More handpicked essays just for you.
The giver symbolism paragraph
Analysis of themes of the novel the giver by lois lowry
Analysis of themes of the novel the giver by lois lowry
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The giver symbolism paragraph
The Punishable Assignment Maybe this is something to think about. Someone has an assignment. S/he is told that it is an honor but some rules make the person alone and hurt. Lois Lowry's book, The Giver, the Chief Elder, old and honorable, selects Jonas, a member of the utopian community to be the 'The Receiver of Memory.' But she says and the rules states that Jonas's training will involve lots of pain, that he is allowed to lie, and cannot take any medications. Jonas's assignment of his is more like a punishment instead of an honor like the Chief Elder told him. One of the main reasons why Jonas's assignment is a punishment is because he is allowed to lie and he may not take his stirring pills. Like in The Giver, the rules of the training
The Punishment Imperative, a book based on the transition from a time when punishment was thought to be necessarily harsh to a time where reform in the prion system is needed, explains the reasons why the grand social experiment of severe punishment did not work. The authors of the book, Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, strongly argue that the previous mindset of harsh punishment has been replaced due to political shifts, firsthand evidence, and spending issues within the government. Clear and Frost successfully assert their argument throughout the book using quantitative and qualitative information spanning from government policies to the reintegration of previous convicts into society.
Throughout his training, the Giver gifts Jonas with many good memories to offset some of the horrific memories. The memory of war in particular is too traumatizing for Jonas to handle, no matter how many good memories the Giver can entrust to him. For example, the passage describes, “From the distance. Jonas could hear the thud if cannons. Overwhelmed by pain, he lay there in the fearsome stench for hours, listened to men and animals die, and learned what warfare meant.
What would the criminal justice system be without punishment? Perhaps, the criminal justice system would not serve a function or cease to exist. Punishment is one of the main facets of the criminal justice system. It holds such significance that it even reflects the beliefs and values of a particular society. Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) once said “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” (Pollock, 2010: 315). Punishment has been around since the beginning of civilization. With its rich history, the concept of punishment has been analyzed by some of the most renowned theorists, some of which include Jeremy Bentham, Cesare Beccaria, Adolphe Quetelet and André-Michel Guerry (Pollock, 2010: 318). Once found guilty of an offense the type of punishment must be determined. There are many different rationales used to answer why it is necessary to inflict punishment. Rationales for punishment include retribution, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. To better understand these rationales ethical systems such as utilitarianism, ethical formalism and ethics of care can be used. The general public should be knowledgeable about punishment, even more so should professionals in the criminal justice field because they are directly linked to it in some way.
The criminal justice system has been in place the United States for centuries. The system has endured many changes throughout the ages. The need for a checks and balances system has been a priority for just as long. Federal sentencing guidelines were created to help create equal punishments among offenders. Judges are given the power of sentencing and they are not immune to opinions, bias, and feelings. These guidelines are set in place to allow the judge to keep their power but keep them within a control group of equality. Although there are a lot of pros to sentencing guidelines there are also a lot of cons. Research has shown that sentencing guidelines have allowed the power to shift from judges to prosecutors and led to sentencing disparity based on sex, race, and social class.
In his novel Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys, Dr. Victor M. Rios aims to demonstrate the catastrophe of criminalization, the flops of using cruel and humiliating punishments that attempt to “‘correct’ and ‘manage’ marginalized youths” (p. 23), and to display the consequences that these practices will have on the paths that teenagers take. He does this by documenting parts of his experience in observing forty boys of Black and/or Latino who are “heavily affected by criminal justice policies and practice” (p. 8). Then, he clarifies how these flaws impacted the boys in these situations. The aim of this essay is to summarize Dr. Rios’ observations and analyze and critique the primary arguments made in the book.
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
Since the early settlers first stepped foot on what is now the United States of America, capital punishment has been reserved as a form of punishment for the people who have committed some of society’s most heinous crimes. Recently, support of capital punishment has begun to erode due to the advancements of DNA technology and groups, such as the Innocence Project. Capital punishment, however, remains to be an appropriate form of punishment for someone convicted of capital crimes, and may be effective in deterring such offenses.
The first is a reminder of the basic argument behind retribution and punishment that guilty person deserve to be punished. Most American citizens argue that it should not matter if you are rich or poor; one should suffer for their crime, and to suffer in a way suitable for the crime. Every criminal should get punish for the crime that they commit and in the case of a homicide the defendant deserves the capital punishment.
Punishment occurs to individuals who break the law. It is also used to maintain the level of crime and to protect community members in Australia. To determine that society is content with maintaining the crime rate, this essay will discuss punishment types given to offenders and how society justifies the use punishment. Additionally, providing a brief overview of the community correction and prions rates to show that communities prefer to incarcerate lawbreakers. Highlighting that crime rates are being maintained by looking at the personal crime rate for assault before concluding that Australian society feel safe enough to allow the criminal justice system to sustain the crime rate.
Herbert Morris and Jean Hampton both view punishment as important to a healthy society. However, their views on what kind of role does punishment plays in a healthy society are vastly different. Morris believes that when one commits a crime they “owe a debt to the society and the person they wronged” and, therefore the punishment of that person is retributive, and a right for those who committed this wrong (270). Hampton, on the other hand, believes that punishment is a good for those who have strayed in the path of being morally right. Out of the two views presented, I believe that Hampton view is more plausible, and rightly places punishment as a constructive good that is better suited for society than Morris’s view.
Explain sentencing and the theories behind it. Include the sentencing models and how they are supposed to work.
The murder scenes in both Match Point and Crime and Punishment, represent the constant struggle between fantasy and reality, nihilism and faith. Nihilism is the rejection of traditional views, there is no God; therefore, there is no meaning to life. Whether an individual believes in God or a higher power, determines their relationship to moral behavior. If there is no God, then one can get away with anything: murder, bend and break rules, satisfy urges, give in to dark desires, live a double life, and smooth over problems. There are no existential consequences, assuming one can overcome their moral conscience. The opposite is true in regard to the “fantasy” outlook of society. In the presence of a higher power, virtues such as honesty, integrity, forgiveness, kindness, and compassion, demand that one must fulfill this moral obligation. Woody Allen, uses Match Point as a reminder that the amoral perspective is the reality of society, while the moral vision is the ideal. Woody Allen and Dostoyevsky’s characters represents these two contrasting ideologies. Allen’s character Chris, reflects the personage that Dostoyevsky attempted to represent in Crime and Punishment, a character so disconnected from morality that he can get away with murder. These characters are tools that reflect the ideal of “fantasy versus reality” of their creators. Dostoyevsky created his character to represent the presence of justice in a world lacking a higher power. Whereas, Woody Allen uses the character of Chris to relate the nihilist theme: the world exist without a higher power or a moral justice system; therefore, there is no reason to conform to social constraints. Match Point challenges the ideals presented in Crime and Punishment, that one has to b...
There are many explanations for what punishment characterises. For Emile Durkheim, punishment was mainly an expression of social solidarity and not a form of crime control. Here, the offender attacks the social moral order by committing a crime and therefore, has to be punished, to show that this moral order still "works". Durkheim's theory suggests that punishment must be visible to everyone, and so expresses the outrage of all members of society against the challenge to their collective values. The form of punishment changes between mechanic (torture, execution) and organic (prison) solidarity because the values of society change but the idea behind punishing, the essence, stays the same - keeping the moral order intact not decreasing crime. Foucault has a different view of the role or function of punishment. For Foucault, punishment signifies political control. His theory compares the age of torture with the age of prison, concluding that the shift from the former to the latter is done due to changes in society and new strategies needed for the dominance of it by the rulers. Punishment for Foucault is a show of power first brutal and direct (torture), then organised and rational (prison). Punishment does not get more lenient because of humanitarian reasons but because the power relations in society change.
The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.
they? - do two wrongs make a right?) but why is it so important that