1. Upon the conclusion of the assigned reading, several questions came to mind. Regarding the patronage system, I became curious as to when and where it began and ended. Also, did it ebb and flow with different conditions through the years? For example, when agriculture was doing well, were clients in fewer numbers than other times? Are there any specific examples of times where a patron looked favorably on his clients and was able to bring them up in rank, or even offer more of a friendship than a dutiful deed? 2. In the readings, I have found that it is interesting that there were so many differences between theories and actuality. For example, the punishment system, if you were of higher class, or and honestiore, many of your punishments
compromise of the two theories. There was also some debate over the power of the
There are two types of patronage: private and public. Private patronage was when the person would give gifts of food, money, livestock such as sheep or cow and some allotted land to help grow crops, they also gave legal aid to the sick and wounded. Public patronage was when the person was a protector of a religious group or guild. In return for the services of public/private help the client of the patron would help with religious services. Provide an escort for the patron to keep them safe and provide political support, these services would often carry on for several generations. The patron-client relationship was hierarchical; the client was usually a peasant or inferior class compared to their patron counterpart who was usually a member of the upper class, and because of this the patron was usually the person to determine the terms and conditions of this
...icial Eye to create in-store cinema venues’ [online] screendaily. Available from http://www.screendaily.com/hmv-curzon-artificial-eye-to-create-in-store-cinema-venues/5000273.article [accessed on the 30-3-2014]
morals which is receiving enlightenment in first hand. But they had different ways of delivery
The theory of punishment as a whole is worth investigating as well. My largest argument against the theory of punishment is that it is not a fair or just operation. The concept of punishment is a way to intentionally harm people. This is not a just way of making a case right, or making a victim heal from any crime they may have been a part of. The victim is not compensated for the damage or harm caused to them. Punishment, in the retributive theory will really only do good in that it deters people from committing crime because they are scared of the punishment- but this simply does not work as well as it should. The restitution theory does not address the issue of who is entitled to cause harm to others, or punish said criminals.
This essay will also approach the weaknesses of these theories. It will look at the nature/nurture debate and how most of the theories fail to take into account social and environmental factors that contribute to an individuals behaviour. It will also look at the idea of 'determinism' (Lombroso, 1876), the idea that people have absolutely no control over there actions so shouldn't be punished, but rather, treated.
This system, therefore, had two effects. In my opinion, Right and wrong are inherited in the nature of things, and people cannot deny that. The punishment must be proportional to the crime. There should be as few laws as possible. With neoclassical criminology, people are to be protected from actions that would kill them an in my opinion it is not just.
...e. This is incorporated in the lesson by creating a task which students compare a medieval punishment to a contemporary punishment, allowing them with evidence to argue which society is more desirable.
Ideology, Knowledge and the escalation of new ideas led to a better life and society that made positive impacts on Western Civilizations. There were many idea’s that were explored and implement into the daily lives of the people and for the most part it turned out to be a good impact. Although there were some bad ideas that caused suffering to the society at the time. They learned from what they witnessed and created something that would work better for the most part. In this essay I am going to use some primary sources that support my idea that society benefited from the new “ideas” but I will also use an example to explain how it caused a negative impact too.
The strong points of the theory is that it is morally acceptable for everyone. Many people will believe that what God says is true, and everyone follows the proper protocol to please God; a variety of people can come together and come to a general consensus on certain rules because it commanded by God. Many people believe that God is almighty, and everything he commands is for benevolence. It brings uniformity because everyone is expected to be held to certain principles and fulfill certain obligation; everyone has an example to follow by looking at the people around them. It brings people together because everyone has ...
Theory is an important part of discovering and understanding why people commit crime. It is difficult to understand how a prejudice or bias towards someone can be linked to criminal behavior. The general theory of crime coined by Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson can be applied to hate crime. The general theory of crime explains that people are born pre-disposed to crime and that they have natural tendencies to commit crime (Tibbetts, 2015, p 161). The only difference between those who are criminals and non-criminals would be their self-control (Tibbetts, 2015, p 161). Self-control is a key component to the general theory of crime. Not everyone acts on his or her thoughts of someone criminally, or even at all. The difference between people who do not choose to commit crime, would be their difference in self-control. People who commit crime have low self-control, and people who are law-abiding citizens have high self-control.
First off, before getting into all the theorists ideas and values, one must comprehend the fundamental principles of moral reasoning. Pojman discusses moral realism and states “moral facts exist and are part of the fabric of the universe; they exist independently
The two philosophers both construct different frameworks for understanding how this inconsistency and vice arise.
To begin with, crime was defined as evil between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and offenders used to be punished in a very barbaric way. The systems of punishments used to be bloody and inhuman due to the fact that criminals would get punished in public by different methods such as ; burning of their hands, whipping, hanging and in more serious cases like murders, the criminal would be burned alive or beheaded in public for his/her
...his person to engage in many crimes. On the other hand the stain theory explains why people start to commit crime. For example, when an individual fails to achieve their goals in life, this individual may choose a different way which might be illegal to achieve their goals. I believe both of these theories are accurate. I also think that it is important to look at these theories to try to fix this problem that can happen to anyone.