Recent orders
Death penalty also known as capital punishment is defined as the pre- meditated
Death Penalty
Introduction
Death penalty also known as capital punishment is defined as the pre- meditated and planned taking of human life by the government because the legally convicted individual committed a crime against humanity that requires such a punishment. Death penalty is a topic which often raises ethical issues and many people have stood to oppose the judgment basing their facts on human values and the dignity of human life. Others have also risen to support the practice also basing their arguments of social norms, certain believe and the weight of the crime committed. Death penalty is indeed a hot topic and people have varied views concerning the practice weather it should be stopped or should continue even to the future.Cons for death penaltyAmnesty international which is a strong opposer of the death penalty argues that, the death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. This practice is premeditated and is killing in cold-blood human beings by the state as a way of exercising justice. They further urge that it is a violation of human right; the right to life, it is cruel, inhuman and humiliating penalty. Justification can never exist in a cruel treatment or torture. Ideally the death penalty diminished everybody, increases disrespect to human life and offers a serious irony whereby the society is taught that killing is wrong by killing. Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty provides that Death penalty has no credible evidence that it will deter crime more effectively as compared with life imprisonment. States which have death penalty as a way of punishment as well have crime rates or murder cases as those states without the death penalty punishment. Additionally, there is no significant change in crime or murder in States that have abolished capital punishment. This implies that death penalty has no deterrent effect and Science has thoroughly discredited the claims that execution deters a given number of murderers.Opposes greatly discredit Revenge or retribution. They argue that the desire for revenge is not the rational response to a crime although it is mostly understood by some people as the lowest human emotion one can express. Killing a person who he skilled somebody very close to you is just a way of continuing the cycle of violence which finally destroys the offended and the avenger. The death penalty portrays revenge and in fact it solidifies social solidarity against the lawbreakers and forms an alternative for private revenge for the harmed.Capital punishment is not cost effective as compared with other forms of punishments. Although executing a person is less expensive than life imprisoning him/ her, the costs incurred in the courts of law for appeals are equally very high and amounts to a net expense to the state and taxpayers. Or we can argue it in a different way that death penalty is clearly more expensive than an alternative method of handling the same crime with a lesser punishment. It is lengthy, has complicated trials, and everything needed for a ordinary trial l is as well needed for a death penalty trial but only twice as much is needed for the death penalty. So it is not cost effective form of punishment as many try t urge.United States department of justice produced a report that showed that between 2001 and 2006 48 % of the defendants in court whose penalty could be death penalty were African Americans. This is an indication that death penalty is a biased punishment that is targeting the minority over racial grounds. It is completely un acceptable because there is n no justice in killing some criminals and leaving others who have committed the same crimes on racial basing(Jamie Fellner & Sarah Toft, 2006).Capital punishment brings more sorrow to a larger family society. The family of the executed is innocent but also sufferer the pain as the family of the innocent who was murdered. This perpetrates more hatred and harm among the families involved. Instead of bringing protection it creates more violence.Reasons for capital punishment
Clark County, an Indiana prosecuting attorney general supports death penalty by arguing that those who commit murder with aggravating circumstances must meet the ultimate punishment that the society has to give. Life is sacred and it needs to be protected and respected at all costs. The life of an innocent murder is made cheap if the victim is not stopped by the society from ever killing again. So the society sentencing the murderer to the ultimate death penalty they are protecting themselves or are portraying the act of self defense so as to protect the innocent.Prison is meant for three purposes first, it separates the criminals from the r general public, second, serves as a form of punishment, and third, the punishment is intended to rehabilitate the prisoners so that when they are released from jail they will not again commit similar crimes the imprisoned then and risk being sentenced to prison again. Capital punishment is logically based on the fact that prisons are meant for rehabilitating the convicts who will finally be released from prison at some time and not for life imprisoned criminals. They should be eliminated by execution.Crime rate increases because the justice system does not work well. Millions of people has been killed and many will continue to be killed. Time magazine recorded that 2000000 people are beaten in the United States of America whereby some are knifed, shot or assaulted. Crime growth has been rising and is expected to raise more because there is leniency going together with the rising number of victims of crime (Jamie Fellner & Sarah Toft, 2006). Many loop holes created for offenders has increased the crime rate drastically. Capital punishment is the only one which will scare people and help decline the crimes.Constitutionality: execution method of punishment may result in pain either as a punishment or as an unavoidable effect death. However, this does not establish the kind of objectively intolerable risk of harm. Courts argue that execution is not cruel and the society has adopted a more humane way of carrying it out (Jamie Fellner & Sarah Toft, 2006).Capital punishment acts as a deterrent of crime and this worked for 27 states. In America, states which abolished death penalty had a 7% rise of murder cases as compared to those states which were keen on capital punishment (Jamie Fellner & Sarah Toft, 2006). People fear death and as a result they will avoid committing serious crimes which will make them be judged over murder hence death penalty. Death penalty acts as a treat to the criminal even though it is not excessive, unnecessary penalty for those who commit murder intentionally in premeditation.Capital punishment is an eye for an eye. People may argue that death penalty tries to disregard and brutalize the society while others may argue that the penalty is legal for it is like an “eye for an eye”. Punishment differs from crime in this wise, punishment is legal while crime is not. People don’t get brutal because of punishments but because of failure to seriously punch crime. Putting a criminal in prison for life does not sound brutal enough to deter the society from doing the crime again as death penalty could do. Death penalty is irrevocable and that is why many people fear it (Jamie Fellner & Sarah Toft, 2006).Reasons for and against Religions have different views concerning the punishment especially death penalty. There are contradictory belies individual religions have for example the bible commends death penalty and at the same time it states that murder is not allowed and that salvation must be offered. Due to varied believes and nor all people are Christian the role of religion in capital punishment is unclear. This is the reason the church and state must be separated.Each person has a subjective view on the morality of killing a person. Over one’s life, morals and believes can change either for the better or for worse. Executing a person denies him a chance to change for the better and also keeping him life may give him a chance of even being more violent and killing many innocent people.
Death of Osama Bin Laden Effect on Al-Qaeda
Death of Osama Bin Laden: Effect on Al-Qaeda
Student’s Name
University Affiliation
Death of Osama bin Laden: Effect on Al-Qaeda
International security is a challenging administrative task for governments because of the discrete nature in which terrorism networks run their terror activities. Terrorism is a post 9/11 security threat that affects all nations (Kepel & Milelli, 2008). Even advanced technology-based security equipment lack mechanisms to check radical activities since terror groups use discreet warfare techniques. The western world correlated the death of Osama bin Laden with the end of violent extremity associated with his Al-Qaeda network. However, the US-led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to flush out terrorists opened the Osama network. This is true since the attack failed to eliminate the core leadership of Al-Qaeda. The United States believed to have destabilized the Al-Qaeda network through the death of Osama, but the new network’s face reveals otherwise. Al-Qaeda’s leadership structure was decentralized to hide from security systems following Osama’s death, but the network has expanded into different political territories from its invincible state to launch terror attacks worldwide.
Foundation of Al-Qaeda
Osama founded Al-Qaeda in 1988, in Saudi (Kepel & Milelli, 2008). The network took advantage of the failed state of Somalia to established discreet training grounds from the early 1990s. In 1993, during the Battle of Mogadishu, Al-Qaeda killed American troops (Zimmerman, 2013). However, the network remained underground until 1996 when Osama declared war on the United States for supporting Israel’s aggressive occupation of the Middle East. By 2001, Al-Qaeda had created a bureaucratic system of affiliated networks in Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Uzbekistan (Kepel & Milelli, 2008). Al-Qaeda’s leadership structure fell under Ayman al-Zawahiri, who decentralized the organization by forging new alliances with independent like-minded violent groups in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. “In this respect, since 2002, Al-Qaeda has embraced a grand plan for itself that was defined as much by al-Zawahiri as bin Ladin” (Canadian Security Intelligence Service, 2013, p. 31). Affiliates under the new leadership structure run a vast network of terrorists who are trained to thrive in destabilized political states with the intention of creating sharia states.
Al-Qaeda Today
Empirical studies assert that there is a connection linking most of the destabilized nations with Al-Qaeda activities (Ward, 2013). This explains why Osama selected the failed state of Somalia as a training ground for terror groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Political instability is a precursor for clandestine military operations, but the modern Al-Qaeda is operating in strong democracies in order to destabilize these states (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Jones, 2008). For instance, the Taliban switched their operations from Afghanistan to Pakistan since the Asian nation is more discreet and stable than Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the Arab spring exposed the increased mobility and strength of the Al-Qaeda networks that rallied protests and caused violence in Egypt, Mali, Tunisia, Libya, and Syria (Joscelyn, 2013). Mobility of terrorism groups has become easier because of the consistent chain of destabilized states stretching from Asia, through the Arab to Africa. The most afflicted states include: Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Mali (Rosenberg & Coker, 2010). Failed states create a readily accessible pool of Al-Qaeda terrorists that support international insurgency operations, which threaten international security.
The goal of terror organizations is to replace democracies with sharia laws. This happened in Egypt, whereby after the protests, the people were offered two Islamic choices to choose from as leader (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Jones, 2008). However, when the winning group tried to carry out sharia law, mass protests erupted again, and the Egyptian military ousted the triumphant government (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Jones, 2008). The appointment of Nasir al Wuhayshi as the general manager by Ayman al Zawahiri streamlined terrorism in North Africa and Arab states (Rosenberg & Coker, 2010). New appointments increased militant operations of Al-Qaeda in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Rebellion offers the Al-Qaeda an easy access to build secret networks that train terrorism activities intended to set up sharia states.
In conclusion, terrorism is thriving under the leadership of Ayman al-Zawahiri, who replaced Osama. The new leader decentralized Al-Qaeda, and he productively established independent training branches across many destabilized states. The readily available pool of trained terrorists ready to join the Al-Qaeda organization threatens international security. The insurgency network has successfully established sharia law governents in some of the Arab and North African states. Security is a collective duty for all states; however, if the consistent Al-Qaeda political activities in Syria, Egypt, and Libya remain unchecked, terrorism activities would increase in Europe and America. Finally, the death of Osama opened a new invincible opportunity for Al-Qaeda to run discreetly in destabilizing states to start sharia law.
References
Canadian Security Intelligence Service. (2013). The future of Al-Qaeda: Results of a foresight project (Publication No. 2013-05-01). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Press.
Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M., & Jones, C. (2008). Assessing the dangers of illicit networks. Why Al-Qaeda may be less threatening than many think. Journal of International Security, 33(2), 7-44. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2008.33.2.7
Joscelyn, T. (2013, November 21). Al-Qaeda and the threat in North Africa. The Long War Journal. Retrieved from http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/11/al_qaeda_and_the_thr_1.php
Kepel, G., & Milelli, J. (2008). Al Qaeda in its own words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rosenberg, M., & Coker, M. (2010, January 5). “Mobility helps Al-Qaeda extend reach.” The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB126255817317714101
Ward, J. (2013). Brand name terror: Al-Qaeda affiliate organizations and local instability. Stanford University. Retrieved from http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/785/Ward_Jessica_
Thesis_Final.pdf
Zimmerman, K. (2013). The Al-Qaeda network: A new framework for defining the enemy. (Publication No. 2013-09-10). Washington, DC: Critical Threats Organization. Retrieved from American Enterprise Network website: http://www.aei.org/files/2013/09/10/-the-al-qaeda-network-a-new-framework-for-defining-the-enemy_133443407958.pdf
Death of a Salesman. A play by Arthur Miller
Death of a Salesman – A play by Arthur Miller
Name:
Course:
Tutors’ name:
Date:
Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Death of a Salesman – A play by Arthur Miller
Arthur Miller is a leading American playwright who has written several plays that take place in the family and home setting and are especially noted for the modern-day moral and political statements that they make. “Death of a Salesman” is arguably the most widely read and praised of all of Arthur Millers’ works. Arthur Miller was born in New York City. His father was a Jew who moved from Poland to the United States. His mother was however born in New York, but her father came from the same town as Miller. The unexpected misfortunes in his family are what gave him the desire to change hence writing his best selling work that included “Death of a Salesman” and “Timebends: A Life”
In “Death of a Salesman”, Arthur Miller looks critically at the concept of the ‘American Dream’ of making it big simply through the idea that one is ‘well liked’ or through one’s ‘personal attractiveness’, as the major character in the play puts it as. Miller has also attempted to put his play across as a tragedy, but it does not quite fit in as a tragedy since the supposed ‘hero’ in the play is not quite a hero to anyone but quite the opposite, a failure in every sense of the word.
The play looks at the lives of the Loman family – Willy Loman, an elderly traveling salesman, who lives in a world of false hopes and dreams, who is living a life of illusions and delusions, and who eventually commits suicide in an attempt to redeem himself in his family’s eyes after failing miserably to achieve his American Dream of prosperity and riches; Biff Loman, Willy’s thirty four-year old son, who represents Willy’s tragic side. Biff tries hard to live up to his father’s hopes and dreams of living the American Dream but an event he witnessed involving his father’s marital infidelity makes him loose his trust and belief in his father and he becomes a drifter out West on a cattle ranch. In the end he is the only member of the family who snaps out of the false life that his father has been attempting to instill in the whole family as he comes to realize that he is just an ordinary man, a ‘dime a dozen’ and not a ‘great leader of men’ as his father wants him to think; Happy Loman, Willy’s thirty two-year old son, who stands for Willy’s ambitious side.
Happy has forever lived in his elder brother’s shadow and is always attempting to gain his father’s admiration and approval. Yet he is the only member of the family who is a success story of sorts. He is the assistant to an assistant buyer in a department store but deems himself a very important person because he owns a car and lives in his own apartment. Like his father he has low morals and sleeps with call girls. Unlike his brother, he fails to see reality and appears to be the one member of the family who will attempt to achieve his father’s desires and ambitions. He says of his father ”…He had a good dream, the only dream a man can have – to come out number one man. He fought it out here, and this where I’m gonna win it for him.”; and last but not least, Linda Loman, Willy’s loving and loyal wife who has stood by Willy for many years. She is aware of Willy’s delusions and illusions but she suffers through it all quietly and with great patience. She is the arbitrator in the family whenever Willy fights with Biff or Happy. She is fond of taking her husband’s side during these arguments and is always chiding her sons not to irk or desert their father. She knows that Willy wants to commit suicide but does not attempt to stop this from happening, probably because she is so tired herself and wants it all to end too.
In his play, Miller has brought out a number of themes. He talks about the American Dream which every American was trying to live in the 1930’s-1960’s. This is a dream to achieve prosperity via the fastest and easiest route possible. Miller’s view of the American Dream is that it is not achievable by the majority of ordinary Americans. Willy Loman has this dream for himself and for his sons also, yet he and his eldest son both do not succeed in living it. He tells his wife, “In the greatest country in the world a young man with such personal attractiveness, gets lost.” referring to the failure of his elder son Biff to become someone worthwhile as he himself had always wanted to be. Biff also sometimes feels the pressure of this dream, even though he is otherwise comfortable working as a farm hand on a ranch. He says to his brother, “[When spring comes out West] I suddenly get the feeling, my God, I’m not getting anywhere! I’m thirty-four years old; I oughta be makin’ my future.” Perhaps Happy Loman is the only Loman who has reached somewhere on the road to the fulfillment of the American Dream. Nonetheless he does not appear satisfied with it. Biff asks Happy, “You’re a success, aren’t you? Are you content?” Happy replies, “Hell no! … But then, it’s what I’ve always wanted. My own apartment, a car, plenty of women. And still, goddammit, I’m lonely.” It appears to me that the playwright is bringing out a point here, that the American Dream is not achievable by majority of the ordinary Americans (in this case two members of the Loman family).
When the dream is achieved, it appears not to make the achiever content (only one member of the Loman family). Putting this into context one realizes that playwright is expressing his communist views here against capitalism. One critic states, “Arthur Miller, who is one of the last unrepentant Marxists, obviously sees Willy as a victim of capitalism.” Miller’s view is that capitalism leads eventually to the downfall of individuals. In the play Willy eventually commits suicide for the sake of money and his last-ditch attempt to redeem himself in the eye’s of his eldest son is quite sad. His plan is that the insurance money coming from his death would be used by Biff to start a sporting goods business, and he justifies this to his dead brother Ben. Ben tells him “…it’s a cowardly thing.” Willy replies, “Why? Does it take more guts to stand here the rest of my life ringing up a zero?” Miller’s critic states in defense of capitalism, “One doesn’t really expect an intellectual to have any real understanding of economics (or much else for that matter) but Miller, in reducing capitalism to nothing more than a kind of cheap hucksterism, has followed in the footsteps of Theodore Dreiser, Sinclair Lewis, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and the like, with equally obtuse results.”
Miller has also attempted to include the element of tragedy into his play. He portrays Willy’s suicide as a heroic ‘modern’ tragedy. Willy in Act II tells his brother Ben in reference to Biff benefiting from the insurance money, “Imagine, when the mail comes, he’ll be ahead of Bernard again!” This can be interpreted as Miller portraying his main character as a hero who is sacrificing himself for the benefit of another person. But does the play merit the title of a modern tragedy? The critic argues, “The problem with trying to imbue this play with the aura of tragedy is not that Willy Loman is a little man, it’s that he’s not a good man: he’s not much of a salesman; he cheats on his wife; he lives vicariously and unfairly through his eldest son, then makes excuses for that son’s pathological misbehavior; he virtually ignores his second son; he’s a real bastard to friends, neighbors and extended family; and so on.”
Conclusively, Miller tries to portray in his book that the American dream is hard to achieve. The main character Willy tries to live the American dream and when he fails he instills the same notion in his children so that they can follow in his footsteps. One can think they are living their American dream but in the end, they are still sad and they realize that it is not possible to get everything one dreams for. If one looks carefully and critically at this play one realizes it is not a tragedy. It is simply a story of a misguided and immoral individual, blinded by his dreams, having no clear direction of living them out, trying to force them onto his eldest son, but in the end failing miserably. As Biff said quite correctly, “He had the wrong dreams. All, all, wrong.” Perhaps the American Dream is a wrong dream.
Works Cited:
Miller, Arthur. Death of a Salesman. London: Heinemann, 1994. Print.
Review of Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman. (Retrieved on 23rd September 2010) From:
HYPERLINK “http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/473” http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/473