Jerkins of the 17th Century and Their Contemporary Adaptations

Philosophy Paper Parental Licensing Essays

Philosophy Paper Parental Licensing Essays Philosophy Paper Parental Licensing Essay Philosophy Paper Parental Licensing Essay May 6, 2013 Essay 3 Parental Licensing Congress is considering passing a law that would mandate parental licensing and two experts are testifying, philosophers, Lafayette and Frisks. I think Congress should listen to Leaflets defense testimony and enact parental licensing immediately. Lafayette argues parents should be required to obtain a license before they can raise a child. Though he says there are many hurdles in this claim but they can be addressed overtime. Part of Loftinesss core argument is that the state regulates lots of activities that are harmful to others, so why does the state not regulate parental sensing? For example, the state mandates people sixteen and over to have a drivers license if they want to drive an automobile in order to better protect society. Lafayette says, safe performance of the activity requires a certain competence(Licensing Parents, 390). A drivers license test regulates and requires a level of competence and if you pass you can legally drive a car. Similarly, Lafayette offers the same principle for a parenting test. Likewise, surgeons have medical tests and schooling to become a legal surgeon in order to keep patients safe. Lafayette also stands for this argument and feels it relates to licensing adults to prove their competence to be a good parent. The main goal is to protect children in his eyes, he states, each year more than half a million children are physically abused or neglected by their parents(391). If there is a parenting test in order to protect even a few children we should mandate it in order to lower that horrific statistic. Many people lack the knowledge they need to raise children or they lack the stability, energy or patience that is necessary in the child rearing process (392). Since we already remove children from abusive parents and homes to further prevent harm, he claims, why dont we require adults to prove that they are competent parents before they have children. Lafayette believes it is better to catch some bad parents than none like we catch some bad drivers than none with a licensing test. It is important for people to prove their competence before they engage in activities and a license or test fulfills that claim according to Lafayette. The only way to deny this conclusion is to deny the need for licensing any potentially harmful activity'(392), whether the regulation of drivers, doctors, or surgeons and without those regulations it breaks down a stable society. Addressing the issue of what happens when you fail the test is similar to the process of failing a drivers test though this issue can be addressed later on. If you are denied a drivers test you are given the opportunity to repeat the test to obtain your drivers license and thus if you fail the test you could to go counseling or therapy to improve your chances on passing the next test. The second part of Loftinesss core argument is his analogy with adoption; he claims that f we screen parents who want to adopt children we should screen biological parents as well. He states, the adoptive process is far more rigorous than the general licensing procedures I envision(398). In order to adopt a child you are tested many recognizes these demanding pre adoption procedures exclude some people who could be bad parents, which is a positive thing. Adoptive children are five times less likely to be abused than children reared by their biological parents(399). We screen adoptive parents because its better to deny some people the opportunity to adopt than freely allow anyone to adopt a child. Lafayette sees many parallels between his licensing program and the adoption program mainly, both programs have the same aim- protecting children(399). If we continue to regulate the adoption of children we should be compelled to establish a licensing program for any biological parent as well. Though, if you get pregnant without a license Lafayette wouldnt want to make abortions mandatory at all. He is against forced abortion, however, he would say the child would have to be taken from you until you pass the test in order to protect the child. You could be penalized for raising a child without a license that may be noninsured a crime, as if you drove a car without a drivers license. This program according to Lafayette does not demand that we license only the best parent; rather it is designed to exclude only the very bad ones (396). It is hard to test for good parents but easy to test for harmful ones, because they are defined as those who could abuse or neglect their children. Therefore there is enough criteria to make a licensing program for parents to successfully work in society. Though procedures for licensing drivers or surgeons are not a 100 percent accurate we embrace them anyway, so we should embrace the parental licensing program even though it is not 100 percent accurate as well. On the opposition side of the argument is philosopher Frisks who is against parental licensing. Frisks claims societies undertake licensing because there is reason to believe licensing will exert some control over specific risks. The risks fall into these categories according to Frisks, risks arising out of ignorance, risks arising through physical or mental incapacity, risks arising from willful misconduct, and risks arising through negligence or inability to exert self control over behavior(On Licentious Licensing, 348). Risk of ignorance and physical or mental disability are not factors for bad parenting, while risk of willful misconduct or lack of self control are factors for bad parenting according to Frisks. First, the ignorance risk says that you dont harm your kids and be a bad parent from ignorance, parents know that abusing your child is bad. A horrible doctor could harm patients with improper medicine but not because of ignorance, they know administering that particular medicine is bad. If you test based on ignorance in a parental licensing test there is no empirical reason to believe that making knowledge of parenting a prime retention for licensing would reduce the incidence of child abuse(348). Secondly, the physical or mental disability risk is not a factor in regards to parenting because if you cant walk that doesnt mean you cant be a caring and loving parent. For example, a deaf parent could care for an infant only if flashing lights were provided to alert the parent of the babys crying (349). In the case of the surgeon, if they cant see and lack adequate vision while performing surgery then the disability would be a factor for them in being a bad surgeon. We can test for this risk, however, it would not be a actor to prevent bad parenting. Thirdly, willful misconduct risk is a huge factor for bad parenting because it includes purposive violence to a child by the wrongdoer. Parents who like to be abusive exist; however, screening for them couldnt work on a violate those standards(349). Lastly, the self-control risk is a factor in bad parenting because if a parent gets frustrated really easily or if they are constantly under high stress they could potentially release that stress on their child. For example, they could shake their infant extremely hard out of a lack of self-control outbursts. Frisks says most cases of child abuse fall under this category and that it is difficult to image a testing situation that could duplicate that(349). The risks that are relevant cannot be tested for and the risks that are not relevant can be tested for on a parental licensing test. Frisks claims Loftinesss proposal wouldnt work on the grounds that he is confusing competence, testing drivers to see if they are fit to drive, with good Judgment, a quality that is indirectly in our present licensing procedures (351). Frisks says Lifestyles argument fails theoretically because he proposed sensing based on predictions of future abusive behavior from parents and that argument cannot hold in Frisks eyes. For example, what do we do if one parent passes the test and the other does not and should the licensing tests be repeated at different times? These questions and concerns about Loftinesss proposition are highlighted in Frisks response stating why licensing is not beneficial. The four risks provided by Frisks state the flaws in Loftinesss proposal for parental licensing. I agree with Lafayette on his position to enact parental licensing on the same reasons e presents. Though I find some of his arguments stronger than others especially the argument that if you are against parental licensing on the basis that it is not theoretically desirable or that there is no reliable procedure to implement this program, you also must deny the need to license any potentially harmful activity. I believe that the state regulates activities that are harmful to others and parenting should be one of those regulated activities since it is potentially harmful to children. Regulating drivers and surgeons protects the greater good therefore I agree with Lafayette saying administering a parental licensing test will protect the greater good by eliminating the bad parents in society. I would not want to live in a society where there were no regulation laws and anyone could drive a car or anyone off the street could perform surgery. Though I do understand that there will be unintentional mistakes with accepting this program and that would affect innocent individuals. However, there will always be mistakes in any licensing program, for example, the state could grant a license to a pharmacist who luckily passed the licensing test and hen could administer the wrong drugs to many patients. On the other side the state could not grant a drivers license to a single mother who needs to drive to work simply because she accidentally made a wrong turn during the drivers test. Although these mistakes do not add up to the importance of implementing the licensing program in my opinion because the greater good will benefit. I also support Lifestyles adoption argument because whether the child is yours biologically or through adoption I believe they should be equal in their testing for parental competence because the love for the child is equal in both cases. I feel Loftinesss strongest argument is his adoption argument and it is the argument I support the most as well. I believe since our screening on adoptive parents is so extensive and is non-existent for biological parents that the difference is concerning and needs to be equal. The parental licensing tests may also benefit society because if any adult takes the test they could qualified to raise a child. This in result protects a child from potentially being neglected or abused because the parents didnt realize they werent ready yet. In reply to my opinion there is a genetic objection that needs to be addressed. Lafayette supports a parental license test to determine the competence of an adult to be a good parent. Though if you support that claim you should support the idea of a genetic test to determine if the adult will pass on good genes to their child, therefore being a good parent genetically. Bad parents create the risk of harm, either mental or physical pain, on their children and parents can increase the likelihood of hurting your children by passing on genetic characteristics as well. Transmitting certain genetic traits, such as anxiety or depression, to your children can hurt them just as much as inflicting physical or mental on them. If you fail Loftinesss licensing test, you are deemed a bad parent, though with time you could change and retake the test and pass and be deemed a competent parent. However, you cannot test traits such as anxiety or depression on a written test therefore there would need to be a correlating genetic licensing test. Say an adult takes the genetic test and the results conclude that there is a fifty percent chance to pass genes of depression to your child, and then you are deemed inadequate to be a parent. In this case there is o ability to retake the test because your genes are permanent so if you fail the test you cannot be a biological parent. This genetic testing leads too slippery slope because if you are in favor of parental licensing for Loftinesss reasoning, how do you stop sterilization in the basis of genetic screening? Should the state then be able to mandate genetic screening? If you get advice from a doctor to not have a baby because a poor genetic trait could harm that child is different than the state forbidding you to reproduce. All human rights are also conditional, for example, the eight to religion is limited by the lack of a right to harm others and therefore the right to have kids is limited by not harming them. If we ban genetically bad people from reproducing in order to avoid harming children, we would loose diversity in the world, therefore leading to a snowball effect of negativity. Only the healthy and beneficial traits would thrive leaving us with a society of perfectly engineered people who all look the same and society would be defined by sterilization. Without uniqueness or differential genes in the world society will lack the necessary character it needs to thrive. Say you only can reproduce if you are athletic, intelligent and physically attractive because those traits that will benefit your child, then anyone else who doesnt have those traits will be eliminated since they cannot reproduce according to the genetic test. Therefore a genetic test in correlation to determine if you are a fit parent to raise a child is a destructive program for society. In response to the genetic objection, I believe that genetic licensing is not as bad as it seems and that if you dont make the claim to support genetic licensing that there will be something worse down the line to accept. Genetic licensing is not detrimental in my opinion because if you fail this genetic test you could still adopt a child because then you would not pass on your bad traits on to your child. If you want to raise a child there should be no difference in the love you give them if you adopt or biologically reproduce. Genetic testing is not as bad as it seems because say you have a disease such as downs syndrome and want to reproduce the odds of would not want to reproduce knowing I would pass my negative traits on to my biological child, therefore I would adopt so I could still raise a healthy child. Preventing and even eliminating these horrible diseases is something society can benefit from in my opinion. Sterilization may not be a bad thing since no one would have to suffer from cancer or be inflicted with continuous anxiety if these traits didnt exist in the world. I also agree with Lafayette on his adoption argument, therefore I support a written test and a genetic test for parental licensing for biological and adoptive parents. Genetic testing leads us to eugenics, even declaring who can reproduce and who cannot on the basis of their genes, and this slippery slope could potentially lead us to the issue of regulating adoption. It could say that since we dont want to test genetics in order to be a good parent then we cant have a written test and if we cant have a written test for biological parents we shouldnt test or screen for adoptive parents. Therefore I am more willing to embrace the argument for genetic testing because I support adoption regulation. According to Loftinesss principle harming children is wrong and a written licensing test to screen for parental competence can lower the odds of hurting children. I believe you cannot have a written test without screening with a genetic test because there are many active genes that can be harmful to children. I am not willing to accept letting anyone decide they want a child then go adopt one on the spot without any screening on their competence to raise the child. Either outcome is potentially harmful in my option but I am more willing to bite the bullet and accept the genetic testing bullet because not screening adoptive parents is even worse. I also support genetic testing on the grounds of Harriers yuck factor because with parental and genetic screening, genetic screening feels yucky or intrusive to us, though because something feels strange to us doesnt mean we shouldnt do it. Genetic testing is not as bad as it seems in my opinion. Lafayette and Frisks both raise convincing points in their arguments, however, I support Loftinesss claim on supporting parental licensing. There are millions of children in the world who suffer from parental violence or negligence and I believe there needs to be a test for adults to take before they can reproduce. It is contradictory to say that the state can regulate some activities that are harmful to others but not every activity that is harmful to others. Parental licensing is harmful to others so it should be regulated and congress should pass the law to enact it.

The Geography of Russia and Neighboring Countries Essay

The Geography of Russia and Neighboring Countries - Essay Example However, the Russian-speaking group forms more than half of the population followed by Ukrainians, then Uzbeks. There are also other smaller ethnic tribes within the country including Tatar, Bashkir and Chuvash. The country has a population of 142, 470, 272 people with a growth rate of 0.03%. Estimates place the birth rate at 11.8 per 1000 with an infant mortality rate of 7.08 per 1000 infants. The federation has a life expectancy of 70.16 years and 21.5 population densities per square kilometer. According to 2010 estimates, Russia has a 99.70% literacy level. The statistics are almost similar to those of the neighboring countries, especially the Scandinavian countries in east Europe or west of Russia. The federation of Russia recovered from a whole decade of post-Soviet political and economic turmoil to reposition as a world power. The Soviet Union comprised of several countries, precisely fifteen, which included the Russia republic and Scandinavian countries. The religious people of Russia and its neighboring countries can be categorized into Russian orthodox, Christians and Muslims (Kort 30). Russia and neighboring countries are lavishly endowed with natural resources. The federation produces 20% of world’s natural gas. Oil is also available and a valuable commodity in the country. It is self-sufficient in all key industrial raw materials (Blinnikov 60). It also has reserves of less vital, but nevertheless valuable, natural resources, including gold and diamonds. Russia and the neighboring countries are generously furnished with agricultural productive environment. Blinnikov (70) indicates that the neighboring Scandinavian countries provide more than 10% of worlds forest cover. The country encloses all of the vegetation zones in the world except tropical rain forest. The coldest weather is found in the east and north of the country. Extreme weather is nastiest from April

The legal driving age in Illinois should be raised from 16 Research Paper

The legal driving age in Illinois should be raised from 16 - Research Paper Example Even though many reasons were cited for increasing number of car accidents, the major reasons are underage driving, drink driving or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs etc. Even though in many of the American states, the legal driving age is 18, Illinois is one state in America in which the driving age is fixed to 16. The increasing car accident statistics from Illinois clearly point towards the necessities of raising legal driving age from 16. This paper briefly analyses the necessities of raising legal driving age from 16 in Illinois. Problems associated with driving at the age of 16 â€Å"According to a recent study by American Automobile Association, 30917 fatalities over the last ten years were the result of crashes involves drivers ages 15-17 years old† (Peters, 2007). Driving is a dangerous act and it is not a childish play since we consider the consequences of accidents. Accidents can take the lives of the driver, fellow passengers and other innocent peopl e on the road. It is ethically wrong to give the control of a vehicle in the hands of an immature person. Age sixteen, under no means is a matured age. Even for getting voting rights, completion of eighteen years of age is necessary in America. In other words, American administration believes that a person under the age of eighteen is incapable of taking sound or matured decisions. In American military, only people who crossed eighteen years of age are admitted. The legal drink age is fixed at eighteen years in most of the American states. The above examples clearly show that a person below eighteen years of age is incapable of handling tough situations and taking sound decisions. Driving is an act which requires continuous decision making. Any immature decision taken at the wrong time can cause accidents on and off the road. Under such circumstances, it is better to give the control of steering to people who crossed at least eighteen years of age. â€Å"Empirically, a number of re ports and survey show that the accidents prevalence rates among the underage drivers was very high and a greet cause of concern among parents and authorities† (Wilson, 2010). Driving a vehicle can be very dangerous for someone not having the proper experience and knowledge about the rules and regulations given by the state. Before being given a driver license a person should have completed certain age. The legal driving age set by the state Illinois is too low when we consider the complexities in driving a vehicle. Mind, hands and legs of the driver should be coordinated properly for ensuring safe driving. It is difficult for the children of age sixteen to get better coordination of mind, hands and legs. Moreover, it is difficult for the teenagers to take sound driving decisions. For example, teenagers like to drive their vehicle as fast as they can. They may not think properly about their steering or vehicle controlling abilities or the probabilities of accidents. Unnecessary overtaking and injudicious decision making while overtaking can cause big accidents. â€Å"Driving while either intoxicated or drunk is dangerous and drivers with high blood alcohol content or concentration (BAC) are at greatly increased risk of car accidents, highway injuries and vehicular deaths†(Drinking and driving, 2009). Most of the children in America taste the drinks even at an early age of below twelve years. Those who attracted by the

Asian Economic Development Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Asian Economic Development - Essay Example To understand these would bring clarity to the phenomenal success of this unique and dazzling city-state. The early 19th century saw the British expanding their dominions in India. It was also the time of growing trade with China, primarily for the precious tea sought by the British market. The extensive route that British merchantmen had to follow led them into territorial waters dominated by the Dutch and their East Indies colonies in Malaya. Malay pirates also roamed the route which made the British feel isolated and their position precarious in the region. It was important for Britain to open a port that could refit, revitalize, and protect its merchant vessels. Aside from the need to secure their mercantile fleets and their cargo, Britain was also looking for ways to check Dutch expansion in Southeast Asia. Thus, The Governor-General of India, Lord Hastings, instructed Sir Stamford Raffles to establish a trading station on the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. Raffles chose the island of Singapore (Flower 1984). Raffles thought of ways to establish British hold and attr... Thus, Singapore was snatched by the British from right under their noses. To attract traders which were already engaged in Dutch ports, he made Singapore into a free port. Traders could come and sell their goods without paying tariffs or taxes. This attracted Malay and Chinese tradesmen and all sorts of goods flooded into the island. Settlements grew and soon, free trade and strategic location transformed Singapore into a major centre for commerce in the region. Trade continued to flourish and what used to be a simple fishing grew as a free port espousing free trade, welcoming traders from all over the region. Singapore became a Crown colony after the Second World War in 1945. In 1959, it was granted self-government and joined Malaysia in September 1963. However, differences between leaders brought about separation and Singapore became an independent nation in 1965 (History of Singapore 2006). To date, Singapore's location, harbour and free port remain as its strong geographic advantages. With a small land area and population, the country is dependent on international trade which is much lager than its domestic market. In fact, as it recovered from the Asian financial crisis in 1988, its international trade was thrice its domestic earnings. This strength also proves to be its vulnerability, since its dependence on international trade also makes it sensitive to the fluctuations in the international market. As the country responds well to periods of growth and prosperity, minor negative developments in international trade can also result to major recessions in the Singaporean economy. Although domestic leadership and policies try to mitigate the effects of a constantly

Examining Prison And Its Alternative Institutions Criminology Essay

Examining Prison And Its Alternative Institutions Criminology Essay Prisons systems around the world have been pursuing an expansionist course for decades. There are more than 9.8 million people held in penal institutions around the world (Walmsley, 2008). Prison systems are having an increasingly difficult time dealing with the number of offenders that are sentenced to imprisonment as evident in the overcrowded living conditions and understaffed institutions. At a time when public expenditure is under pressure, governments are faced with the daunting task of finding funding to build new prisons and manage existing ones. Not surprisingly, prison is increasingly becoming regarded as a scarce and expensive resource. Some theorists have argued that there prisons should be abolished altogether given that they do not fulfil the justifications for punishment. Other theorists have contended that prisons are the only solution for the most serious crime but they are used much too often and for minor offences. The term reductionist refers to significant reductions in prison population size (Rutherford, 1984). While there have been recent increases in the incarceration rate in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, they have traditionally been regarded as successful examples of a reductionist policy. This essay will argue, not for the abolition of prisons, but for a drastic reduction in their use by using strategies proposed by Rutherford (1984) applied universally. Strategies to reduce the use of prison should start with the prison itself and substantially reduce the capacity of the prison so that prison is a scarce resource. Only then will alternatives to prison be used instead of prison and not in addition to prison. America has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 748 per 100,000 of the population (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). There are approximately 2,297,400 people held in state and federal prisons and local jails throughout the U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). This is almost a quarter of the worlds prisoners and yet America is home to less than five-percent of the worlds population (Adam Liptak, 2008). The state of California houses around 171,275 prisoners which is more than any other U.S state Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). California is a prime example of the countrys growing prison population and the unsustainable prison costs. In California alone, the prison system costs the government $10 billion a year (Trachtenberg, 2009). By 2012, the government will be spending more money on its prison system than its university system (Trachtenberg, 2009). The construction of new prisons has not reduced the unprecedented level of overcrowding or improved conditions in California prisons. There are 33 adult prisons in California and each prison is holding many more inmates than it was intended for (Specter, 2010). Some are reaching 300% of their capacity. The extreme overcrowding has meant that prison gymnasiums, hallways and cafeterias are being used to house inmates, and in some cases the inmates are triple-bunked (Specter, 2010). The inmates sleep in close confinement with one another, and there is nothing that protects them from being sexually and physically abused by fellow inmates. The crowded and unhygienic conditions, mean inmates are more likely to get sick, stay sick, and pass illnesses onto others. Prison overcrowding is directly related to the inhumane conditions that prisoners live in inside many of the worlds prisons. England and Wales also have a high prison population rate of 153 per 100,000 of the national population. Although the prison population rate in England and Wales is much lower than in America, many countries have rates of below 150 per 100,000. There are 83,392 people in prison in England and Wales and new and existing resources will need to accommodate a planned prison population of 96,000 by 2014 at an enormous cost (Walmsley, 2008; House of Commons, 2010). Recent research shows that prison expenditure in England and Wales increased dramatically between 2003 and 2009 from  £2.868 billion to  £3.982 billion respectively (Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2010). A large number of prisoners are sharing cells that were only intended for single use (Millie, Jacobsen Hough, 2003). If this forecast is realised then England and Wales will have the highest imprisonment rate in Western Europe at 169.1 per 100,000 people (House of Commons, 2010). The public expenditure is under great pressure in England and Wales and the government needs to decide if it will continue with its prison building programme or invest in the prevention of crime (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2009). Overcrowded prisons like in America and England and Wales are a symptom of the expansionist movement. The prison population rates are likely to increase annually and because it takes years to bring a new prison into commission the existing prisons are filled over and above their capacity (Rutherford, 1984). To deal with the expected increase in the prison population rate expansionist systems tend to have prison-building programmes in place to increase the size of their existing prisons and build new ones (Rutherford, 1984). Rutherford (1988) argues that serious overcrowding can attract political attention and lead to closer inspection of the prison system. In California, attention has been drawn to the state of Californias prisons by the various lawsuits that have been filed against the governor and corrections officials by prisoners. In the case of Plata v. Davis in 2002, the state acknowledged that it had not been providing adequate medical care to meet the needs of prisoners throu ghout the prison system (Specter, 2010). Based on this and other cases, a court was set up to address Californias prison crisis which concluded that overcrowding in the prisons prevented the state of California from providing adequate mental and medical health care to its prisoners (Specter, 2010). Following the investigation, the court imposed a population cap of 137.5% of the prisons capacity (Specter, 2010). According to Rutherford (1984), these types of orders can have several types of consequences. First, prison overcrowding can initiate a reductionist movement. Policy makers could be encouraged to make use of early release mechanisms or set-up more community-based punishments. For example, in California the state has launched a programme to trial shortening the period of time that parolees remain under intensive supervision which can last for years following their release from prison (Muradyan, 2008). The strict parole conditions mean that offenders are often returned to prison for parole violations such as missing their appointments (Muradyan, 2008). If minor-offenders are able to stay clean for six-months after their release from prison then their supervision will end early (Muradyan, 2008). In England and Wales, a report on the overcrowding of prisons strongly recommends that the government reinvest in community based sanctions for prisoners who are only sentenced to prison for a short time to reduce the prison population and reduce re-offending (House of Commons Justice Co mmittee, 2009). Second, prison overcrowding can encourage officials to make use of prison facilities in neighbouring jurisdictions (Rutherford, 1984). When the court imposed a population cap on Californias prisons the state began to transfer around 8,000 of its prisoners to facilities outside of California. This solution only succeeds in shifting the problem of overcrowding elsewhere and as we will see in the case of California, it is a short-term solution to a larger problem. The authorization to transfer Californias inmates to facilities in other states expires in July of 2011 (Muradyan, 2008). Third, overcrowding can contribute to the expansion of prison systems. When resources are stretched it can help to secure more resources for the expansion of existing prisons and the creation of new ones (Rutherford, 1984). In response to the prison crisis in California, the state borrowed $7.4 billion make room for 40,000 more prisoners in state prisons and to create 13,000 new county jail beds (Muradyan, 2008). This was a controversial move because the government obtained the financing through lease-bonding, a move that saves the state from having to gain voter approval and costs more than other types of bonds (Muradyan, 2008). It is clear from this example that there is big money involved in the expansion of prison systems. Most prisons are built with borrowed money like in California. The funding for prisons can produce big profits for the private companies that are involved in prison systems throughout the world in one way or another (Christie, 1994). Health care, food services and construction are all sectors that are expanding fast and providing big profits for private firms (Christie, 1994). Private sector involvement can also be seen in the private-prison itself. In his book, Crime Control as a Product (1994), Nils Christie raises the important point that with this amount of interplay with private profit interests, even up to the level of private prisons, we are building an important growth factor into the system (pg. 111). The profits associated with private prisons mean big money for private companies who are able to build and run prisons for a fraction of what it costs the government and the gover nment is able to avoid asking the voters permission to build a new prison (Christie, 1994). Christie warns that an expansionist policy will lead to private prisons and in turn, a focus on financial rather than humanitarian aims. Although Governments have been geared towards expansion for decades, a large number are becoming increasingly aware that prison is a scarce resource that is too expensive to maintain. In some countries, this perception is based on the understanding that prison is not fulfilling its key aims of punishment. Perhaps other countries are not comfortable using the restriction of liberty as the main form of punishment. But for a lot of countries, it would seem that a reductionist policy makes more sense than an expansionist one in economic terms. For example, in the Netherlands the judiciary believe that prison is ineffective as a punishment and should be used as a last resort (Downes, 1988; 81). The Netherlands has maintained a low prison population in the post-war period, a time when other prison populations have sky-rocketed. This is likely due to the short length of sentences compared with countries like America (Downes, 1982). There are a number of factors that are likely to have helped to maintain a certain level of penal capacity in the Netherlands. First, penal sentencing and criminal justice policy in The Netherlands has traditionally enjoyed a culture of tolerance. The culture of tolerance lead to less prejudice, less discrimination, and reduced the need for harsh punishment (Downes, 1988). A glance at the history of the Netherlands illustrates the long tradition of Dutch tolerance towards minority groups, deviants, and religious beliefs and points of view that strayed from the norm. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries The Netherlands was less inclined to use capital and corporal punishment than its European counterparts and notably fewer wartime collaborators were killed after the war compared with countries such as Belgium and France (Downes, 1988). Second, the culture of tolerance in The Netherlands was allowed to operate in the setting of a politics of accommodation. Criminal justice policy, for the most part, operated out of the public eye and was free from public opinion. Criminal justice policy was largely determined by a small group of professional elites who made accommodations with other smaller groups to support tolerant policies. A range of different groups, even those that supported abolitionism, were a part of the penal reform. Although criminologists with extreme views such as Bianchi, would have been excluded from advisory roles in England and Wales or the United States, in The Netherlands radical views on criminal justice are welcomed and the participation of elites with such views serves to lead debates in a direction that would not have been considered otherwise. The criminal justice process also remained free from unnecessary public interaction. The criminal justice system was run by a small number of highly pr ofessional and well educated practitioners. Other theories assert that a combination of social developments contributed to the sentencing trends in the Netherlands. There are five major social developments that may have impacted on the situation; the comprehensive range of social services, a large number of youth centres, a large number of client-oriented welfare and social-service agencies, responsible reporting by the mass media, and the pressure group activities on behalf of the penal reform by the social service agencies (Hulsman, as cited in Downes, 1988; 344). Another factor could be that many Dutch people were imprisoned during the War and that this made the Dutch less inclined to administer sentences of imprisonment as they understood the pains that imprisonment can cause (Downes, 1988). Downes (1988) argues that these factors occurred alongside the sentencing trends but that they did not necessarily influence the trends. The trends in the sentencing policy of the Netherlands have remained rather constant. The mild reactions of the Dutch to crime and the co-operation of political parties made it easier for a small group of elites to implement criminal justice policies free from public opinion. welfare However, maintaining such a stable prison population would not have been possible without the co-operation of the judges. The legal training which places a negative value on imprisonment seems to be important in maintaining the use of imprisonment as a last resort. The reductionist policy was not peculiar to The Netherlands at this time. Scandinavian countries have also enjoyed low levels of imprisonment and humane prison conditions. Although the levels of imprisonment in Scandinavia are also on the rise, the rate of 66 per 100,000 of the population is still significantly lower than many countries around the world (Pratt, 2008; Walmsley, 2008). Pratt (2008) attributes the low prison population rates and humane prison conditions to a culture of equality and generous welfare state. The Scandinavian welfare state provided support for anybody that needs it. There were no limits to who could apply for assistance and no shame involved in asking for it (Pratt, 2008). The people of Scandinavia afforded the state a large amount of power and paid high taxes in exchange for high levels of security. The state provided security for its people by guaranteeing work and unemployment benefits, social services (medical care, care for the elderly, and improved li ving conditions for its citizens (Pratt, 2008). Peoples individual interests were secondary to shared common and political goals (Pratt, 2008). In Scandinavia, there was a generally held belief that a strong welfare state could reduce the problem of crime the way it had reduced other social problems (Pratt, 2008). Crime was viewed as an illness that could be treated like any other illness and so the rehabilitation of offenders was an important part of the criminal justice process (Pratt, 2008). The job of the criminal justice system was to treat offenders and then reintegrate offenders back into the community. While in prison, offenders were treated humanely and there was no need for further degradation because the loss of liberty was the punishment (Pratt, 2008). Furthermore, the social solidarity in Scandinavia meant that offenders were not seen as a dangerous class, merely as another group of welfare recipients (Pratt, 2008). The Scandinavian public seem to be an exception to the increasingly punitive attitudes and policy towards offenders that exists in many countries around the world. Although the support for the rehabilitation of offenders is on the decline, while the use of sentencing and the length of sentences is increasing they are still more inclined than their European counterparts to believe that prevention programmes can reduce crime (Demker, Towns, Duus-Otterstrà ¶m Sebring, 2008. In addition, less than half of the Swedish public still believe that tougher jail sentences can reduce crime (Demker et al., 2008). The Netherlands and Scandinavia demonstrate that prison populations can be reduced and sustained at low levels. Some general themes have emerged: the criminal justice policies are expert and research driven; the criminal justice system is not influenced by public opinion or political motives; a strong welfare state. Perhaps the most important conditions for a successful reductionist approach are a questioning of the prison system and the purposes it serves and an understanding that the prison population is less to do with the amount of crime that occurs than the response to crime by the criminal justice system (Rutherford, 1984). According to Rutherford (1984) the reductionist policy can be applied more universally. Before looking at the ways Rutherford (1984) has proposed to reduce the prison population it is important to acknowledge that the items on the agenda need political support. Politicians need to acknowledge that there are alternatives to prison available, as demonstrated in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Instead of forecasting an increase in the number of people in prison, new low targets should be set. In addition, there must be a desire to push forward with the reductionist agenda even during hard times (Rutherford, 1984). Rutherford (1984) acknowledges that the ideological concerns of officials within the criminal justice system significantly influence the policies and procedures that are made. In many countries, there is a political consensus that an approach to crime and criminality should be tough. For example, in England and Wales, the prison system has expanded under both the Labour and Conservative governments. Both Labour and Conservative governments seems to ascribe to the Great Expectations  [1]  ideology as illustrated by their investment in the prison system. To gain political support for the reductionist agenda, people must be made not to like the great expectations approach so that it loses its vote-winning potential. Before any items on the reductionist agenda can be introduced there is a lot of work that will need to be done. Rutherford (1984) proposes nine ways to reduce the prison population according to the reductionist approach (Rutherford, 1984). They are as follows: The physical capacity of the prison system should be substantially reduced. There should be a precise statement of minimum standards as to the physical conditions of imprisonment and these should be legally enforceable. The optimal prison system staff-to-prisoner ratio should be determined and implemented. The prison system should have at its disposal early release mechanisms and use these to avoid overcrowding. Certain categories of persons sentenced to imprisonment should, if the space be not immediately available, wait until called-up by the prison system. Sentencing discretion should be structured towards use of the least restrictive sanction. Breach or default of non-custodial sanctions should only exceptionally be dealt with by imprisonment. The range of non-imprisonable offences should be widened to include certain categories of theft. The scope of the criminal law should be considerably narrowed (Rutherford, 1984: p. 175-176) To control overcrowding, Rutherford (1984) encourages the use of early release mechanisms. Parole as a form of early release can play a major part in determining sentence length and the size of the prison population. Parole is already being used in places like Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand (Ministry of Justice, 2010). Generally speaking, parole is the release of an offender on the grounds that they adhere to conditions decided upon prior to their release and that these conditions are in effect until the full term of their sentence is up. Narrowing the scope of the criminal law and widening the range of non-imprisonable offences is important because the majority of people in prison are not serious offenders, they are people who have committed minor crimes or created a social nuisance (Rutherford, 1984). Rutherford (1984) argues that as long as prison is used instead of providing welfare to these people, governments will not try to find more effective ways of dealing with this behaviour. At one point in time, social nuisances such as sleeping on the streets and begging were imprisonable offences. According to Rutherford (1984) certain categories of theft should also be made non-imprisonable. He proposes that: On economic and philosophic grounds, property offences where the amount involved is less than, say  £100, should be non-imprisonable. (Rutherford, 1988: 182). Perhaps the value of the property stolen is not the best way to decide whether an offence is serious or not especially when it is as random and subjective as Rutherford (1984) has suggested. It would make more sense to make all minor thefts non-imprisonable and would also be likely to have a more significant effect on the size of the prison population. An alternative suggestion is decriminalisation. Decriminalisation has the potential to reduce the prison population substantially if it is applied to drug use. In 2000, a report blamed the US drug contol policies for the soaring incarceration rate (Schiraldi, Holman Beatty, 2000). In that same year, nearly a quarter of people imprisoned were imprisoned for a non-violent drug-related offence (Schiraldi, Holman Beatty, 2000). These findings suggest that the decriminalisation of drugs and perhaps other minor non-violent offences could significantly reduce the number of people that enter the criminal justice system. Rutherford (1984) advocates the structuring of sentence discretion towards the use of the least restrictive sanction. To achieve this, Rutherford suggests a commission be set up to determine sentencing guidelines. A sentencing commission would have the difficult task of determining the seriousness of offences. The judiciary are generally given a lot of discretion when it comes to deciding sentences. For sentencing policy to have an impact on the prison population it requires the co-operation of the judiciary. Despite the introduction of non-custodial sentences prison populations have continued to rise. This raises doubts about whether non-custodial sentences are being used in the ways that they were intended. In some cases non-custodial sentences are used in addition to imprisonment or in instances where a custodial sentence would not have been handed down in the first place (Rutherford, 1984). Another concern is that strict conditions often accompany alternative sanctions. If the strict conditions are breached then the person can end up in prison anyway. An example of this is the suspended prison sentence which was introduced into English law in 1967 (Bottoms, 1981). The suspended prison sentence was supposed to be used instead of a prison sentence but it was largely used in cases where a fine or probation would have been previously handed out (Bottoms, 1981). Only about half of the people who received the suspended prison sentence would have actually been sentenced to prison if it were not for the suspended sentence (Bottoms, 1981). In addition, judges began to hand out longer sentences to people that received the suspended sentence than they would have if the same person was actually sentenced to prison (Bottoms, 1981). These figures provided a strong argument for the removal of the use of the suspended sentence in England. However, the suspended sentence was implemented in Japan and the Netherlands more successfully. An important difference is that in Japan and the Netherlands, a breach of the suspended sentence does not result in imprisonment (Rutherford, 1984). Rutherford (1984) suggests that this difference might explain why the suspended sentence has contributed to the prison population in England but not in the Netherlands or Japan. The inherent danger of alternative sanctions is that they will supplement rather than replace sentences of imprisonment. Rutherford (1984) recommends establishing a clear understanding of when the non-custodial sentence should be used and what will happen if further offending occurs while the non-custodial sentence is in place. Failure to pay attention to these important issues can have the unintended consequence, as seen in England, of widening the scope of the criminal justice system. Often, strategies to reduce the prison population focus on decisions at the rear of the criminal justice process that deal with the prosecution stage. It is important to note that the decision of who enters the criminal justice system is largely outside the control of the government (Rutherford, 1984). The police are involved in crime prevention, recording of crime, and investigating crime. They are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system and are afforded a great deal of discretionary power in deciding who enters the criminal justice system and who does not. In England, the police decide who to stop and search, who is guilty, and who to prosecute (Poyser, 2004). The decisions that they make have a huge impact on prison practice and policy. Perhaps the best way to restrict the reach of the criminal justice system is to significantly reduce the physical capacity of the prison system. There are three main ways to reduce the prison capacity; cease new prison building, phased closing of existing prisons, and refurbish existing prisons. In the Netherlands, prior to 1975, there was a large reduction in the prison population from 6,500 inmates to less than 2,500 inmates. The decrease in prison population size was associated with the closure of sixteen of the countrys prisons. If prison capacity is reduced and no new prisons are built, provided countries do not tolerate overcrowding, prison will be a scarce resource that should be reserved for the most serious crime. A logical extension of the reductionist argument is that prisons should be abolished altogether. Although it may seem a radical idea, a glance at the history of the death penalty tells us that abolition is indeed possible (footnote). This idea has received considerable attention within the field of criminology especially by criminologist Thomas Mathiesen. Over the years, arguments in defence of prisons have focused on claims about the purposes of punishment and prison. According to these arguments the purposes of punishment are: rehabilitation, general prevention, collective and selective incapacitation, and justice (Mathiesen, 2000). Mathiesen addresses each one in turn in his book Prison on Trial (2000). First, Mathiesen (2000) examines recent research on rehabilitation in prisons. The CDATE project is a review of a large number of studies on the rehabilitation of offenders in prison and the effects of interventions on drug use and recidivism (Mathiesen, 2000). The project found that correctional interventions were not effective in reducing recidivism (Mathiesen, 2000). Interestingly, community based sentences such as parole and probation did not do much better at reducing recidivism. Some of the programmes included in the study actually produced more problems. It is worth noting that a number of studies on interventions with an emphasis on developing social skills found positive results (Mathiesen, 2000). However, these studies are few and far between. Rutherford (1984) and Matheisen (2000) both express concern over the use of correctional interventions in the prison context. The kind of ideology that supports the use of prison to rehabilitate offenders ignores the history of resear ch on the topic. Rutherford (1999) is also concerned that rehabilitation is based on the idea that prison works and that offenders can be diagnosed and then treated. Then, Mathiesen (2000) addresses the idea that prison serves the function of general prevention. The effectiveness of prisons in producing enough fear in people to convince them not to commit crimes has been hotly debated in criminology. Mathiesen refers to Richard Wrights (1994) review of studies on deterrence. Wright (1994) concludes that the greater a persons perceived and actual chances of getting caught are, the less likely they are to commit crime (Wright, 1994). This is also true for later crime. Changes in policy that increase the perceived chances of being caught will reduce crime in the short-term but will not have a lasting effect (Wright, 1994). Furthermore, the expected and actual severity of crime has no effect on offending (Wright, 1994). Taken together, these findings provide no evidence of a preventative effect of the severity of punishment. Next, Mathiesen (2000) looks at incarceration. There are two ways that prison can be used as incapacitation; collective incapacitation and selective incapacitation. Collective incapacitation refers to the use of prison to incapacitate offenders based on the seriousness of the crime and to a lesser extent, their prior convictions (Wright, 1994). Selective incapacitation refers to the use of prison to incapacitate certain offenders who continually offend and pose a risk to law-abiding citizens (Wright, 1994). Wright (1994) argues that a small group of chronic offenders are responsible for the majority of crime committed. Although, prisons do not deter the offenders from committing crime, it can atleast incapacitate them and protect society from the crime of the chronics (Wright, 1994: 112). On the other hand, Mathiesen (2000) contends that research provides no support for incapacitation in defence of prisons. Incapacitation does not have a significant effect on the rate of crime nor do es it increase the safety of citizens (Mathiesen, 2000). In a review of the related literature, prison and more specifically incapacitation only had marginal effects on crime (Mathieson, 2000). It is also important to note that even though new generation of criminals will only replace those that are incarcerated and incapacitated. To lock the new chronic offenders away would only serve to swell the prisons more. The idea of selective incapacitation is even more controversial. Selective incapacitation raises methodological, legal, and moral concerns about the accuracy of predictive measures used to estimate the probability of future behaviours. The problem of false positives (people predicted to continually reoffend that do not) is central to these arguments. The number of false positives, from prediction instruments, is still very high (Mathiesen, 2000). If the various instruments were put into practice despite their inaccuracy, they would influence the decision making process in co urt. The chance that a person will re-offend is only one feature that the courts take into account when making their decisions. Courts also need to consider mitigating circumstances, fairness, and history amongst other things. Finally, proponents of the prison system endorse retribution as an ethical and fair goal for prisons. These beliefs date back to the influential writings of Cesare Beccaria (1964) in On crimes and Punishments. Beccaria disagreed with the barbaric and extreme punishments that were so commonly used in 18th century Europe. Retributivists believe that punishment should be proportionate to the crime. In this case, offenders are punished not for rehabilitation, or to prevent them commiting more crimes, but to give them their just desserts. The just desserts model requires that crimes are ranked according to severity, punishments are ranked according to severity, and then the crimes and punishments are matched (Wright, 1994). Ranking punishment

A Comparison of Outsiders in Their Eyes Were Watching God and Legal Ali

Outsiders in Their Eyes Were Watching God and Legal Alien In Pat Mora's poem, "Legal Alien," the author describes her biracial character as being "viewed by Anglos as perhaps exotic, / perhaps inferior, definitely different, / viewed by Mexicans as alien," a description which highlights the situation encountered by people who strive to be prestigious individuals by floating between cultures and who consequently fail to be a part of any particular group (Mora 9-11). Often the individuals are biologically trapped between two probable lives, and they forge ahead to meet the opportunity of possibly belonging to the higher society while they degrade the small culture which has weaned them from birth. These people find themselves caught up in the universal ideals of achievement and prestige, and they begin to find fault with themselves and their backgrounds; they believe that their perception of themselves must be changed and improved. They must be a part of the group; however, conflict results from their selfish desires, and they are rejected by both organizations. Expressively evident in the novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God, the conflict within certain racial groups often occurs when individuals of one race, blacks, strive to push themselves to the level of another race, whites; thus, the others left behind feel as if they have been betrayed while the whites gaze condescendingly on the black infiltrators. The ambitious individuals often follow a course of action involving the persecution of their own fellow brothers and the adoption of the features of their ideal, or higher, society. In trying to push herself to a level above the black folks, Mrs. Turner, a mulatto woman who is convinced of her superi... ...nt. By focusing on black society and showing the failure of an ambitious, "white" woman, she recognizes that a higher society is not necessarily better, as evidenced by the way Mrs. Turner attacks a weaker group of human beings. Mrs. Turner never comes remotely close to reaching the level of her white brothers, and she cuts her ties to her black neighbors so that she is lost and living without an identity. As Mrs. Turner insults the blacks, she claims that "'de higher de monkey climbs de mo' he show his behind," and this quotation surely seems to describe her and her situation (Hurston 136). The consequences of her prejudicial behavior have caused her to become "an American to Mexicans/ a Mexican to Americans" and nothing to herself (Mora 14-15). Works Cited: Hurston, Zora Neale. Their Eyes Were Watching God. New York: Perennial Library, 1990 ed.