers to these questions can be: 1) No, Death penalty is not in itself morally wrong and is actually required to display the essential value of human life. 2) Yes, the state as a mediator of divine authority does own the authority to govern capital punishment for certain crimes. Certain questions arent addressed resulting from a useful viewpoint such as does the nuisance of the death penalty have a common prevention value. It could not be believed that issues suitably addressed from a practical viewpoint. The American justice structure frequently appears to function completely from this utilitarian perspective; this reflects the deep pressure of Jeremy Bentham who called death penalty useless annihilation. Agnostic utilitarian viewpoint regards death as the ultimate evil as a substitute of a stage on the way to eternal life. It can be agreed with Avery Cardinal Dulles when he states that While this change [the abolition of the death penalty in Europe] may be viewed as moral progress, it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith. The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to de eper penetration into the gospel. Work Cited Murdering Myths: The Story Behind the Death Penalty; by Judith W. Kay. The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies; by Hugo Adam Bedau. ISBN: 9780195122862. Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA. The Complete Idiots Guide to The Supreme Court; by Lita Epstein, J.D. Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyers Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty; by attorney and author Scott Turow. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment?; Edited by Hugo Bedau and Paul Cassel. Tears from Heaven: Voices from Hell; by Diane Robertson. ISBN: 9780595215720 Espy, M. Watt, and John Ortiz Smykla (2002) Executions in the United States, 1608-1987: The ESPY File, (online), 7/31/05. http://users.bestweb.net/~rg/execution.html Smith, Sharon C. (1999). Capital Punishment in the United States. (Online), 7/31/05. http://www.closeup.org/punish.html Quixote Center (N.D.). Equal Justice USA (Online), 7/31/05 http://www.quixote.org/ej/states/maryland/2003_bill_dies.html Aquinas, St. Thomas Summa Theologica II, Q) 95, a) 2 (online). Catholic Encyclopedia , 7/31/05. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209502.html Aquinas, St. Thomas Summa Theologica II, Q) 91, a) 2 (online). Catholic Encyclopedia , 7/31/05. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209102.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church (online), 7/31/05. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (ND). USCCB Statement, 1980. (online) 7/31/05 http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/criminal/death/uscc80.htm Dulles, Avery (April 2001) Catholicism and Capital Punishment (online), 7/31/05. First Things 112: 30-35 http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html Scalia, Antonin (May 2002). Gods Justice and Ours (online), 7/31/05 First Things 123:17-21. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html Kant, Immanuel (1965) The Metaphysical Elements of Justice New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co. Inc. Demetrius B. Zema Gerald G. Walsh trans., (1950).Augustine, The City of God Book I, ch. 21, reprinted in 8 The Fathers of the Church 17, 53 URL Citations http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/death-penalty-cruel-unusual-punishment.html http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Death_penalty http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,905684-2,00.html http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/books-death-penalty-critiques

Listless Universities

â€Å"Look at a nation’s school and you will see what society it represents.†-Jose Rizal The introduction of liberalism may seem to have vastly modified what social structures were implemented before. As we go about our daily lives, we are already separated from what the â€Å"supposed† to be agenda of existence is all about. Such a case has driven more and more people to take directions which are no longer of significant use. Everything that has come up to the minds of the younger generations is a bland philosophy. And even though it may seem that people have the taste to achieve living without borders, there is not really a single aspect of intuition where we they are really going. According to All About Philosophy, worthless perception of everything is coined to be nihilism. And it is very possible societies are going this path. It is very true that universities nowadays do not really care more about their social responsibilities. They somehow care less than the previous generation of education institutions. And this is not evident among just any schools out there but actually very obvious even with the supposedly top performing institutions or at least those respectable ones. Apparently, the generations following after the mid 20th century social structure do not need anymore that of what schools can really contribute. But even though this problem is very evident, universities do not count itself as the role model in maintaining the sole purpose of its existence. It has abandoned its children and has neglected the society to structure itself without any care. Universities nowadays are becoming more and more just a â€Å"setting† where the youth can increase their respective social lives. The schools are no longer upholding its power to engage with students as to how education should be treated. The institutions themselves are to blame since they did not really become strong enough to face the changes in the society. They go with the way of the social structure even though they know that they are losing power each day a neglected student enters its corridors. As a clear example, the main objective of today’s universities is to sustain its existence. Of course, no man made institution can survive this capitalist driven world without concerning itself to raising funds. So in effect, schools have become more and more commercialized and providing fewer opportunities for it to interact with the students. Even though the schools have their own shortcomings, it cannot be denied that the society itself is the proponent of such absence of direction. It is very rare that you will find a person talking about the good stuff about nature, very sentiment, and holds his ideal dream of becoming a part of this vast universe. It is very tricky to find such people since each of us interacting with one another are â€Å"supposedly† engaged on our own ideals. So how can we ever distinguish an individual with a direction in life? Philosophically speaking, it is very true that schools reflect only that of society’s character. However, because of such notion, they have tied themselves up to the backdoor of philosophical stability by not meddling with what the external society wishes to track. Universities just accepted the fact that they as mere instruments rather than thinkers which can actually inflict change. They remain silent and just become mirrors which only serve to bounce back what they have been given. Each one of us has his own opinion, own direction in life. But just because we are blessed with such power it does not necessarily mean that everything we are dealing with is in accordance to our principles. One should think first if actions and mindsets represent that of a true thinking human. Otherwise, we will tend to just blame our teaching institutions again and again whereas they only give back what they receive. Works Cited All About Philosophy. Nihilism – Abandoning Values and Knowledge. 2002. .

Changing Landscape of Unions

CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF UNIONS BUS 372 Employee & Labor Relations November 9, 2011 CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF UNIONS At the inception of unions, its members consisted of â€Å"blue-collar† workers concentrated in the manufacturing sector. Today, only about 35% of union members remain in this sector, requiring unions to expand beyond manufacturing to broaden their membership ranks. Unions are undergoing new developments to increase membership. Entering into the twenty-first century unions will emerge into a new dimension. The labor union is constantly changing, experiencing a decline in membership, losing influence and power but through experience and careful planning things change. Unions have gone through dramatic changes over the past century. The changing landscape of the unions is not only coming from decline in membership but from modern technology also. In order to show that they can change things have to change. Unions need to have the ability to show that they can effectively get their influence back, increase membership, and power. In the last century unions have been successful at negotiations especially when it came to bargaining agreements on behalf of their members. Union membership has evolved it a big way in the 21st century. No one can dispute labor’s staying power, given the labor movement’s deep penetration into virtually all the traditional parts of our economy and it continuing hold on these areas (Sloane, Witney 2011 p. 20). Local unions at times have engaged in a variety of social, educational, and community activities. Union leaders realize that the welfare of their members depends on part on a progressive and well-run community. Having vital interest to the schools since union leaders must pay taxes to operate the schools that their member’s children attend. This will lessen the tension between management and organized labor. Many local unions also conduct regularly sponsored and generally effective educational programs this important since more skilled workers are needed (Sloane, et al 2010 p. 180). With new technology that changes every year it is better to keep members well trained for more skilled jobs. Union’s support of the latest technology will help workers keep their jobs instead of hiring new workers into their workplace. Unions’ purpose is to increase wages and influence better job conditions for all its members. Jobs have moved work from this country to other countries only because they can make more profits from lower wages and more productivity. So with this in mind the labor union can raise hourly wages, better benefits, increase bargaining power and better working conditions, although it seems easy which it will not be but this can help keep American workers with jobs and stop business from going overseas and other foreign countries. Unions can propose to keep manufacturing sector such as plants, factories operating in the United States. Keep manufacturing equipment and parts in the States so more workers cannot be laid off. Stop using manufacturing products from other countries and start a campaign to only use American made products. Getting the members that they already have to come aboard as a force to be reckoned with on one accord the more numbers the more force. Today there are several major organizations under one company umbrella a large number of unions thru mergers such as AFL-CIO, SEIU, UAW just to name a few representing workers (Sloane, et al 2010 p. 18). These unions have come to understand and address issues that are important to their member in the workplace. Unions can reform to increase their membership by campaigning and adventuring outside of the normal places to get new members to join. Unions have given a voice to their many members concerning fair wages, safety, benefits, health care, and training. Unions can continue to support the training programs that will keep their members up to date with modern technology. This would help businesses from wanting to go over to other countries why should a business go somewhere else when they will have qualified workers here eager to keep up with the new technology that change all the time. This will also increase membership when the union is willing to train members especially ones that have not joined yet. This can prevent job displacement. Unions can make a win-win situation for unions and businesses by having more trained workers that can adapt to the ever changing technology in the workplace. Since the changing landscape is not only coming from low membership but new technology. Unions can try to recruit new members so that they can have more bargaining power so that jobs cannot be shifted overseas because of lower wages. The more jobs that the United States can provide the more employees can keep their jobs. Global competition is growing many unions have sought to offset this handicap by banding together for contract negotiations purposes in what is known as coordinated bargaining. This universally denotes the presentation of united union front at the bargaining table and often also involves common union demands (Sloane et al 2010 p. 218). Unions can reform by using reverse tactics, keep corporations from operating in various countries, get control over the combination of tax concessions, control the lower-cost labor abroad, and get more control over accessibility to vital material. Get control over the expanded employment that is going across the U. S. Unions can get together and stop workers from being displaced and passing higher cost to consumers. This will give unions more effective power of collective bargaining agreements to keep manufacturing facilities, keep members, and jobs. Today’s collective bargaining sessions have no place for the uninformed, the inept, or the unskilled (Sloane et al 2010 p. 234). Unions must do everything to survive in this next century by giving member what they want and keeping goals that they have set for each other. Reference Sloane, A. A. , & Witney, F. (2010). Labor relations. 13th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Pearson Educational, Inc.