Pirates of the Caribbean Essay Example for Free

Pirates of the Caribbean Essay There dynamic personalities of the many characters in Pirates of the Caribbean are a huge part of what made the movie so successful. Among those characters, there are some who contribute more to the plot by their actions and some who affect the other characters by their mere presence. Captain Barbosa and the Commodore have some obvious differences that divide them in the movie, but their similarities are much more important. As a pair of comic alazons, Barbosa and the Commodore play an important role in providing basis for comparison against Captain Jack Sparrow and further complicate the love story in the movie. Captain Barbosa is interesting character in that his actions are often represented in an amateur light. It is important remember the introduction of Barbosa if one is to understand his character. It is important to note that he is originally Jack Sparrow’s first mate, which immediately relegates Barbosa to a subordinate and thus, amateur position. He never really grows out of that and through the rest of the movie and there is never much indication that he is capable, either. One such example where this is evident occurs when Barbosa makes the mistake of thinking that Elizabeth is the daughter of Bootstrap Bill Turner. By attempting this important blood ritual using the wrong person, Barbosa shows just how much of an impostor he actually is. In addition to that, one of the primary characteristics of a comic alazon is their unique ability to get in the way of the primary love scene in the movie. In this case, Barbosa’s constant meddling with Elizabeth, Jack, and William spurns a host of different love-filled possibilities in the film. Like Captain Barbosa, the Commodore is an interesting character who has a big role in the film. His primary role as impostor comes from his relationship with Elizabeth. He sets out to marry her and the film allows him to get very close, but ultimately she settles on Will Turner as her true love. This sets up the Commodore as something of a joke from the very beginning. In addition, he can be seen as a comic alazon because of his failed methods in finding Elizabeth when she has been captured by Barbosa. It is interesting to note that the Commodore is completely against piracy, which is something of a strange idea considering how common it was during the movie’s time. It was almost as if he was on a mission to stop something that he had absolutely no ability to stop. The commodore is similar to Barbosa in many ways and the movie adeptly points this out. These two are similar in that they serve as a foil for Will Turner in his relationship with Elizabeth. In addition, both are seen as something of jokes, and they are not taken seriously by the other characters even though the one thing they want more than anything is to be taken seriously. In a way, Jack Sparrow just toys with both the Commodore and with Barbosa and though he is always in reach of them, he manages to make them look foolish and escape at the same time. This is the one reason why they are important to the plot. The basic characteristics of the two characters make them very different simply based upon the fact that Barbosa is a pirate who is hurting Elizabeth, while the Commodore is against piracy and loves Barbosa. Those things are purely superfluous to the story, though, as the more important theme has to be drawn both characters’ abilities to look foolish and completely inept at the same time. All in all, these characters are incredibly important to the story’s development. Though their differences are pronounced, their similarities are even more important. On both sides of the spectrum, they serve as something to laugh at and people for the main characters to constantly toy with for the entirety of the film.

The Social Factual Norms By Durkheim Sociology Essay

The Social Factual Norms By Durkheim Sociology Essay Over the past years the headlines of newspapers have read everything from Neighbour says Nia chucked on line (NZHerald: 2008) to just this month very violent brain injury killed baby (NZHerald: 2011). In New Zealand on average one child is killed every 5 weeks due to Child Abuse. This figure should not come as a surprise; as over the past decade stories of fatal child abuse cases have been frequently covered in the news (Child matters: 2011). Norms are a social fact (Durkheim: 1982). These are the words from the famous French sociologist Emile Durkheim. He went on to explain that we are born into a pre-existing order, with rules and norms that have already been premade and set. And that if we want to live in this society we are born into, we must learn to abide by these pre-determined sanctions (Durkheim: 1982/1895, p56-57). These already set norms include those associated with the issue of child abuse. We dont have to think twice when reading horrendous articles in the newspaper of children being put in clothes dryers and severely beaten. We already know that it is morally wrong. Although in different cultures around the world different types of abuse may be seen as a form of, what they see as normal punishment. These social facts still exist around us. They were there before we were born and will still remain weather we choose to agree or disagree with them; most of which have consequences if you do chose to stray from them. This brings us Sharyn Roach Anleus 5 key questions surrounding norms; 1) whose norms? , in the case of child abuse it is our society/country of New Zealands norms. The norm is that it is not right to abuse children, or anyone. It is seen as a bad thing and as a country I am sure that there will not be many people who would say that it is ok to abuse. 2) How do some norms become official or legal? Harming a child is wrong and when hearing about these inhumane acts of violence against children we may be urged to do something about it, but if we are being real with ourselves, on our own; without economic or political power it would be difficult to put forth and solidify our beliefs into laws. Although with this issue there are many people with power who share the beliefs of our society. Such as Green MP Sue Bradfords; the anti smacking law was passed in 2007(NZ Herald: 2007). Since she had political power, with the support of the community the bill was passed. Three years have passed an d a new law will be passed that will see those people who turn a blind eye to child abuse prosecuted (DominionPost: 2011). This will be a positive thing as many cases of child abuse drag on for months as the people involved; who could have very well saved the Childs life have been to afraid or not bothered to report the abuse happening. Why are some norms more important than others? Does visibility make a difference? And can there be deviance without breaking social norms? As said in the book straying from these social norms can lead to deviance over a period of time. The example given is that of a soft drug user over time leads to hard drug use. This approach can be put into context with child abuse. Child abuse may be as obvious as bruises or as subtle as a parent neglecting their child. There can never be a good reason for child abuse to occur; but there definitely is a reason behind it .The straying could be the perpetrator; an adult being a parent, relative or friend showing their anger, due to various causes (e.g. stress in the home, work etc) through minor outburst such as yelling at the child or accidentally slapping them over time letting it get out of control and making it a regular occurrence of more severe abuse. Interactionist theory of deviance argues that deviant behaviour is learned. As is other behaviours. Just as deviance is socially constructed; Child abuse is considered as sociological fact as it is not an innate behavioral pattern for human beings to follow. It is mostly a learned behavior usually from interactions with the parents of the abusers. Sociology is the study of society, or to be more precise it is about group interactions within society. We are all part of groups such as school, cultural ethnic groups. One of the first groups that we interact with is with our families. This is where we learn much of what influences us as adults, and if abuse is what is learned as a child, it is most likely to be performed when the abused children grow up.The oxford dictionary of Sociology defines Child abuse as referring to: The maltreatment or injury of a child by an adult or adults. Such abuse can be physical, emotional, sexual, or a combination of all three. It might be perpetrated by one person or by several, within a family or outside it, and in public or in private. (Oxford: 2011) Over the years what may have been seen as an act of firm punishment is now; being discovered as a form of deviance. In the chapter Straying: Deviance in Being Sociological, Michael Lloyd makes it clear that norms are a key attribute when defining Deviance. The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label (Becker, 1963, p9).Behaviors that are considered deviant are highly biased.Crime/deviance is defined by those in power. In context in the Kahui child abuse case where the father of the twins was wrongly accused for months over the killing of his twin babies. A stigma was formed which led people to think badly of him. And because of this label it seemed to the public that he was the abuser and that he had done it. Instead of him fighting for his right, because so many people were already against him due to this label, there was nothing he could do about it as a majority of people would not believe him. Until it was found that it was actually the babys mother who was the abuser then was this stigma lifted, and peoples view towards him changed. The damage would have still been there today and will take a while for him to socially construct himself again. Another form of social construction can be seen in Georges Canguilhems analysis of normality. Ian Hackings looping effect links on to the labelling theory as stated in his example person A does not want to be person H. if others think of a person as someone they are not(false accusation, stereotyping) That person will change their behaviours because they are aware of what others are saying about them. For example the deviant; the person doing the child abuse. Or the abuser that becomes out of the child that has been abused, may because of the stereotype of there being previous abuse in their household they may or may not want to live up to that labelling .But because of what others are saying they will get treated like the deviant whether they like it or not creating a looping effect. Harold Garfinkels documentary of identification method revealed that the jury he was studying the jurors came up with the outcome then filled in the reasons. These theories show that deviants are socially constructed through social interactions; the way people are treated influence how they act . And without deviance there would be no social change (Lloyd: 2007) The authors main purpose to introduce the complexity of the relationship between straying and how over time can lead to deviance was supported by including the viewpoints, theories and ideas of different people. Lloyd did not make many assumptions apart from assuming that the reader knew the meaning of straying; saying that it is a term used in everyday talk so we can do without a definition'(Lloyd,2007,p317-318). Through this text Michael Lloyd could be seen as being biased towards deviance being a social fact in society. He addresses the five questions surrounding norms which Sharyn Roach Anleu summarised following Emile Durkheims theory of norms being a social fact. These questions prove that deviance is an area of sociology that is full of debate and competing theories (Lloyd, 2007, p319). By including this and a commentator Colin Sumners claim that, the field reached a dead -end by the late 1970s Lloyd has saved himself from being completely biased by taking into account differe nt viewpoints of the topic. The sociological theories; Beckers labelling theory, Ian Hackings looping effect theory of human kind Harold Garfinkels identification of the documentary method of interpretation and ideas from this chapter help to understand and explain what is happening in the very serious social issue of child abuse in New Zealand.

Theories Of Punishment Understanding Deviance

Theories Of Punishment Understanding Deviance The classical school represented by the works of Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria assumes that the rational decision is always the decision that will maximise gain and minimise pain for each individual: the felicitation principle that lies behind the penal policy of deterrence. Hence, if the actor is rational, the state can influence any given decision by ensuring that the system of investigating criminal activity will swiftly detect the person responsible and the system of law enforcement through courts will dispense sufficient pain to each offender so that there will be both specific deterrence (i.e. that a particular offender will never choose to break the law again), and general deterrence (other potential criminals, observing the punishment of the one offender, will be deterred from following in his or her footsteps.  [1]  ) The Neoclassical School continues to adopt the traditional view that the punishment imposed by the state for the crime should reflect deterrence. However, they depart from the original theory by increasing the severity of sentences and limiting judicial discretion. This emphasises the social value of punishment rather than seeing punishment as an offenders just deserts in a system of retributive justice. It uses the offender as a symbol through which to send a message to society, rather than as a human being who should be judged on his or her own merits. It abandons the idea of proportionality between severity of punishment with the gravity of offence committed by the offender. This view has certain moral implications and high costs in maintaining a prison system for an increased number of prisoners. (Something which a third world country like ours could not certainly afford). Research has consistently shown that certainty of arrest rather than severity of punishment is the major det errent. According to Clarke crime is a purposive behaviour designed to meet the offenders common place needs for such things as money, status, sex, excitement, and that meeting these needs involves the making of (sometimes quite rudimentary) decisions and choices, constrained as they are by limits of time and ability and the availability of relevant information. i.e. offenders make decisions that appear rational to themselves, and they can be persuaded not to engage in crime. Through Rational Choice Theory, Cornish and Clarke  [2]  describe crime as an event that occurs when an offender decides to take risk by breaking the law after considering his or her own need for money, personal values or learning experiences and how well a target is protected, how affluent the neighbourhood is or how efficient the local police are. Before committing a crime, the reasoning criminal weighs the chances of getting caught, the severity of the expected penalty, the values to be gained by committing the act, and his or her immediate need for that value. The intention is to increase the perceived risks of apprehension, or reduce the anticipated rewards for a crime, or remove the excuses to compliance with the law. The intention would be to design out crime, i.e. to make the disincentives to the commission of crime consistently outweigh the potential benefits. This would involve concerted efforts by the manufacturers of standard equipment less prone to theft, to design b etter security systems so that stolen goods cannot be used without a PIN or can be otherwise tracked. It also involves the adoption of surveillance technology to tag goods in stores electronically, install camera systems to monitor behaviour, improve street lighting, have more police officers on patrol, assist householders to improve their home security, etc. A co-ordinated strategy would potentially prevent more crime and so be more cost effective than imprisoning the few offenders that are currently apprehended. This theory is predicated on the assumption that humans have set of hierarchically ordered preferences, or utilities. By reducing the opportunities for the commission of crimes and target hardening, i.e. making it more difficult to break into houses or to steal from shops, and encouraging more authority figures to assume responsibility, potential offenders will be deterred. There is, however, some criticism that better protecting one area will simply displace crime into a less protected area but the evidence is yet equivocal on whether such displacement does occur. The main problem, still remains in re-ordering the political priorities away from a penal-orientation and in favour of a prevention strategy. At present many states have invested heavily in the former and see no immediate need to change their policies. To further understand the concept of deviance, the differential association theory is probably the best known Interactionist theory of deviance. This theory focuses on how people learn to be criminals, but does not concern itself with why they become criminals. Sutherland was following the tradition of Gabriel Tarde who argued that criminals were ordinary people who learned criminal behaviour through imitation of those with whom they interacted. Sutherland refined this proposition by requiring that the interaction occur in intimate groups, where the level of communication is more personal. They learn how to commit the crime; they learn motives, drives, rationalisations, and attitudes. George Herbert Mead had developed the idea of the self as a social construct, i.e. a persons self-image is continuously being constructed and reconstructed in interaction with other people. People define their lives by reference to their experiences, and then generalize those definitions to provide a framework of reference for deciding on future action. From a researchers perspective, a subject might view the world very differently if employed rather than unemployed, if in a supportive family or abused by parents. Hence, individual might respond differently to the same situation depending on how their experience predisposes them to define their current surroundings. A wallet might be found on the street. One individual might see an opportunity for altruism, returning missing property to its owner. The other might see an opportunity for self-enrichment. Differential association predicts that an individual will choose the criminal path when the balance of definitions for law-breaking exceeds those for law-abiding. This tendency will be reinforced if social association provides role models of significance to the actor. This does not deny that there may be practical motives for crime. If a person is hungry but has no money, there is a temptation to steal. However, needs and values are equivocal. To a greater or lesser extent, both non-criminal and criminal are motivated by the need for money and social status. Frustration and boredom may be felt by all. Edward Sutherland and his students, Donald Cressey in particular, became the tenacious champions of the arguments that deviance is a way of life passed from generation to generation. First advanced in 1924, his theory of differential association attempted to make systematic the thesis that crime and deviation are culturally transmitted in social groups. It holds that criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other people, especially in personal intimate settings, in a process of communication. Learning is held to embrace techniques of committing the crime and the direction of drives, motives, attitudes, and definitions of law. It was argued that a person will become criminal if he or she is exposed to an excess of definitions favourable to the violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law, the process itself being described as differential association. Such differential association will be affected by variations in frequency, duration, priority, and inten sity. Sutherland supposed the learning of criminal behaviour to involve all the social and psychological mechanisms at work in other learning. Finally he claimed that although criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values because non-criminal behaviour is also an expression of those same needs and values.  [3]   Finally the social disorganization theory(Chicago school) will clear the whole concept of deviance and delinquencies. Anthropology, the science of man has been mainly concerned with the study of primitive peoples. But civilized man is quite as interesting an object of investigation, and at the same time his life is more open to observation and study. Urban life and culture are more varied, subtle and complicated, but the fundamental motives are in both instances the same. Most sociology departments are inattentive to the physical and social contexts in which they exist. But the Chicago sociology was to become the sociology of Chicago itself, a detailed anthropological mapping of the social territories that made the city.  [4]  Urban life resembled a phantasmagoria, a welter of shifting scenes and identities; where everything is in a state of agitation everything seems to be undergoing a change. Society is, apparently, not much more than a congeries and constellation of social at oms. They maintained that knowledge resided neither in properties of the world alone nor in properties of the observer alone. Facts, it was held, not self-evident. They are selected and interpreted by the mind that surveys them. People with different perspectives and different problems will not see exactly the same phenomena. Thus the meaning of food will not be identical for the chef, the waiter, and the guest at meal. It will shift in response to the peculiar dealings which one has with the object. But that shift is not wholly dependent on the whim of the contemplating intelligence. The imagination is not free to create anything which it may choose to devise. It is constrained by the capacity of the world to answer back and impose itself upon thought.  [5]  Hence it came about that pragmatism placed effective knowledge in a transaction between the observer and the environment which he observed: the knowledge was no longer defined as a state or as a condition but as a process, an action. It proceeded from experiences in the world. Experience was to become elevated to a pre-eminent position: it was a guarantee of valid knowledge. Formal speculation was regarded as a pallid and misleading substitute for personal acquaintance with phenomena. It is the personal experience of those best qualified in our circle of knowledge to have experience, to tell us what is. Now what does thinking about the experience of those persons come to, compared to directly and personally feeling it as they feel it? The philosophers are dealing in shades, while those who live and feel know truth.  [6]  The real world was the experience of actual man and women and not abbreviated and shorthand descriptions of it that we call knowledge. The business of research is to understand the social world, and the social world is itself manufactured by the practical experience of those who live in it. Practical experiences themselves are responses to situations and problems, and they change as those problems change. Sociology is not devoted to the study of states but of process, of things and people in change. It must be so organized that it can observe and report processes over time. It must also be so organized that it can reach those processes practically and not by surmise and logic alone. The most effective research strategy is one that requires sociologists to participate personally in the world which they would analyse. Without such participation, knowledge is not experience but an uncertain commentary on experience. City life and urbanization were analysed by a collection of master forms which had been borrowed from biology. They were represented as the workings of an ecological order. Ecology is an emphasis on the patterns and organized changes which are produced by different species living together in the same physical territory. Whatever else men are, they are also animals, and as such they exhibit the effects of physical aggregation and of their habitat.  [7]  People are quite capable of detaching themselves from their own territories; they display rational behaviour; they can organise themselves into institutions which impose a distinct order; their works are modified by an elaborate technology; their activities are shaped by conscious planning; and they are governed by a symbolism which interprets and changes what they do. The city is not merely an artefact, but an organism. Its growth is, fundamentally and as a whole, natural, i.e. uncontrolled and un-designed. The forms it tends to a ssume are those which represent and correspond to the functions it is called upon to perform. The emergence of Chicago itself was explained by what came to be known as the zonal hypothesis, the contention that cities evolve in a series of concentric zones of activity and life. At the very centre is the business district which is typified by a small residential population and high property values. About it is a zone of transition whose population is fluid and poor, whose housing is deteriorating and whose stability is threatened by the encroaching business district. About that zone, in turn, are areas of working-class housing, middle-class housing, and, on the fringes, suburbia. Each zone is itself composed of diverse natural areas which abut on one another. They are natural because they are not entirely intended, because they manifest a rough correspondence to the territorial division of species in nature. It was found that there was massive concentration of pathological behaviour in the zone in transition. Partly because of its great visibility, such behaviour appeared to be confined to a limited territorial belt. Within that belt there was a piling-up of all those phenomena that are conventionally identified as social problems: mental disorder, prostitution, suicide, alcoholism, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, crime, disease and poverty. The incidence of pathology could be plotted with data collected from court records, census reports, and special surveys. Deviance may have been present elsewhere but it was hugely conspicuous in the transitional zone. The Zone in transition was taken to be unruly. It housed people who were unaccustomed to one another, to city life, and to America. Lacking substantial resources and deserting much that had been familiar, they were required to establish a way of life in a difficult and shifting environment. One of the prime problems which they faced was the sheer array of different worlds around them. When the inner composition and external relations of those worlds appeared unstable, the whole invited the descri ption of social disorganisation. Disorganization was a face of moral dissensus: the degree to which the members of a society lose their common understandings, i.e. the degree to which consensus is undermined, is the measure of a societys state of disorganization.  [8]  Disorganization also characterized the fragmented, the fluid, and the anonymous elements of urban life: contacts are extended, heterogeneous groups mingle, neighbourhoods disappear, and people, deprived of local and family ties, are forced to live under loose, transient and impersonal relations.  [9]   Integral to the conception of disorganization was the companion idea of weak social control. Those who stressed internal disorder could cite numerous obstructions to social control. Moral habits could not be properly implanted. People were neither effectively curbed, nor could they curb one another. They did not know each other well, formed few commitments to the area or to its population, were confused by moral diversity, and were loath to intervene in the affairs of their fellows. Morality could not be taken for granted. It became relativistic and circumstantial, readily adapted for selfish purposes, permitted the evolution of extenuating accounts. More particularly, its influence could not extend very far. Those entitled to exercise moral claims were confined to the family and immediate neighbours, all other becoming moral strangers.  [10]  Their lives had been punctuated by cultural discontinuities which became especially taxing for the second generation. Morally displaced, e conomically and politically peripheral, they might innovate new modes of social organization. Most typically they created a social order which corresponded to neither the old world nor the new but was a shifting amalgam of both.  [11]  They also improvised new styles of behaviour and morality which could well embrace delinquency as a possible solution to the dilemmas of exclusion and impotence.  [12]  Crime and delinquency were, thus, explained principally by the effects of the isolation of certain natural areas. They became a kind of surrogate social order, an alternative pattern, which replaced the workings of conventional institutions.  [13]  Their forms were themselves explained as a functional response to deprivation, to the social and moral structures imported by immigrants, and to the experience of growing up in the inner city. Deprived of political control and economic resources, first and second generation immigrants produced their own shadow politics and shadow economy. Children raised in the crowded zone in transition led an intensely public life, playing with others on the street, forming into small groups which eventually crystallized into gangs. Such exposure placed the child under constant surveillance from others. From an early age he was awarded a communal identity and reputation. In an insecure social environment, the preservation of reputation acquired strategic importance. What is significant is the persistence of tradition in the zone in transition. Ideas of conduct are passed on from generation to generation of boys living the public lives of the street; traditions of delinquency are preserved and transmitted through the medium of social contact with the unsupervised play group and the more highly organized delinquent and criminal gangs.  [14]   Theories of punishment Each society has its own way of social control for which it frames certain laws and also mentions the sanctions with them. These sanctions are nothing but the punishments. In primitive society punishment was left to the individuals wronged or their families, and was vindictive or retributive: in quantity and quality it would bear no special relation to the character or gravity of the offence. Ordinarily there would arise the idea of proportionate punishment, of which the characteristic type is an eye for an eye. The second stage was punishment by individuals under the control of the state, or community; in the third stage, with the growth of law, the state took over the primitive function and provided itself with the machinery of justice for the maintenance of public order. Henceforward crimes are against the state, and the exaction of punishment by the wronged individual is illegal (compared to the earlier lynch law). Even at this stage the vindictive or retributive character of punishment remains, but gradually, and especially after the humanist government under thinkers like Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, new theories began to emerge. Two chief trains of thought have combined in the condemnation of primitive theory and practice. On the one hand the retributive principle itself has been very largely superseded by the protective and the reformative; on the other punishment s involving bodily pain have become objectional to the general sense of society. Consequently corporal and even capital punishment occupy a far less prominent position, and tend everywhere to disappear. It began to be recognized also that stereotyped punishments, such as belonging to penal codes, fail to take due account of the particular condition of an offence and the character and circumstances of the offender. A fixed fine, for example, operates very unequally on rich and poor. With new criminological developments, particularly in the field of penology, it has been generally accepted that punishment must be in proportion to the gravity of the offence. It has been further suggested that reformation of criminal rather than his expulsion from society is more purposeful for his rehabilitation. With this aim in view, the modern penologists have focused their attention on individualization of offender through treatment methods. Today, old barbarous methods of punishment such as mutilation, branding, hanging, burning, stoning, flogging, amputation, starving the criminal to death or subjecting him to pillory or poetic punishment, etc. are completely abandoned  [15]  . Pillory was a method of corporal punishment under which the offender was subjected to public ridicule by exposing him to punishment in public places. Different poetic punishments were provided for different crimes. For example, cutting off hands for theft, taking off tongue for the offence of perjury, emasculation for rape, shaving off the head of a woman in case she committed a sex-crime or whipping her in public street and similar other modes were common forms of poetic punishment during the middle ages. Modern penologists have substituted new forms of penal sanctions for the old methods of sentencing. The present modes of punishment commonly include imposition of monetary fines, segregation of the offender temporarily or permanently through imprisonment or externment or compensation by way of damages from the wrong-doer in case of civil injury. The credit for introducing these penological changes goes to eminent criminologists, like Beccaria, Garofalo, Ferri, Tarde, Bentham, and o thers who formulated sound principles of punishment and made all out efforts to ensure rehabilitation of offenders so as to make them useful member of society once again. Garofalo strongly recommended transportation or banishment of certain types of offenders who had to be segregated from society. Modern penal systems, however, limit the punishment of transportation within the homeland so that potentiality of prisoners is utilized within the country itself. Of late, open jails, parole or probation are being intensively used for long-termers so that they can earn their livelihood while in the institution.  [16]   Though opinions have differed, as regards punishment of offenders varying from age-old traditionalism to recent modernism, broadly speaking four types of views can be distinctly found to prevail. Modern penologists prefer to call them theories of punishment, which are, The Deterrent theory; The Retributive theory; The Reformative theory; and The Preventive theory. Off late however, there has been the re-emergence of the Retributive theory in a diluted form and this is called as the Expiatory theory which was mainly in vogue in Ancient India and erstwhile Europe. Deterrent theory Earlier modes of punishment were, deterrent in nature. This kind of punishment presupposes infliction of severe penalties on offenders with a view to deterring them from committing crime. The founder of this theory, Jeremy Bentham, based his theory of determine on the principle of hedonism which said that a man would be deterred from committing a crime if the punishment applied was swift, certain and severe. This theory considers punishment as an evil, but is necessary to maintain order in the society. The deterrent theory also seeks to create some kind of fear in the mind of others by providing adequate penalty and exemplary punishment to offenders which keeps them away from criminality. Thus the rigor of penal discipline acts as a sufficient warning to offenders as also others. Therefore, deterrence is undoubtedly one of the effective policies which almost every penal system accepts despite the fact that it invariably fails in its practical application. Deterrence, as a measure of punishment particularly fails in case hardened criminals because the severity of punishment hardly has any effect on them. It also fails to deter ordinary criminals because many crimes are committed on the spur of the moment without any prior intention or design. The futility of deterrent punishment is evinced from the fact that quite a large number of hardened criminals return to prison soon after their release. They prefer to remain in prison rather than leading a free life in society. Thus the object underlying deterrent punishment is unquestionably defeated. This view finds support from the fact that when capital punishment was being publicly awarded by hanging the person to death in public places, many persons committed crimes of pick-pocketing, theft, assault or even murder in those men-packed gatherings despite the ghastly scene. Suffice it to say that the doctrine concerning deterrent punishment has been closely associated with the primitive theories of crime and criminal responsibility. In earlier times, crime was attributed to the influence of evil spirit or free-will of the offender. So the society preferred severe and deterrent punishment for the offender for his act of voluntary perversity which was believed to be a challenge to God or religion.  [17]   The punishment ought to be a terror to evil-doers and an awful warning to all others who might be tempted to imitate them. This contention finds support in Benthams observation, who said:- General prevention ought to be the chief end of punishment. An unpunished crime leaves the path of crime open, not only to the same delinquent but also to all those who may have some motives and opportunities for entering upon ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ we perceive that punishment inflicted on the individual becomes source of security for allà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Punishment is not to be regarded as an act of wrath or vengeance against a guilty individual who has given way to mischievous inclinations, but as an indispensable sacrifice to the society. Bentham, however, believed that offenders must be provided an opportunity for reformation by the process of rehabilitation. From this point of view, his theory may be considered forward looking as it was more concerned with the consequences of punishment rather than the wrong done, which being a post, cannot be altered.  [18]   Retributive Theory Retribution is the practice of getting even with a wrongdoer-the suffering of the wrongdoer is seen as good in itself, even if it has no other benefits. One reason for societies to include this judicial element is to diminish the perceived need for street justice, blood revenge and vigilantism. Retribution sets an important standard on punishment the transgressor must get what he deserves, but no more. Therefore, a thief put to death is not retribution; a murderer put to death is. In old times when a man injured another, it was considered to be the right of the injured person to take revenge on the person causing injury. Since the formulation of the Hammurabis Code, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth has been accepted by the general public that is the criminal deserves to suffer. Later this stance changed, Adam Smith, who is credited as the father of Welfare Economics, wrote extensively about punishment. In his view, an important reason for punishment is not only deterrence, b ut also satisfying the resentment of the victim. Moreover, in the case of the death penalty, the retribution goes to the dead victim, not his family. One great difficulty of this approach is that of judging exactly what it is that the transgressor deserves. For instance, it may be retribution to put a thief to death if he steals a familys only means of livelihood; conversely, mitigating circumstances may lead to the conclusion that the execution of a murderer is not retribution. The adherents of retributive theory, that punishment satisfies the feeling of revenge, are few in number. As has been observed by Lee, An act which is described as a crime today was looked upon as a private wrong previously. The wronged party and not the State or that which stood for the State brought suit. Professor Gillin  [19]  quotes many illustrations of the working of private vengeance. Citing an instance of punishment for adultery in ancient Germany he observers: Its punishment is instant and at the pleasure of the husband. He cuts off the hair of the offender, strips her and in the presence of her relations expels her from the house and pursues her with strips though the whole village. Salmond as regards the theory observes: Conception of retributive justice still retains a prominent place in popular thought. It flourishes also in the writings of the theologians and of those imbued with theological modes of thought and even among the philosophers it does not lack advocates. Kant, for example, expresses the opinion that punishment cannot rightly be inflicted for the sake or any benefit to be derived from it either by the criminal himself or by the society and that the sole and sufficient reasons and justification of it lies in the fact that evil has been done to him who suffers it. The death sentence has been used as an effective weapon of retributive justice for centuries. The justification advanced is that it is lawful to forfeit the life of a person who takes away anothers life. A person who kills another must be eliminated from the society and, therefore, fully merits his execution.  [20]  On the same lines, in the case of the Chopra children murder case where the Honble Supreme Court while upholding the death sentence observed as follows: The survival of an orderly society demands the extinction of the life of persons like Ranga and Billa who are a menace to social order and security. They are professional murderers and deserve no sympathy even in terms of the evolving standards of decency of a maturing soc

Social Mobility :: essays research papers

Forrest Gump coined the phrase â€Å"Life is like a box of chocolates† from the movie Forrest Gump, released in 1994. In 2001, I am putting a spin on it in terms I understand: The M&M class structure. Growing up, red candies were the most coveted of all the candy-covered chocolate treats. Once the Mars Chocolate Company introduced the blue M&M in ‘96, in became instantly popular. Even though they were not around as long as the others, they still took over the throne as the ruling upper class in the M&M world. The orange and green were a step down in the upper-middle and lower middle classes respectively. Last, and definitely least, were the yellow and brown ones: The lower class candies that no one cared about and had no fair chance of making it big. M&M’s serve as a parallel to what it is like to live in America and many other countries alike. There are many different social classes in America: The primary upper class, which have the most influence and power of all the classes. Then there are the corporate and working middle-classes. Thirdly there is the lower class. Upon being labeled within that specific group it is particularly difficult to move up the socioeconomic ladder, and obviously achievable to move down it. Once in a while, people can make leaps and bounds up the ladder (though it’s quite unlikely). A one famous television theme song depicts: â€Å"Movin’ on up.† The purpose of the research in this paper is to define these classes, explain what seems to be the reason mobility it is so difficult throughout these classes, and how and why these classes are formed.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   For the purpose of this paper it is important to properly define exactly what a socioeconomic class structure is. One definition that has been accepted more often than, according to Parkin is that class is a concept that allows us to organize our differences by grouping things or people in categories based on their resemblance, or non-resemblance to each other in accordance with a certain criteria (4). We are free to choose whatever criteria we like. Class is not a new subject. Social and economic groups have been around since man has been dominating the earth. In medieval and roman times right through until the industrial, status was defined by to how much land a person owned. Nevertheless, classes are made to categorize people: whether it is how much land a person owns or how big their SUV is.

Shakespeares As You Like It - Importance of the Secondary Characters

As You Like It:   The Importance of the Secondary Characters  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   As You Like It, by William Shakespeare, is a radiant blend of fantasy, romance, wit and humor. In this delightful romp, Rosalind stands out as the most robust, multidimensional and lovable character, so much so that she tends to overshadow the other characters in an audience's memory, making them seem, by comparison, just "stock dramatic types". Yet, As You Like It is not a stock romance that just happens to have Shakespeare's greatest female role. The other members of the cast provide a well-balanced supporting role, and are not just stereotypes. Characters whom Shakespeare uses to illustrate his main theme of the variations of love are all more than one-use cardboards, as they must be fully drawn to relate to life. Those characters most easily accused of having a stock one-dimensionality are those inessential to the theme but important to the plot and useful as convenient foils, such as Duke Frederick and Oliver de Boys. The assertion of the question deserves this quote: "You have said; but whether wisely or no, let the forest judge."   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   There is no doubt, either in the critical or play-going mind, that Rosalind is the "grandest of female roles" (Hazlitt). She encompasses a multitude of character brushstrokes, from the love struck maiden to the witty arch tongue to the steel-backboned princess to the fiery Wise One (Hazlitt). To add to the demands of the character Shakespeare adds in an exterior sex change and further makes Ganymede pretend to be Rosalind to Orlando. Though this kind of "boy acting a girl acting a boy acting a girl" kind of transmogrifications were not uncommon upon the Elizabethan stage, the kind of mind and acting portrayed ... ...bits of character that are definitely not stock, as in Charles' original concern for Orlando and Sir Martext's refusal to be made a fool of by Touchstone. These make them more than stock, but they are still as cardboard when compared to Rosalind.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   As You Like It contains as many characters as there are in life, but Rosalind is used as the vehicle for the Ideal. Her main supporting characters are full of life, and though not as much as Rosalind, it is still life for all of it. The less important characters have to be more one-sided to keep the plot uncluttered, but sometimes the one-dimensionality jars, as with Oliver. Rosalind's vibrancy would overshadow any other character, for to produce an Othello opposite her would create a conflict that this greatest of comedies does not need. Works Cited: Shakespeare, William. As You Like It. Bevington

The Introduction of the Concept of Humanism

The introduction of the concept of humanism greatly affected the Renaissance. The Humanistic influence shaped Renaissance art, writing, education and thinkers, its ideas were spread among all aspects of life. Machiavelli†s writings during the Renaissance were also affected by the ideas of humanism. His ideas reflect the thoughts of humanism in the way he thought governments and societies should be organized. Humanism†s influence on art was very obvious, it could be seen slowly infiltrating all art throughout the Renaissance. At the begging of the Renaissance, most art was very dark and dismal. The works portrayed people doing very menial labor, the people did not seem happy and their clothing was very plain. As the Renaissance progressed and humanism†s influence was more felt the paintings used lighter colors, the people in them were smiling and their clothing many times included gold trim or accents. The late Renaissance art also has a larger focus on religion, as humanism inspired people in many forms by the use of Humanism came about with the idea that a person should have a very rounded education covering many aspects of society especially history, geometry, and art. During the renaissance as the ideas of humanism spread, especially in its educational sense, more schools and universities were erected and a much higher percentage of people were formally educated. The universities helped many people become educated, and their education helped all of society because many of them went on to challenge their teacher†s rash observations of the world and make reat discoveries. This proliferation of education was also helped by many inventions such as the printing press which came about because people had more to live for. Many great thinkers during the renaissance were also affected by the ideas of humanism. More people were educated during the renaissance and therefore more intelligent people that simply thought about the world and ways to make it better. These thinkers included Da Vinci, Galileo, and Machiavelli. Leonardo da Vinci was one of the most influential people of the Renaissance. His notebooks were recovered and they contained schematics of machines that have just recently been invented. His inventions that were ahead of their time just show the inginuity and determination of people during the Renaissance. Another great thinker of the time was Galileo, His works showed the spirit of humanism greatly. Galileo†s works went beyond terrestrial research and his research was many times focused on Machiavelli†s writings were some of the most influential throughout the renaissance. His writings helped to reform ociety and government after the Renaissance and are still studied today as part of a â€Å"modern humanistic† course of study. His writings show humanistic thoughts in many ways, he shows this in his â€Å"ideal† orginization of a government this very well. The way he describes the perfect government is with well rounded departments. He also believed that a ruler should not mistreat his citizens, but not pamper them either. Machiavelli†s views were not completely humanistic, though, he did not feel that everyone should have a liberal humanistic education.

Experimental Confirmation Concerning a Widespread Misconception

Title The Photoelectric Effect – Experimental confirmation concerning a widespread Misconception in the Theory Gao Shenghan 1, Huan Yan Qi 1, Wang Xuezhou 1, Darren Wong 2, Paul Lee 2 and Foong See Kit 2 1 Raffles Institution, One Raffles Institution Lane, Singapore 575954 2 Natural Sciences and Science Education, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637616 Abstract The photoelectric effect is a well-known and widely taught field in many schools and institutions, yet it has been shown through theoretical arguments that there is a common error in the theory in which this topic is learnt and taught.The common theory is that the energy of the incoming photons must be greater than the work function of the emitter, and also that the difference between the energy of the photon and the work function of the emitter must be greater than the voltage applied between the emitter and collector multiplied by the elementary charge. This paper provides experimental evidence for the correct interpretation of the photoelectric effect in order to correct the misconception.In this paper, it was experimentally determined that both the work functions of the emitter and the collector metals must be taken into account in order for a current to be detected, contrary to conventional theory. Introduction The photoelectric effect is the phenomenon in which electrons are liberated from matter as a result of electromagnetic radiation being shone onto it. Generally, the phenomenon is only investigated in metals as they require lower energy from the radiation. The photoelectric effect was first discovered by Heinrich Hertz in 1887 and was explained by Albert Einstein in 1905.Einstein’s model quantized light as photons, each with energy E=h? where h is the Planck’s constant and ? is the frequency. Einstein also introduced the work function ? of a material, defined as the minimum amount of energy needed in order to liberate an electro n from the material. Through this model, the characteristic photoelectric equation eVs=h? -? can be derived where Vs is the stopping voltage. Eisntein’s explanation and relations of the photoelectric effect, shown below, has been taught in many schools all around the world today and is widely known. Theory In this section we present the derivation of the photoelectric equation eVs=h? ?. From the definition of ? , it follows that once an electron has been liberated, it has a maximum possible kinetic energy of h? -?. This also implies that h? >? for a liberation of electron. When an external voltage V is applied across the metals, there is a potential difference between the plates and thus when the electron needs KE>eV in order to to reach the collector plate. Combining the two relations, we get h? -? >eV. In the equality case, we call the voltage Vs, which is the is the minimum amount of voltage needed to be applied such that no current is recorded. ‘Conventional’ understanding of the photoelectric effect: Alternative’ understanding of the photoelectric effect: The above section uses the work function ? e referred to that of the emitter material, even when the emitter and collector are made of different materials. However, this is incorrect, and the derivation is shown below: When an electron is just emitted from surface of the emitter, it has potential energy ? e above the ground energy state. Conversely, when an electron is just emitted from surface of the collector, it has potential energy ? c. Hence, if ? e c, we note that there will be a potential energy difference of ? c-? e, even if there is no external voltage applied.This is known as the contact potential. ?c ?e ?c-? e Potential Energy Emitter Collector Figure 1: Energy diagram without an external voltage ?c ?e ?c-? e Potential Energy Emitter Collector Figure 1: Energy diagram without an external voltage Once a potential difference of V is applied between the two plates, ther e is an additional potential energy difference of eV. Collector ?e Potential Energy Emitter ?c ?c-? e+eV eV Figure 2: Energy diagram with an external voltage applied Collector ?e Potential Energy Emitter ?c ?c-? e+eV eV Figure 2: Energy diagram with an external voltage appliedHence, in the process of calculation, the difference in potential energy of the two plates is not eV, but instead ? c-? e+eV. Thus, replacing this into the Einstein equation, we get eVs=h? -? c. Hypothesis The two requirements for a current to be detected in a photoelectric effect experiment are: 1. h? >? e 2. h? -? c>eV Instead of the commonly-quoted: 1. h? >? e 2. h? -? e>eV Objective To provide actual experimental confirmation of the proposed model, in addition to the currently-available purely theoretical arguments, in order to determine the correct explanation for the photoelectric effect Apparatus and methodologyOverview The experiment consists of a vacuum chamber with thin Zn and Ni plates placed close t ogether but not touching. UV light was shone onto one of the metal plates and the resulting voltage between the two plates was measured. The materials of the emitter and the collector were changed, as well as the potential difference applied across the two plates. I-V curves were plotted and the results analysed. Experimental setup A cylindrical vacuum chamber at was pressure 1. 5? 10-2 mbars was used. The emitter and collector plate were placed in the vacuum chamber and were held up using polycarbonate discs, rods and metal rods.The metal plates were placed with the surfaces parallel to each other at a fixed distance of 1. 0 cm apart. The surfaces of the plates were sandpapered after each trial. The overall setup of the circuit is shown in Figure 8. Crocodile clips were then used to connect the emitter and collector to the external circuit which can be seen in Figure 9. A window made of sapphire glass was constructed in order to let UV light enter the chamber (Figure 6). This was a ligned with the metal plates such that the emitter received as much light as possible.A UV light source was placed directly outside the sapphire window and shone UV light onto the emitter plate. The measurements from these two voltmeters will then be used to plot an I-V curve for each of the configurations: Zinc-Zinc, Nickel-Nickel, Zinc-Nickel, Nickel-Zinc. In each of the above cases, the emitter is named before the collector. Figure 3: Vacuum chamber 3 4 5 6 Figure 3: Vacuum chamber 3 4 5 6 Figure 6: Sapphire window used to let UV light into the chamber Figure 6: Sapphire window used to let UV light into the chamber Figure 7: UV Light used Figure 7: UV Light used Figure 4: Close-up of polycarbonate disc, rod and metal rodFigure 4: Close-up of polycarbonate disc, rod and metal rod Figure 5: Close-up of the two metal plates Figure 5: Close-up of the two metal plates Figure 8: Overall view of setup Figure 8: Overall view of setup Figure 9: Circuit used for measurement of voltage and current Figure 9: Circuit used for measurement of voltage and current Wangxuezhou Results & Discussion Zn-Zn measurements Figure 10: I-V Graph for the Zn-Zn setup The nonzero photocurrent as measured at 0 V of applied voltage shows that the photon of the UV light has sufficient energy to cause emission of electrons from the Zn plate.Therefore this implies h? >? Zn. In particular, we see that: h? -eVstopping? 6. 63? 10-341. 60? 10-193. 00? 108254? 10-9-1. 10 ? 3. 88eV Zn Ni-Ni measurements The results for this setup produced values of zero photocurrent for all possible applied voltages. This means that the UV photon has less energy than the work function of Ni, in other words, h?