Severity of Sanctions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Severity of Sanctions - Essay Example The implications of these two philosophies are quite different. Retribution focuses on the criminal's behaviour and stresses the need to punish him in proportion to the extent of damages caused or loss suffered. Conversely, the utilitarian stance focuses, not on the criminal, but on society as a whole with an aim at reducing crime and thereby ensuring the safety of society. Whilst both of these models are described in their pure theoretical form, in reality most cultures adopt a blended version of both. However, before we begin to fully examine the effectiveness of deterrence, an understanding of it is necessary. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. Specific deterrence is aimed at eliminating the future criminal activity of the person being incarcerated or punished in order to avoid future punishment for repeating a similar crime whilst general deterrence's goal is reducing crime unilaterally by stopping others from committing like crimes for fear of receiving like punishment (Palmer 2005, p. 25). While it is impossible to argue that capital punishment is not a totally effective means of ensuring specific deterrence, its effectiveness as a deterrent to others is not so definitive. This leads us to the debate of the severity of sentencing and its effects on deterring criminal behaviour. Feinberg views punishment i... Instead of acting as a deterrent to preventing future criminal activity sentencing is merely a punishment and has nothing to do with deterring crime; rather its effectiveness as a specific deterrent only lasts as long as the prison sentence itself. In his explanation of the phenomenon of punishment Feinberg states: Punishment is a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and indignation, and of judgments of disapproval and reprobation, on the part either of the punishing authority himself or of those 'in whose name' the punishment is inflicted. Punishment, in short, has a symbolic significance largely missing from other kinds of penalties (1994, p. 74). He elaborates in greater detail by stating that greater than disapproval, punishment is, in effect, society's method of 'getting back' at criminals and further showing its "vindictive resentment" (1994, p. 76). From his position it is clear that criminal sentencing is not deterrent in intent; rather it is retributive in nature. Von Hirsh and Ashworth take a similar stance but further elaborate on what they view to be the causal effects of this 'vindictive resentment'. In their theory politicians use the public's fear of crime and criminals to create a heightened state of panic amongst the public. With this increased sense of fear and outrage the brunt of the retributive wrath falls upon those least able to defend themselves. Clearly seeking neither retribution nor deterrence, the political overtones and the media frenzy caused results in a public outcry for justice. As public sentiment grows more fearful and resentful, the severity of punishment rises proportionally. The sentence no longer deals with the specific nature or severity crime itself, but rather focuses

Of Mice and Men Compared to La Strada Essay Example for Free

Of Mice and Men Compared to La Strada Essay This is shown by often showing her by the playful sea as well as being followed by animals and children throughout the film. Then there is Zampano, a rather dull muscle man who doesn’t think much before he acts. Yet, Gelsomina follows him with unwavering commitment throughout the film. Only once does she appear to doubt her place with him and shortly after us seeing her doubt her place the Fool, an innocent playful man, puts her back in the mindset that that is her purpose. After all everything has a purpose, even a pebble. The Fool, or Il Mato, is always messing with Zampano and is constantly outsmarting him. Right from the first time we see these two characters it is clear that Zampano despises the fool and eventually chases after him with a knife. The knife represents Zampano’s physical approach to things and how he is viewed in terms of masculinity. The Fool continues messing with Zampano, until Zampano accidentally kills him. His immediate thought it that his career is over and this shows just how physical he is and how he sees everything as â€Å"what can it do for me? †. He bought Gelsomina from her family, certainly not for her benefit but for his own. This behavior also shows in the way he treats Rosa, he views women as things that are there to benefit him. He didn’t realize his own strength and later says in the movie â€Å"It was only two punches, two punches! †. Here hes clearly trying to justify the wrong he unknowingly committed. This isn’t the only wrong. Towards the end of the film Zampano leaves Gelsomina with some money and her trumpet and years later finds out that she died because he left her there. I believe that him leaving her was foreshadowing her death because there is no way she would know what to do, she didn’t know how to survive without him. In Steinbeck’s Of Mice And Men, the main characters are the innocent simple-minded Lenny and his friend George, both of whom are very strong workingmen who travel around looking for physical labor that can be done. Lenny is mentally retarded and follows George like a puppy. George is often around animals, from the little mouse he was carrying in his pocket to the puppy he loved so much. In the beginning of the book George used to mess with Lenny because of his unwavering devotion but once he realized how genuine it was he stopped it immediately. George is described as a relatively strong man who is very smart and does the thinking for both him and Lenny. He watches out for Lenny and feels responsible for him. Lenny feels that his place is always right next to George. However in the end of this book George abuses Lenny’s trust and murders him with the gun used to kill Candy’s dog around the time they arrived. He even killed him the same way that they killed the dog, one shot, right to the back of the head. I believe Steinbeck having the dog killed, foreshadows the death of Lenny. Not just that he will die, but that someone who loves him will be the one to kill him. I think it shows that Lenny will die because he is always around animals, you’re supposed to associate him with animals and pets, and that this dog isn’t like most other dogs just like Lenny isn’t like most other people. They both have things working against them. For Lenny it’s being mentally retarded and for the dog it is the way that age has affected him. Both of these stories have a lot in common as far as archetypal symbolism goes. They both have the child-like, innocent character represented by Gelsomina and Lenny. By having these characters in these pieces the audience is given someone to care about and feel attached to. These two both act and are treated very much like children which makes it easy for us to see them in an innocent, positive light giving us someone to be interested in, we want to make sure they are okay and that nothing bad happens to them. There are many ways you can tell how innocent these characters are, both are shown with small animals a lot and Gelsomina is also shown in the same shot as the ocean a lot. These stories also have the physical male characters that very much affect the lives of the innocent characters. These physical characters would be George and Zampano, while these two characters themselves have very little in common as far as the time they lived and their profession their personal tales draw a surprising amount of parallels. These two are both protectors of the innocent characters, given the task to watch over them and are responsible for Lenny and Gelsomina. Both George and Zampano end up killing their innocent companion in the end. The deaths of Lenny and Gelsomina are both heavily foreshadowed. Zampano is very obvious with the fact that he doesn’t care what happens to Gelsomina and like having to take care of her. So when he leaves her by the side of the road it’s hard to be surprised because this was something you could see him doing to Gelsomina because he always treated her like a burden. However when George ends up killing Lenny it comes as a huge shock to the reader because he had always loved and protected him. Even though he didn’t want to kill Lenny it was for the safety of the people that Lenny interacted with so George felt he had to kill him. Both George and Zampano are very effected by the deaths of Lenny and Gelsomina. When they both realize what they have done, they return to the place where the story started. For Zampano and Gelsomina that is the ocean whereas for George and Lenny it is their own personal Eden in the woods. This is part of a reoccurring theme of cycles throughout these stories that are very important to the story. La Strada starts off with a shot of Gelsomina by the ocean, something much like her. It goes with the flow and doesn’t put up much resistance and is innocent and beautiful. At the end of the film, when Zampano has realized he is responsible for the death of Gelsomina he returns to the sea. The same is true for the beginning of Of Mice And Men, George and Lenny had just set up camp by a little river in the woods, a place where others had clearly been before. At the end of the book, Lenny was killed in that very spot after he ran away from the farm. These stories are both great examples of classic character archetypes and clearly show the heroes journey. Lenny and Gelsomina both clearly have a call to adventure, for Lenny it is going to work at a new farm with George and for Gelsomina it is when Zampano buys her from her family. They have their awakenings, Gelsomina’s is when the fool gives her the pebble and teaches her that everything has a purpose, George’s is when he crushes Curly’s hand. They have their helpers, the Fool and all the other men on the farm. Their transformations are a little different, for George it would be when he kills Curly’s wife and realizes he needs to run, for Gelsomina, though we don’t see it, it is when she realizes that she is alone and that Zampano has left her. Last of all is the return, unfortunately for our innocent characters this is tied into their deaths, and the actual killing/realization of their deaths.

Virginia Woolfs Orlando and the Relationship between Virginia and Vita

Virginia Woolf's Orlando and the Relationship between Virginia and Vita It has been said the novel Orlando is the longest love-letter ever written; a celebration of the bond between women. The relationship between Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West is well documented and known to have been intimate. That Virginia was passionate and giddy about her relationship with Vita is also known and displayed in Orlando. But Orlando also offers a rare intimate glimpse into the mind of Virginia Woolf. An unselfconscious work, it reveals her mind, talent at play. Orlando offers rich insights into her mind while keeping the rich prose that embodies her other great works. The novel demonstrates several of Virginia's obsessions, the focus here on gender and sexuality. While presumptuous to assume an author's life directly through her work, Virginia herself writes about this inevitable link in Orlando: "In short, every secret of a writer's soul, every experience of his life, every quality of his mind is written large in his works, yet we require critics to explain the one and biographers to expound the other" (Orlando 209). A good author usually writes what she knows; considering the background of this novel, the reader may draw parallels between Virginia's life, her relationship with Vita and the writing of Orlando. Who is Orlando? The common interpretation is Orlando is Vita. The book is dedicated to her and pictures of Vita are interspersed throughout the book. Vita herself was said to tell Virginia that she fell in love with herself after reading the novel. Vita's mother was more acetic: "You have written some beautiful phrases in Orlando but probably you do not realise how cruel you have been. And the person who inspired the book ... ...nergy of her relationship with Vita is apparent in the novel. She was to wrestle her demons in other books (To the Lighthouse as an example) in Orlando she celebrated. But in Virginia's hands, even satire has its serious moments. "I am writing Orlando half in mock style very clear and plain, so that people will understand every word. But the balance between truth and fantasy must be careful" (Dairy 117). And now years later, critics are still trying to view in-between the truth and fiction and the enigma of Virginia Woolf. Works Cited Bond, Alma Halbert, Phd. Who Killed Virginia Woolf - a Psychobiography. Human Sciences Press, Inc.:New York, NY 1989. Lee, Hermione. Virginia Woolf. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.:New York, NY 1996. Woolf, Virginia. A Writer's Diary. The Hogarth Press:London 1953 Woolf, Virginia. Orlando. Harcourt Brace & Company:New York 1956.

Perfect Competition

Perfect Competition In  economic theory,  perfect competition  describes markets such that no participants are large enough to have the  market power  to set the price of a homogeneous product. Because the conditions for perfect competition are strict, there are few if any perfectly competitive markets. Still, buyers and sellers in some  auction-type markets, say for  commodities  or some financial assets, may approximate the concept. Perfect competition serves as a benchmark against which to measure real-life and  imperfectly competitive  markets.Generally, a perfectly competitive market exists when every participant is a â€Å"price taker†, and no participant influences the price of the product it buys or sells. Specific characteristics may include: * Infinite buyers and sellers  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ An infinite number of consumers with the willingness and ability to buy the product at a certain price, and infinite producers with the willingness and ability to supp ly the product at a certain price. * Zero entry and exit barriers  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ A lack of entry and exit barriers makes it extremely easy to enter or exit a perfectly competitive market. Perfect factor mobility  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ In the long run  factors of production  are perfectly mobile, allowing free long term adjustments to changing market conditions. * Perfect information  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ All consumers and producers are assumed to have perfect knowledge of price, utility, quality and production methods of products. * Zero transaction costs  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Buyers and sellers do not incur costs in making an exchange of goods in a perfectly competitive market. * Profit maximization  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Firms are assumed to sell where marginal costs meet marginal revenue, where the most profit is generated. Homogenous products  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ The qualities and characteristics of a market good or service do not vary between different suppliers. * Non-increasing returns to scale  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ The lack of increa sing returns to scale (or economies of scale) ensures that there will always be a sufficient number of firms in the industry. * Property rights  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Well defined property rights determine what may be sold, as well as what rights are conferred on the buyer. In the short run, perfectly-competitive markets are not  productively efficient  as output will not occur where marginal cost is equal to average cost (MC=AC).They are  allocatively efficient, as output will always occur where  marginal cost  is equal to  marginal revenue(MC=MR). In the long run, perfectly competitive markets are both allocatively and productively efficient. In perfect competition, any profit-maximizing producer faces a  market price  equal to its  marginal cost  (P=MC). This implies that a factor's price equals the factor's marginal revenue product. It allows for derivation of the supply curve on which the neoclassical approach is based. This is also the reason why â€Å"a monopoly doe s not have a supply curve†.The abandonment of price taking creates considerable difficulties for the demonstration of a general equilibrium except under other, very specific conditions such as that of monopolistic competition. By definition a perfectly competitive market is one in which no single firm has to influence either the equilibrium price of the market or the the total quantity supplied in the market. Thus, a firm operating in a competitive market has no incentive to supply at a price lower than market equilibrium price, as it can sell all it wants to supply at equilibrium.At the same time, the firm cannot sell at price higher than the market price, because it will be able find no buyers at that price, and its sales volume will drop down to zero. Thus, a firm operating in perfectly competitive market has to accept whatever is the market equilibrium price, and therefore it is called a price taker. In contrast, a monopoly firm is the only supplier in the market and there fore has full control over the market prices and total market supplies.Therefore, a firm operating in a monopoly market fixes its price in such a way that for the quantity demanded by customers at that market price the marginal revenue of the firm is equal to its marginal costs. In this way way it decides the market price as well as the total quantity if a commodity supplied in the market, and therefore it is called a price maker. Imperfect Competition In  economic theory,  imperfect competition  is the competitive situation in any market where the sellers in the market sell different/dissimilar of goods, (haterogenous) that does not meet the conditions of perfect competition.Forms of imperfect competition include: * Monopoly, in which there is only one seller of a good. * Oligopoly, in which there are few sellers of a good. * Monopolistic competition, in which there are many sellers producing highly differentiated goods. * Monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a good . * Oligopsony, in which there are few buyers of a good. * Information asymmetry  when one competitor has the advantage of more or better information. There may also be imperfect competition due to a time lag in a market. An example is the â€Å"jobless recovery†.There are many growth opportunities available after a recession, but it takes time for employers to react, leading to high  unemployment. High unemployment decreases wages, which makes hiring more attractive, but it takes time for new jobs to be created. A type of  market that does not operate under the rigid rules of perfect competition. Perfect competition implies an industry or market in which no one supplier can influence prices, barriers to entry and exit are small, all suppliers offer the same goods, there are a large number of   suppliers and buyers, and information on pricing and process is readily available.Forms of imperfect competition include monopoly, oligopoly, monopolistic competition, monopson y and oligopsony. Pure Competition Pure Competition  is a market situation where there is a large number of independent sellers offering identical products. Pure competition is a term for an industry where competition isstagnant and relatively non competitive. Companies within the pure competition category have little control of price or distribution of product. Advertising, market research, and product development play a very little role in these companies/industries.A  market  characterized by a large  number  of independent  sellers  of standardized  products, free  flow  of information, and  free entry  and  exit. Each seller is a â€Å"price taker† rather than a â€Å"price maker†. Also sometimes referred to as  perfect competition,  pure  competition  is a situation in which the market for a product is populated with so many consumers and producers that no one entity has the ability to influence the price of the product sufficien tly to cause a fluctuation.Within this type of market setting, sellers are considered to be price takers, indicating that they are not in a position to set the price for their products outside a certain range, given the fact that so many other producers are active within the market. At the same time, consumers have little influence over the prices offered by the producers, since there is no singular group of consumers that dominates the demand. In reality,  pure  competition  is more  theory  than actual fact.While there are rare situations in which a marketplace functions with  pure  competition  for a short period of time, the situation normally shifts as various factors change the stalemate created by a multiplicity of sellers and buyers. This is often due to the somewhat stringent set of factors that must be present in order for the  competition  to be considered perfect or  pure. There are several essential characteristics that define  pure  competitio n. One has to do with the balance of buyers to sellers.When there is an infinite number of buyers who are willing to purchase the products offered for sale by an infinite number of producers, at a certain price, the opportunity for anyone to take actions that shift the market price is extremely limited. The price remains more or less the same, and the same number of buyers purchase the products from the same range of producers. With  pure  competition, sellers can easily exit or enter the marketplace, without creating any undue influence on the price. Consumers continue to make purchases at the same rate, even if two companies leave the market and only one new one enters.The collective producers who are still in the market simply continue to produce enough products to meet consumer demand, without a shift in market price. Businesses engaged in a  pure  competition  market usually structure production so that they incur marginal costs at a level where they can earn the most profit. When the product line is homogeneous, this means the products produced are essentially the same as the product line produced by other  suppliers  in the marketplace. Assuming the costs are in line withmarginal revenue, the business can generate a consistent profit for as long as the condition of  pure  competition  is present in the market.

Assess The Usefulness Of Labelling Theory In Explaining Crime And Deviance

Focusing on interactionist approaches such as Becker (1963); labelling theory suggests that deviancy is a social process usually related to power differences but it doesn't explain the causes of crime. It does however explain why some people or actions are described as deviant, and can help in understanding crime and deviance. Becker argues deviance is a behaviour which has been labelled deviant by the reaction of others. This suggests that there is really no such thing as a deviant act. An act only becomes deviant when others perceive it as such.The application of a label to someone has significant consequences for how that person is treated by others and perceives him or herself. Studies such that by Jock and Young (1971); exemplify Becker’s claim that there is no such thing as deviant behaviour. Interpretivist sociologists (interactionist) argue that we form our self-identity by interpreting how others respond to us and internalising the reaction. A label can have positive and negative effects on an individual and it helps define them in the ‘eyes’ of others. Becker calls this the ‘self-concept’.Interactionist theory suggests that being labelled as deviant can actually increase deviant behaviour. For example if a person is in trouble with the police then they are more likely to resort to criminal activity or criminal behaviour. Jock Young (1971) used his study of drug users in Notting hill to demonstrate the process of becoming deviant. The studies showed 4 different stages. Firstly, the marijuana users developed a deviant self-concept because their drug of choice was illegal; then the deviant element became their main identity in society.They were considers ‘hippies’ first and foremost ; then the negative response of those around them and the police made the drug taking a significant part of their live and then their drug taking increased. Labelling theory is clearly validates behaviour. Additionally, Lemert (19 72) identifies primary and secondary deviance. Primary being when deviance is not publicly labelled as much; secondary is deviance that follows once a person has been publicly labelled as deviant.Lemert drew a distinction between primary and secondary deviance through a study ofstuttering amongst a Native American nation. He observed that public oratory was important among the nation yet displayed high levels of stuttering. When young boys showed any speech defect parents reacted with such concern that the child became worried about it and more nervous causing him to stutter. Therefore the primary deviance of the speech defect was not that important, it was the effect of the worried parents, labelling the child, causing the nervousness, leading to the secondary deviance of stuttering.Thus showing that societal reaction, promoted by a concern about particular forms of deviance can actually produce those forms of deviance. Contrastingly there are critiques of Lemert and Becker’ s studies. Akers (1967) criticises both Becker and Lemert for presenting individuals as powerless it make decisions or take control of their own identity. Deviance, according to Akers, is not something which happens to an individual, but a choice an individual makes.Goffman (1961) substantiates the idea of labelling theory via his study of a deviant career in mental illness. He stated that the negative label of being mad is imposed on the patient by society and psychiatry, and the patient must eventually conform to it. However, critics such as Taylor, Walton and Young (1973) argue many forms of behaviour are widely viewed as deviant- so deviants actually know that they are breaking the law or social rules before the societal reactions however they still continue to do it.Marxist sociologists accuse Interpretivist of ignoring the role of power in defining crime and deviance. Marxists state that certain groups have the power to influence what is classified as criminal or socially acce ptable. Furthermore, Gouldner (1973) accused interactions sociologists of being fascinated with deviance, and even suggests they enjoy observing ‘cool’ deviants, and hanging out with the ‘underworld’.In evaluation, it is evident that there are contrasting views on labelling and social influence on deviance. It is also evident that interactionist sociologists focus on ‘the little things’ and take the ‘micro’ approach to issues such as crime and deviance. They focus on interactions between individuals. One can criticise that by also focusing on the ‘bigger picture’ it may be evident how the small interactions affect the larger scale infrastructure of society.