Clarifying Impressions of Capital Punishment There are many false impressions floating around through American society concerning the death penalty; this paper hopes to clarify some of the more prominent, noticeable ones. Does the death penalty deter? Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996, concluded: "Research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment and such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis..."(Hood 238) Reviewing the evidence on the relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and crime rates, a study conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 stated that "the fact that all the evidence continues to point in the same direction is persuasive a priori evidence that countries need not fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce their reliance upon the death penalty".(Edwin) Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 1999, 23 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.76 per 100,000 population, 43 per cent lower than in 1975. The total number of homicides reported in the country fell in 1999 for the third straight year.(Hood 253) One of the most important developments in recent years has been the adoption of international treaties whereby states commit themselves to not having the death penalty. Three such treaties now exist: * The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has now been ratified by 46 states. Seven other states have signed the Protocol, indicating their intention to become parties to it at a later date. * Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("European Convention on Human Rights"), which has now been ratified by 39 European states and signed by three others.
... world at this time, did not believe that the U.S. had a very strong military. A third effect the Battle of Midway had on World War II was that it stopped the Japanese from expanding their land. It could have been horrific if Japan became larger. Again, Japan attacked Midway because of an airplane attack that came from and aircraft carrier. The plan the Japanese came up with was simple but difficult to execute and did not work. Lastly American forces took out four aircraft carriers and won the Battle of Midway. The Battle of Midway was a large part in U.S. history and World War II.
On June 4th, a legendary battle took pace over the pacific sea. The battle of midway was the turning for America in World War 2. The air attacks of Japan and America would continue for many days. America won the battle and took out half of Japans carriers. It battle was a great victory for America, considering the fact that japan had much greater forces. This battle was the start of America taking control of the war over the pacific. This battle took place six months after japans first strike a Pearl Harbor. Many histories say this was the greatest air battle of all time. America not only proved that numbers didn’t matter, but showed that only leaders with clear eyes and soldiers with heart can win a battle of any size.
The Changing Role and Status of Women in Britain Since 1900 Before the Victorian era, women were deemed very much as second class citizens; any idea of women being anywhere near as equal to men would be having been thought ridiculous before this era. But the Victorian era was one of innovation and change, everything was questioned; religion, society and the idea of women being equal to men. But would British politics surely allow women the vote, many men thought that if women were allowed to vote, they might have been kicked out of office due to sheer weight of numbers. The idea of women suffrage began during the 1800s when many powerful land owners who were women thought why they should not have the vote when they are just as powerful and influential as many men. Entering this world at the same time was the lady philanthropist who wanted to go on a journey of self discovery; they found that going out to help people instead of remaining in their so called "domestic havens" was so much more fulfilling.
British Women's Independence at the end of 20th Century I believe that although women in general had made huge advances towards equality with men by the end of the twentieth century there were still many areas in which there was still very little equality. I also believe that in different groups in British society women have advanced in equality in different ways, and at different rates. In the workplace women have made advances towards equality, as the number of working women both married and un-married has been rising steadily since the 1980's. In some jobs such as teaching there are now a majority of working women, roughly 57% of teachers are women.
The Changing Role and Status of Women in Britain Since 1900 1. Before 1900, women had generally stayed in the home. From the Middle Ages to 17th Century, they had been involved in cottage industries like making gloves. Early in the industrialisation period, women were sent down coalmines, because they cost less, but later on when rules and regulations were set over hours and safety, women were pushed back into the home because men could work harder for longer hours. Around the end of the 19th Century teaching, nursing and shop work became more common professions for women, and for those who were well-educated, clerical work.
The United States is among the minority of nations that still practice capital punishment. Its support of the death penalty puts it in the company of nations which routinely violate human rights- countries such as China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In fact, United States is the only western democratic country that has not abolished the death penalty (http://karisable.com). Out of 195 nations in the world, 113 have outlawed capital punishment either in law or practice. Additionally, with the increasing number of executions, international organizations such as the European Union have expressed their deep concern about violation of human rights in the United States. Furthermore, Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the UN in 1948, prohibits the death penalty (http://www.amnestyusa.org). If we don’t follow the norms established across the community of nations, we stand to lose our moral autho...
In this paper I will argue for the moral permissibility of the death penalty and I am fairly confident that when the case for capital punishment is made properly, its appeal to logic and morality is compelling. The practice of the death penalty is no longer as wide-spread as it used to be throughout the world; in fact, though the death penalty was nearly universal in past societies, only 71 countries world-wide still officially permit the death penalty (www.infoplease.com); the U.S. being among them. Since colonial times, executions have taken place in America, making them a part of its history and tradition. Given the pervasiveness of the death penalty in the past, why do so few countries use the death penalty, and why are there American states that no longer sanction its use? Is there a moral wrong involved in the taking of a criminal’s life? Of course the usual arguments will be brought up, but beyond the primary discourse most people do not go deeper than their “gut feeling” or personal convictions. When you hear about how a family was ruthlessly slaughtered by a psychopathic serial killer most minds instantly feel that this man should be punished, but to what extent? Would it be just to put this person to death?
This essay will discuss the various views regarding the death penalty and its current status in the United States. It can be said that almost all of us are familiar with the saying “An eye for an eye” and for most people that is how the death penalty is viewed. In most people’s eyes, if a person is convicted without a doubt of murdering someone, it is believed that he/she should pay for that crime with their own life. However, there are some people who believe that enforcing the death penalty makes society look just as guilty as the convicted. Still, the death penalty diminishes the possibility of a convicted murderer to achieve the freedom needed to commit a crime again; it can also be seen as a violation of the convicted person’s rights going against the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Since the 1700’s forms of the death penalty have been used for one reason or another, but today some disagree with this judicial practice. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment imposed for murder or other capital offenses, and in Alabama a capital offense is murder with eighteen aggravating factors. In 1972 the Supreme Court moved away from abolition, holding that “the punishment of death does not invariably violate the constitution” (Bedau, Case against 2). Since 1900, in this country, there have been on the average more than four cases each year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder (Bedau 7) and because of these startling numbers people are against capital punishment. It is a horrible reality to convict an innocent person of a crime and even worse to put this person on death row. There are even more horrific stories, like the one of Roger Keith Coleman, who was executed in Virginia despite widely pu...
Between 1977 and 2010, an estimated 8,000 people were on Death Row in the US and out of those 8,000, more than 1,200 were actually executed (Siennick, 2012). Policy makers and scholars have been especially interested in whether the death penalty serves a crime-control function by deterring prospective murderers (Siennick, 2012). This debate on whether or not the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent is important to our society because we need to understand the impact of this ultimate and final punishment. Expectations of deterrence follow from the basic idea that potential murderers decide whether to kill after considering the benefits and costs of killing (Siennick, 2012). The Death Penalty as punishment can be a deciding factor to a potential murderer when they make the decision whether to kill someone or not. There is assorted evidence on whether or not this happens and there isn’t a chosen method to gather data that fully supports this idea.
In summary, Radelet & Borg (2000) draw three general observations from the data. First, there have been significant changes in the arguments made for and against the death penalty in the United States. While the case of cost is admittedly not as clear as the other areas, retribution has become the only real justification for capital punishment. Second, countries around the world have been, and continue to be, declining in their usage of the death penalty. Last, social science scholars are being listened to. More research is being published on key issues, and changes are being implemented, albeit seemingly slowly, in accordance with research conducted by criminologists.
that for each child a small payment was paid to the women to help keep