Monday, January 27, 2020

Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction Critique

Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction Critique This Research will critically discuss the problems associated with the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction with regard to Internal Crimes by National courts The bases upon which Jurisdiction can be assumed under International Law are: 1. Territorial Principle 2. Protective or Security Principle 3. Nationality Principle 4. Passive Personality Principle 5. Universality Principle. UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION Unlike the territorial principle where jurisdiction is assumed based on the place where the crime is committed, the protective principle which permits jurisdiction to be assumed when the interest of the state is threatened, Nationality principle which looks to the nationality of the offender and the passive personality principle which looks to the nationality of the victim of the crime, Universal jurisdiction looks solely to the crime and jurisdiction is assumed on this basis. King-Irani stated that Universal jurisdiction is based on customary law as well as an international consensus, that some crimes are so heinous that they threaten the entire human race.[1] Perpetrators of such crimes are considered to be enemies of all mankind and in that lies the right and authority of all states to prosecute perpetrators of such crimes. This really is the foundation of the Universal Jurisdiction principle. The International Council on Human Rights Policy in its booklet on Universal Jurisdiction explained Universal Jurisdiction to mean a system of international justice that gives the courts of any country jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes, regardless of where or when the crime was committed, and the nationality of the victims or perpetrators. It allows the prosecution of certain crimes before the courts of any country even if the accused, the victim, or the crime, has no link to that country.[2] Universal Jurisdiction is usually invoked over International Crimes. Problems associated with the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction frustrate prosecution of international crimes on the basis of Universal jurisdiction; they threaten the continued prosecution of international crimes by states and can undermine the effective administration of justice at the international level. Some of these problems are: UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE SCOPE OF UNIVERSAL JURISIDCTION Uncertainty of the scope of Universal Jurisdiction takes different forms; uncertainty as to its true meaning, mode of its application and the crimes over which it applies are issues that have made the scope of Universal Jurisdiction uncertain. Luc Reydams in a paper written for the European Parliaments Subcommittee on Human Rights (DROI) stated that Most..agree that Universal Jurisdiction exists but everyone has a different understanding of what it means[3] Reydams further states that the problem with Universal Jurisdiction starts with its definition; its definition is too broad, and it leaves so much undefined thus failing to satisfy the legal requirement of certainty. There is no consensus on the offences in respect of which Universal Jurisdiction can be exercised and there also exists differing views on the true meaning of Universal Jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction arose in the context of piracy, and it remains the most longstanding and uncontroversial Universal Jurisdiction crime.[4] David Stewart in identifying one of the challenges of Universal Jurisdiction stated that Difficulty lies in knowing exactly which crimes qualify for unilateral prosecution by any and all states. Even if one accepts that, as a matter of international law, jurisdiction must be limited to crimes of universal concern, there is no means for determining exactly which offenses fall into that category.[5] The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction states the fundamentals of Universal Jurisdiction as its first principle; under this it states that Universal Jurisdiction should be asserted with reference to the crime only; such crimes should be serious crimes.ÂÂ   In its second principle, it states that the serious crimes over which Universal Jurisdiction should be asserted are piracy, slavery, war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity genocide and torture. The Princeton principles further states that the exercise of jurisdiction in respect to the above listed crimes is without prejudice to other International Crimes under International Law. This raises a fundamental question; what are the parameters for determining the crimes over which Universal Jurisdiction may be asserted? It is generally agreed that while Universal Jurisdiction may be asserted over International crimes, it is not every International crime that can be subject to Universal Jurisdiction? Dr. Oner states that some International crimes are subject to Universal Jurisdiction as a matter of Customary International Law and some others as a result of treaty.[6] He opines that those are the two ways of ascertaining what crimes are subject to Universal Jurisdiction.[7] He traces the history of how different crimes came to be recognised as International crimes over which Universal jurisdiction could be asserted, his work would be relied on in tracing the history of those crimes. Piracy is the oldest recognised crimes over which Universal Jurisdiction can be assumed, the basis of asserting Universal Jurisdiction over this crime lies in the fact that it is committed in a place which cannot be categorised as the territory of any state; the High Seas. It was an offence that affected every state; hence all states had the authority to combat it. This is the only crime over which it is generally accepted that Universal Jurisdiction can be asserted over. Jurisdiction over this crime arose under customary law and it was later recognised by treaties. Jurisdiction was later extended to Hijacking by virtue of Article 4 of 1970 Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the 1982 Convention of the Law of the Sea. After the Second World War and the application of Universal Jurisdiction to the prosecution of War crimes, Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, they gained acceptance as International Crimes over which Universal Jurisdiction could be asserted both under Customary International Law and treaties which created an obligation on states to either prosecute or extradite.[8] With time more Conventions on certain other offences also placed an obligation on states to either prosecute or extradite persons who have committed certain crimes; Universal Jurisdiction was therefore extended to certain other offences such as Torture.[9] Another arm of this problem is national legislation of states on Universal Jurisdiction. The scope of such legislation determines the extent of Jurisdiction that can be assumed over International Crimes, and crimes over which Universal jurisdiction may be asserted. Some states have expanded the scope of crimes over which Universal Jurisdiction may be assumed under their laws, some others have tried to maintain the scope asÂÂ   has been ascertained by them Under International Law, while some others have conferred jurisdiction on their national courts in a very limited manner. States have delimited the scope of Universal Jurisdiction in their respective jurisdictions by their respective laws. Mark Ellis stated that As much of the international community promotes universal jurisdiction, state practice is limiting the scope and use of it. AND this is being done without much notice. [10] Ellis further opined that The propensity of states retaining a more expansive view of jurisdictional reach is ending. The discernible trend is moving towards a more restrictive interpretation and application of universal jurisdiction.[11] The absence of uniformity in the legislation of states conferring jurisdiction on their respective courts to assert Universal Jurisdiction poses a problem to the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction because the exercise of jurisdiction by one state may be opposed by another, especially when its nationals are involved. One factor which is closely related to the uncertain scope of Universal Jurisdiction is uncertainty as to the factors which must exist before a state can assume jurisdiction. One of such factors is whether the Accused or the person over whom jurisdiction is sought to be asserted is within the territory of the prosecuting state; this is referred to as Jurisdiction in Absentia. Zemach in defining Jurisdiction in Absentia adopted the definition of Colangelo thus: Universal jurisdiction in absentia can be roughly defined as the conducting of an investigation, the issuing of an arrest warrant, and/or the bringing of criminal charges based on the principle of universal jurisdiction when the defendant is not present in the territory of the acting state. This definition does not include adjudication of the case.[12] Many states are reluctant to assert Jurisdiction unless the accused is within their territory. This is consistent with the extradite or prosecute obligation imposed on states by quite a number of Conventions which permit the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction; the obligation to prosecute or extradite only arises when the offender is within the territory of the state. It could therefore be argued that the implication of this is that the Conventions which place an obligation on states to prosecute or extradite do not envisage the exercise of Jurisdiction in absentia. This problem is further compounded by the absence of consensus on whether Jurisdiction in absentia is permitted under International Law.ÂÂ   Judges Higgins, Kooijmans, and Buergenthal observed, in their Joint Separate Opinion as follows: is it a precondition of the assertion of universal jurisdiction that the accused be within the territory?ÂÂ   Considerable confusion surrounds this topic, not helped by the fact that legislators, courts and writers alike frequently fail to specify the precise temporal moment at which any such requirement is said to be in play. Is the presence of the accused within the jurisdiction said to be required at the time the offence was committed? At the time the arrest warrant is issued? Or at the time of the trial itself? .. This incoherent practice cannot be said to evidence a precondition to any exercise of universal criminal jurisdiction. [13] Rabinovitch, echoes the position of proponents of Universal Jurisdiction in Absentia when he stated that State practice in recent years has increasingly supported the view that States may exercise universal jurisdiction in absentia if they so desire,[14] provided there are safeguards to prevent an abuse of the accused rights. Judge Ranjeva in his Declaration held a contrary view; he stated that developments in International Law did not result in the recognition of Jurisdiction in absentia.[15] All of these uncertainties surrounding the principle and practice of Universal Jurisdiction pose a problem to the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF STATES One major problem which affects the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction is the perceived and actual breach of the sovereignty of a state. I use the word perceived to mean this; most times the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction by a state may be looked upon by the state whose national or official is tried as an affront or threat to its sovereignty. This might not necessarily be the case. While in a case of actual breach of a nations sovereignty, it is the case that exercise of jurisdiction may actually amount to a breach of a nations sovereignty. The Democratic Republic of the Congo V. Belgium[16] popularly known as the Arrest Warrant case illustrates this. In this case, Belgium issued an International Arrest warrant on 11 April 2000, for the arrest of Congos Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi. The Democratic Republic of Congo was highly displeased with the issue of the warrant for the arrest of its minister, and accordingly instituted an action at the International Court of Justice praying the court that Belgium recalls and cancels the Arrest warrant. Belgium had issued the warrant on the grounds that Mr. Yerodia had breached the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and protocols I and II; such breach Belgium claimed was punishable under its laws. Congo prayed the International Criminal Court to order Belgium to cancel the warrant on the ground (amongst other grounds) that [t]he universal jurisdiction that the Belgian State attributes to itself under Article 7 of the Law in question constituted a [v]iolation o f the principle that a State may not exercise its authority on the territory of another State and of the principle of sovereign equality among all Members of the United Nations[17]. In essence, Congos contention was that Belgiums exercise of Its Universal Jurisdiction amounted to a violation of its sovereignty. The Court found that the issue of the Warrant of Arrest for Congos Minister for Foreign Affairs amounted to a breach of Congos Sovereignty. Kontorovich has stated that the New Universal Jurisdiction[18] is perhaps the most controversial development in contemporary international law, precisely because it encroaches on or qualifies nations jurisdictional sovereignty[19] whileÂÂ   Kings-Irani opines that Universal jurisdiction casesusually raise troubling questions about state sovereignty. Hawkins opines that when states established universal jurisdiction, they created a decentralized mechanism for the erosion of sovereignty[20] It is not likely that the constant clash between the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction and the violation or the alleged violation of the sovereignty of a state would come to an end in the nearest future. This is attributable to the political element in the definition of the crimes over which Universal Jurisdiction can be assumed; that is the fact that most crimes against humanity and war crimes are most times not committed independent of the state and its agencies, rather they are sometimes committed by state officials with the aid of state agencies. The principle of Universal Jurisdiction has no inherent principles which can tackle the clash between assumption of jurisdiction on this basis and the sovereignty of a state. CLASH BETWEEN THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION AND IMMUNITY It is a principle of Customary International Law that State officials are immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts in certain instances.[21] The immunity enjoyed could be as a result of the position occupied; this is Immunity ratione personae or it could be enjoyed as a result of the official acts carried out in furtherance of the office occupied; this is immunity ratione materiae.[22] The challenge that the issue of sovereign immunity poses is a multi-faceted one. This challenge raises quite a number of questions. What exactly is the law on the immunity of sovereigns of states, both current and past and what is the extent of the immunity in relation to the acts of the sovereign? What acts of the sovereign are covered by immunity? This difficulty arises primarily because the position of International law on the immunity of Sovereigns of States or Heads of States remains unclear.[23] Indeed the authors of the article The Future of Former Head of State Immunity after ex parte Pinochet[24] borrowed the words of other authors to describe the position of International Law on the immunity of Heads of States as lacking coherence[25], problematic and ambiguous[26] and in Re Doe[27] the United States Court of Appeal described it as been in an amorphous and Undeveloped state. This issue came up for consideration In the Arrest Warrant Case[28]; Congos contention was that ÂÂ  the non-recognition, on the basis of Article 5 of the Belgian Law, of the immunity of a Minister for Foreign Affairs in office constituted a [v]iolation of the diplomatic immunity of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of a sovereign State, as recognized by the jurisprudence of the Court and following from Article 41, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention of 18 April 1961 on Diplomatic Relations[29] The court came to the decision that a Minister of Foreign Affairs enjoyed Immunity which was inviolable for as long he remained in office. I will reproduce a portion of the Courts decision as this sheds some light on the position of International Law on the Immunity of Sovereigns; The Court has carefully examined State practice, including national legislation and those few decisions of national higher courts such as the House of Lords or the French Court of Cassation. It has been unable to deduce from this practice that there exists under Customary International law any form of exception to the rule according immunity from criminal Jurisdiction and inviolability to incumbent Ministers for Foreign Affairs, where they are suspected of havingÂÂ   committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. Jurisdictional immunity may well bar prosecution for a certain period or for certain offences; it cannot exonerate the person to whom it applies from all criminal responsibility[30] What this translates to is the fact that there may be times when a National Court could have jurisdiction to try a person subject to immunity, however, it might be impossible to exercise jurisdiction because of the immunity that such a person enjoys; the risk in this is that it could lead to impunity, even though this is a situation the Law seems to want to avoid or it could just lead to a situation of delayed justice. In senator Pinochets case,[31] the House of Lords held that Pinochet, a former Head of State of Chile was not entitled to immunity for torture, as torture was not an official act carried out in furtherance of his official duties. The position of International Law on the Immunity of High level officials of states remains uncertain, and there is no uniformity in state practice in recent years which can help in ascertaining the position of International law in this regard. In November 2007, France dismissed a complaint filed against Former secretary of Defence of the United States and the reason for the dismissal wasÂÂ   given by the prosecutor, Jean Claude Marin, he stated in an open letter that according to rules of customary international law established by the International Court of Justice, immunity from criminal jurisdiction for Heads of State and Government and Ministers of Foreign Affairs continues to apply after termination of their functions, for acts carried out during their time of office and hence, as former Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, by extension should benefit from this same immunity for acts carried out in the exercise of his functions.[32] There was an outcry against the position of France, particularly because the Prosecutor, Jean Claude Marin had some years earlier personally signed an order calling for General Pinochet to appear before the Paris Court of Appeal. Human Rights organisations felt he should have known better. The Human Rights Organisation also felt greatly disappointed that the dismissal of the complaint was largely due to the position taken by the French Foreign Ministry which is headed by Bernard Kouchner, a fellow who had distinguished himself in the fields of Human Rights. This goes to illustrate the inconsistency in state practices when it comes to the issue of exercising Universal Jurisdiction and the Immunity of State officials. Perhaps one logical explanation for this inconsistency might not be unrelated to the need to preserve good relations between states. THE ALLEGATION OF BIAS Selective approach in the prosecution of International Crimes on the basis of Universal Jurisdiction has posed a great challenge to the Universal Jurisdiction regime. The outcry against the selective approach of some states in the prosecution of crimes using Universal Jurisdiction has been loudest in Africa, where African leaders allege that they have been the primary target of Western Countries. This allegation of bias is not without any merit, neither is it entirely true. Ian Brownlie has been quoted by Zemach as stating that [p]olitical considerations, power, and patronage will continue to determine who is to be tried for international crimes and who not.[33] Dr. Oner captured an aspect of this problem aptly when he stated that: Universal jurisdiction gives powerful nations a means of politically influencing less powerful ones. Indeed, thus far, weak countries with little to no political leverage have not exercised universal jurisdiction over powerful people from powerful countries through their courts.[34] It is important that states have faith in the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction by any state that chooses to prosecute using Universal Jurisdiction. There should be transparency and good faith when arriving at the decision to prosecute; and this should as clearly as possible be seen by all to be fair. POLITICAL PRESSURE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IMPLICATIONS Nations usually want to maintain good relations with their allies; however, the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction could pose a threat to this. In order to maintain good relations with other states, a state may give in to political pressure which would in turn affect its exercise of Universal Jurisdiction. The case of Belgium and Spain illustrate this. Belgiums Universal Jurisdiction laws were so broad that anybody could be tried by Belgium courts without having any link at all to Belgium The American society of International Law Commenting on the Belgian law stated that: The Belgian law was widely recognized as the most far-reaching example of a state exercising universal jurisdiction. During the first decade of the laws existence, some thirty legal complaints were filed against a variety of government officials worldwide, including against Rwandans for genocide, General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Cuban President Fidel Castro, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon[35] The United States uncomfortable with the possibility that its officials could be victims of Belgiums law threatened and coerced Belgium until Belgium finally amended its laws in August 2003, thus finally removing the Absoluteness from the Universal Jurisdiction law of Belgium. ÂÂ  U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld stated authoritatively at the time: Belgium needs to realize that there are consequences to its actions. This law calls into serious question whether NATO can continue to hold meetings in Belgium and whether senior U.S. officials, military and civilian, will be able to continue to visit international organizations in Belgium Certainly until this matter is resolved we will have to oppose any further spending for construction for a new NATO headquarters here in Brussels until we know with certainty that Belgium intends to be a hospitable place for NATO to conduct its business.[36] The new Belgian Law now requires a link with Belgium for the Belgian courts to be able to exercise jurisdiction. All pending cases in Belgium against U.S Officials were dismissed in September 2003 because of Belgiums new law. When Belgium ruled that Israels Prime Minister Ariel Sharon could stand trial for War crimes under its Universal Jurisdiction laws, but only after he leaves office, Israeli public television quoted an unnamed official as calling the court decision scandalous and warning that it threatened to open a serious crisis between the two countries.[37] And Israel in protest was reported to have recalled its Ambassador to Belgium for consultation The case of Spain is quite similar to the Belgium experience. After Spain gave in to pressure from Israel, the United States and China, Spain amended its Universal Jurisdiction law; the new law now requires a link to Spain before Spanish Courts can assume jurisdiction.[38] Clearly political considerations and interactions between states pose a problem to the exercise of Universal jurisdiction. DIFFCULTY OF OBTAINING EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES Stewart is also of the opinion that In some measure, the lack of actual prosecutions based on universality must result from practical difficulties in obtaining evidence and witnesses regarding crimes committed in other countries.[39] Most International Crimes are usually prosecuted many years after the offences have been committed. The chances of gathering quality evidence with the passage of time reduces, when that is added to the long distance and legal difficulties that it might entail, it becomes even more difficult to obtain evidence. Language barrier could also further compound this problem. Where it is difficult or impossible to obtain evidence it might be difficult to proceed with prosecution on the basis of Universal Jurisdiction. COMPETING JURSIDCITION It is always the case most times, if not always that where jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of Universality, jurisdiction could also be asserted on other bases. Where more than one state decides to assert jurisdiction, whether on the basis of Universality or other principles, it might pose a problem, especially when extradition is requested by the competing states. To reduce the conflict that this situation may create, it is usually best that in the prosecution of International crimes, exercise of jurisdiction on the basis of Universal Jurisdiction should be the last resort, states with stronger connections to the crime should first be given opportunity to prosecute the crime, where they fail to or where they are unable to do so, then a state with no connection or a weaker connection can then prosecute on the basis of Universal Jurisdiction. COST One of the problems associated with the exercise of Universal jurisdiction is cost. A state expends its resources in prosecuting crimes, when the prosecution of crimes serves the states interests, there would be no problem with it but where it serves no practical purpose that is when the difficulty arises. The argument and view held in some quarters, that a nation that prosecutes a crime that does not threaten it in any way and which it has no interest in prosecuting stands to gain nothing from it, rather, it expends its resources and the benefits of prosecuting the crime is enjoyed by other states is one problem that militates against the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction. Kontorovich stated that ÂÂ  A nation exercising Universal Jurisdiction expends scarce resources to punish crimes that have not injured it; thus it bears all the costs of enforcement while the benefits are enjoyed primarily by other nations. Rational choice models of state behaviour suggest that nations will generally not undertake such activities.[40] David Stewart also opined that Depending on the facts, prosecutors and ministries of justice may have little enthusiasm for devoting time, money, and resources to prosecutions having little enough to do with their own countries, citizens, and direct national interests.[41] Kontorovichs position is actually a true reflection of what is currently going on at the international scene, nations decline to prosecute or even investigate where their interests are not affected, and this runs contrary to the principle of Universal Jurisdiction. One of the underlying principles governing Universal Jurisdiction is that crimes such as torture, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are so serious that they harm not just a particular state but the international community and should therefore be prosecuted by all states.[42] Kontorovich opines more articulately that many of the crimes subject to the universality principle are so heinous in scope and degree that they offend the interest of all humanity, and any state may, as humanitys agent, punish the offender. . . [43] DOMESTIC LEGISLATION AND STATE POLICIES It is not sufficient that International Law establishes an obligation to prosecute on the basis of Universal Jurisdiction. There must exist national legislation which authorises the courts of a state to assert jurisdiction, where this is absent, a court might not be able to assert Universal Jurisdiction. Senegal had to enact a law vesting jurisdiction in its courts before it could prosecute Hissene Habre, former Chad president. State practice is limiting the scope and use of Universal Jurisdiction. [44] Universal Jurisdiction can only be used to the extent that a states mun

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Education Amendment Essay -- Education

Over the years, the federal government has steadily been increasing its control of public education in the United States. The most notable developments of the last decade include the No Child Left Behind Act off 2001 and the ED Recovery Act, part of President Obama’s comprehensive recovery plan. As of September 30, 2010, $97.4 billion dollars was allocated under the ED Recovery Act (Department of Education). With the significant increase in federal interference, the American public should expect positive results. Instead, schools are faced with the same problems they had before the increase in federal interest and, in addition, even more problems arise. Federal involvement in education wastes billions of dollars every year while creating an education system that exists to promote politics, not education. It is time for the federal government to permanently cease its involvement in education. The federal government has been pouring money into the education system for decades. With the additional support the states have been receiving, student achievement and opportunities should be increasing. Instead, school districts are cutting all but the basic programs and achievement remains stagnant. Federal spending per student has tripled since 1970, even when adjusted for inflation (Coulson), but test scores haven’t changed (McCluskey). The only change that was more than 1% was in science, and those scores indicated a drop in scores, not the expected increase (Coulson). Federal money is going down the drain, and the states seem content to keep it that way because it lifts the burden of improving their own schools. This waste of money should not continue. The fundamental premise behind federal control of education is that every child... ...tion. Now it is weak, but it can again be the best in the world. The federal government must cease to involve itself in the field of education. Only then will American students begin to receive the education they deserve. Works Cited Coulson, Andrew J. â€Å"Has Federal Involvement Improved America’s Schools?†. Cato Institute, 2009. Web. 30 November 2010. Department of Education. â€Å"Recovery Act Highlights†. U.S. Department of Education, no date. Web. 30 November 2010. McCluskey, Neal. â€Å"No Federal Failure Left Behind†. Cato Institute, 2004. Web. 30 November 2010. McCluskey, Neal. â€Å"Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict†. Policy Analysis No. 587. Cato Institute, 2007. Web. 30 November 2010. Romanowski, Michael H. â€Å"What You Don’t Know Can’t Hurt You: Textbook Omissions and 9/11†. The Clearing House; 82:6 (August 2009). Web. 30 November 2010.

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Death penalty †capital punishment

  Death penalty has begun a long time ago, perhaps since Eighteenth Century B.C.   And a hundred or maybe even thousand numbers of murderers and criminals have been sentenced of it.   But the question still remains and is always debatable whether it is just right to have death penalty or not.I may not be directly affected by this capital punishment. But at the back of my mind, I also ask why there must be death penalty or not.   And as I balanced my views and ideas about this, the thought that there should no death penalty weighs more.Now, let’s take a look on the history of death penalty. This punishment has long been practiced since the times of King Hammurabi of Babylon for 25 different crimes. Death penalty was also made as the only punishment for all crimes according to Draconian Code of Athens, Hittite Code and Roman Law of Twelve Tablets.   The punishment of death is carried through drowning, hanging, burning alive, crucifixion, beating to death, and beheading .   And take note of the crimes they considered punishable by death penalty: not confessing to a crime, treason, cutting down and tree and stealing. (Death Penalty Information Center, 2007)America was then influenced by Britain during the colonial period.   And the offenses punishable of death includes stealing grapes, killing chickens, denying the â€Å"true God† or striking one’s parents.Seeing that these are only minor offenses if taken into considerations, abolitionist movements were formed. Some became successful of abolishing the death penalty like in Austria and Pennsylvania except for murder and treason. However, it progress again in Twentieth Century and five out of six abolitionist countries reinstated their death penalty as the America enters World War I.   The good thing is that the number of executions decreased as other nations agreed that the death penalty be limited if not abolished.So even at that time, there are movements of abolishing death pen alty.   Although at some point, others see it as a necessary social measure. Still, as many others do so, I don’t agree of this capital punishment. As I believe that no one has the right to take one’s life for whatever reason.Others argue that death penalty deters crime. But is practicing it not another crime where you also kill a human?   And as always, two wrongs will never make a right thing.For the past years, hundred numbers of prisoners were found to be innocent and released from the death row.   Imagine how they would face the society again.   They may perhaps be damaged inside, having to fear death, disbelieving the justice and all.   And then there were people who have received the death penalty and in the end were found not guilty.   The deathly penalty is really a cruel punishment and yet was not taken carefully by those in authority.   How can one accept it then?I also believe that one can still change.   One can still start a new life. One can have a new life with his family.   And death penalty deprived them this chance.The time they would spend inside the prison would at least let them think about their offenses and realized their mistakes. Sentencing them to death would just make their life easier.   But if they will stay in jail, they would suffer the consequences of their wrongdoings and realize how much prettier life is outside if they didn’t commit the crime.Now this is my opinion.   And this topic of death has always been debatable for the past centuries.   It is then up to you whether you would agree with me or not.   But maybe we should always look at the facts and not merely standing out with our immediate ideas not only about this capital punishment but with all other issues. Be critical.References: College Net Forum. (2007). Retrieved August 26, 2007, from College Net:http://www.collegenet.com/elect/app/app?service=external/Forum&sp=1882Death Penalty Information Center. (2007). Retrieved August 26, 2007, from Death PenaltyInformation Center: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=15&did=410#IntroductionoftheDeathPenalty

Friday, January 3, 2020

Long Fuse Notes Essay - 7198 Words

â€Å"Truth and the Historian† Main argument This is both an introduction to the book and an essay about the causes of World War I, as seen by other historical writers and Lafore himself. He states that â€Å"World War I has become a fashion and a fad,† and, while there is nothing wrong with the topic being widely discussed, historians should be careful in using research and analyzing historical topics. The introduction outlines the sources of the conflict that later was known as the Great War. All of the events: hostilities between the great powers, competition for the sea, and expansionism: were what has led to that conflict. But Lafore also argues that no cause can be singled out as the most important, because they all contributed to the†¦show more content†¦1815 Treaty helped governments realize that additional laws to the international law should be added concerned about actions that could possibly threaten the peace and security of Europe Relationships of events to causes of WWI II. A. Most of the European countries were considered states as they were unified in language, culture, sense of nationalism etc. B. Sovereignty could lead to abuses and wars among nations as the independence left a nation uncontrollable and possible to act in any way wanted. C. The international law created to ensure that there were no abuses of sovereignty turned out to have several drawbacks D. The establishment of Great Powers as guardians of the European peace increased hostility and jealousy among nations as some of the non-Great Power nations felt hurt by their exclusion of this prestigious title. 1. However, he also mentions that this was not true for all of the countries and that these differences in single states were to be a great cause of arising disputes. 2. Armies, for example, could be strengthened not only as a sign of attempt to be better protected, but also as a sign of getting ready for a war. 3. Even though the nations recognized and accepted its rules, some of them still did not find it important to act with these laws and broke them severely. 4. Placing the power of maintaining peace in hands of just few countries opened a way forShow MoreRelatedThe Life Cycle of a Star Essay733 Words   |  3 Pagesperfect example of a star, and there is an incredible amount of stars in the Universe. It is a star among hundreds of billions of stars within our Milky Way Galaxy, and our galaxy is one of billions of galaxies in the universe. Stars live for a very long time; millions, billions, or tens of billions of years so we can never really observe the life of a star; its birth, life, and death. In determining the life cycle of a star, astronomers observe many of the billions of stars around us and see themRead MoreMacbeth: The Evil Within Essay1344 Words   |  6 Pagesgradually goes on both a literal and figurative life journey, with its disappointments and joys. Strangely, though, Macbeth is not pleased by these accomplishments, and only seeks more. There are multiple characters that either lit the fuse of Macbeth’s ambit ion, or cut the fuse to make it shorter, thus leading him along the path to evil. Although one could argue that both Lady Macbeth and the Weird Sisters affected Macbeth, they only played a minor role. The main fault lies with Macbeth himself, a man soRead MoreUsing Marble Tiles And Building1622 Words   |  7 Pagesmasterminded, co-ordinate game plan of constrained time tries made around a central point and proposed to reach demonstrated targets. in that capacity, it is a systematic orchestrated effort involving related however self – contained and independent takes note. The fight may appear in one more media. it has single point or keynote thought and a singular target or goal. Henceforth, a bound together subject of substance gives mental reasonability all through the fight while visual and oral likeness givesRead MoreThe Best American President Abraham Lincoln Essay550 Words   |  3 Pagespeople. Even the reporters stopped taking notes just to listen to the speech. Lin coln argued that the logic of the South’s case, which was that slavery was good for the Negros, would be to extend it to white men too. He was saying if it’s so good for the Negros why won’t white men be slaves to, if it’s so good. Lincoln thought it was urgent to round up a union of all men, of whatever politics, who opposed the expansion of slavery, and said he was ready to fuse with anyone, who would unite with him toRead MoreThe Muse of History by Derek Walcott1751 Words   |  7 Pagesbitterness, see history as a source for re-imagination. The radical writer yearns for the past, while the classicist sees history and the New World as full of possibilities. Walcott is among many other artists who feel the need to take these fragments and fuse them in order for an Antillean voice to emerge. In Beating a Restless Drum: The Poetics of Kamau Braithwaite and Derek Walcott by June D. Bobb, quotes Brathwaite: Slowly, ever so slowly†¦.I was coming to an awareness†¦of cultural wholeness, of the placeRead MoreEssay on Use of Flashbacks in Toni Morrison’s Novel, Beloved833 Words   |  4 Pages leaving small bits of themselves behind so their paths can be traced again. There is a point, a vertex, a lair, where many peoples streams unite in a valley, in the heart of a pebble lined brook, and it is here that their trickles of days gone by fuse with each other, and float hand in hand until they ultimately settle to form the backyard pond. By unveiling her pond drop by drop, memory by memory, Morrison allows us to travel down the paths that converged together to create the story of BelovedRead MoreHassan Story807 Words   |  4 Pagesfirst orient the bones so that the rounded head is superior (up) and pointing medially (toward the bodys midline). Then you will need to determine the anterior vs. posterior side. On the femur, look for the patellar surface, which is anterior. Also note how the articulating surfaces of the condyles extends far back on the posterior side (since the knee bends back but not forward). On the humerus, look for the deep olecranon fossa on the posterior side (where the olecranon process of the ulna fitsRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie The Raiders Of The Lost Ark 1605 Words   |  7 PagesJones movie, did like both different themes and asked Williams to put them together to form a long main theme for the movie. Using section A for the intro and main melody and section B for the bridge, section B starts around the 0:36 seconds of the song. Now I will separate the sections and analyze them each one of them. During section A the melody starts with four trumpets playing in unison short notes with a military feeling, and rhythm that gives the theme a hero like music, The trumpets wereRead MoreBusiness Relationship Between Business And Business Essay1459 Words   |  6 Pagesconscious adults kids All group Young health mindful adults Market strategy Arranging Thing Fetched Place Headways Key association together †¢ Customer organization †¢ High dietary advantage †¢ Cereals †¢ $ 7.8 †¢ Big mart †¢ Announcement †¢ Long term collusion with female solidification †¢ More protein †¢ Coco nuts †¢ $ 33 †¢ New world †¢ journals †¢ Strong Expert conspiracy †¢ extraordinary fiber cereals $ 25 Countdown Advertisement Interpla More fiber Oats bread rolls $ 38.37Read MoreBattle of Fort Pillow1430 Words   |  6 Pagesneighbors were fighting neighbors and brothers raising arms against one another. Caught between both sides was an entire race of people; though there were many political ideologies involved, the issue of slavery and the rights of African Americans lit the fuse and kept the fire burning. Incidents involving the terrorizing of black Americans were numerous throughout the course of the Civil War, though none was more controversial than the Confederate capture of Ft. Pillow. While the basic facts show an inordinate