Interpreting the First Amendment of the Constitution Essay Example for Free

Interpreting the First Amendment of the Constitution Essay The notion of being free to choose whatever religion a citizen wants to posses is notoriously known to be a liberty dictated by the first amendment. â€Å"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,† (A-18 Brinkley) are the famous words of the constitution. Yet, this same law also states that the legislative branch of the U. S. government does not have the authority to favor one religion over the other. In fact, it dictates that the government must remain secular when it comes to the affairs of religion as it cannot respect any one particular religion over another. Thus, there can never be a national religion, an American version of the Anglican Church, as it would hinder the government from preserving the freedom to choose between religions. The other liberties guaranteed by this amendment were the rights of speech, the press, â€Å"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances† (A-18 Brinkley). These are all liberties that allow for the citizens of the nation to protest the government. Civilians can protest through their speech, which may hold accusatory claims against the government, in public areas. Americans are allowed the right to publish grievances in the press, free of censorship from a legislative body, as well. These are liberties that allow for organizations to spread information and knowledge over any form of tyranny they may feel the government bestows onto the population. These are also lubricating actions that more easily allow for assemblies to form and confront the government over such issues. Really, the amendment is a formula for allowing the civilian populous to restrain the authority of the government.

What is penal welfarism? Garlands theory.

What is penal welfarism? Garlands theory. What is penal welfarism? Evaluate the impact it has had on juvenile justice reform in the UK from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present. In order to evaluate the impact of penal welfarism upon juvenile justice reform, the concept will be defined with reference to Garland (2001). The contributing societal factors to the emergence of penal welfarism in juvenile justice reform will then be assessed. The practical and legal achievements of penal welfarism in the juvenile justice system will be identified. Challenges to penal welfarism will be outlined, with particular reference to alternate conceptions of youth justice and criminality. The demise of the penal welfarism approach will be assessed, with specific reference to the motivating societal factors and comparison between the Welsh, English and Scottish juvenile justice systems. Penal welfarism as defined by Garland (2001) as a structural response to crime that is composed of two ideological standpoints. Due process and proportionate punishment, with their inherent liberal ideologies, ensure that all the rights of the juvenile offender are respected. The punishment is fitting to the crime and the circumstances of the juvenile offender. Rehabilitation and offender welfare are approached from a correctionalist viewpoint. This entails that the punishment served by the offender maintains a focus upon the rehabilitation of the offender, as does the approach of professionals who work with the offender during the punishment period. In short, penal welfarism suggests that rehabilitation will be most effective if the offender is provided with positive motivation while in the care of the penal reform system. The logic behind the practice is that if the offender is provided with the opportunity to progress in the penal institution, they will wish to continue to do so w hen released back into society. The notion of penal welfarism is derived from applying the practicalities of the welfarism ideology to the penal system. The welfarism concept asserts that policy requires evaluation in terms of its consequences (Kaplow Shavell, 2002). This assessment is most frequently made using a utilitarian approach, i.e. the usefulness of the approach in question. The logical application of this concept to the penal system dictates that policy regarding offender treatment should be assessed in terms of offender rehabilitation, i.e. the offender will not repeatedly offend upon release and as a result society will be safer. The focus is upon the usefulness of the punishment, i.e. its resulting benefit to society and improvement of personal conditions. Therefore penal welfarism maintains a focus on respecting the rights of the individual and maintaining a rehabilitative approach as this is deemed to be the most beneficial approach for both the offender and for society. The formation and application of penal welfarism to juvenile justice reform is interrelated with the emergence of a welfare state at the turn of the 20th century (Garland, 2002). The welfare state was implemented by the Liberal government in order to meet demands to negate social insecurity while protecting free trade and a capitalist economy (Daunton, 2007). The emergence of free trade had resulted in increased unemployment and harsher social conditions for those at the lower end of the pay spectrum. However, free trade and capitalism were deemed as models that required protection. Therefore pensions, health services and other such welfare services were centralized and nationalized to ensure that these individuals would be protected in the capitalist state. Garland (2002) identifies these welfare systems as being rooted in ideologies of protection and integration, so that even the most disadvantaged members of society are protected by the welfare state. Out of this ideology was born penal welfarism for juvenile justice. As these social and economical reforms based taxation upon the basis of the individual workers rather than according to the class system (Leonard, 2003), each member of society was treated upon the basis of individual circumstance, in theory dispelling the class system. Therefore, within the penal system for juvenile justice, individualism arose where the rights and rehabilitation of each offender was considered. The main legal and practical development in respect to penal welfarism was the separation of individuals under the age of 21 from adults in the justice system. In light of the requirement to individualize and respect the rights of each juvenile offender, juvenile courts were officially established by the Children Act 1908 (Goldson Muncie, 2008). In addition to this, corrective Borstals were created for juveniles under the age of 21. Individuals could be sentenced to a period in such an institution for between one and three years. It was considered that these institutions were to focus on rehabilitation of the juvenile, and the training of the juvenile to be re-integrated with society upon their release (Muncie, 2006). The role of the juvenile justice system was further defined by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (Ikin, 1933). This Act entailed the reorganization of reform schools so that they provided education to offenders; and training so that they may find employment upon completion of their sentence. Furthermore capital punishment for any offender below the age of 18 was abolished by the Act. Issues of anonymity were also covered (Ikin, 1933). The media were and are able to report the name of an adult offender if it was deemed to serve public interests. However, the identity of juvenile offenders was protected by the law. The penal welfarism approach to juvenile justice was criticized on both economical and ideological grounds. Economically, this system, and the welfare system in general, was criticized as being born out of fear of free trade and the emergence of corporations as the dominant financial players in society (Platt, 2002). Increased spending on the welfare system and individualist taxation were contributing factors to this. Ideologically, the concept has been challenged with reference to the societal conception of crime reformation and with reference to the individual in the system. In terms of the latter, it is the goal of reformation that is problematic. For example, Hudson (2002) outlines institutional sexism that was apparent in the penal welfarism definitions of rehabilitation. Discrepancies in the social moral code that must be adhered to by males and females highlighted unfairness in the treatment of females in this system. While rehabilitation of the male juvenile offender focused on the criminal act, female rehabilitation focused much more strongly on personal and sexual behaviour within society. In terms of societal conceptions of crime, it has been argued that viewing the juvenile as on a linear path through deviance (diversion) may be more effective in terms of negating re-offending (Austin Krisberg, 2002). Furthermore, re-defining what is considered a criminal act, for example, the redefinition of drug use as a social as opposed to a criminal problem; may result in a more effective approach to the problem in comparison to penal welfarism (Austin Krisberg, 2002). After a period of a Labour government working to enhance the ideology of care for the juvenile offender in the 1960s; the penal welfarism approach began to decline when the Conservatives came to power in the 1970 General Election (Smith, 2007). It was considered that the judicial and welfare aspects had become disjointed, and the focus began to grow upon the judicial proceedings of the system. This is evident by the significant increase in the number of juveniles receiving custodial sentences in the 1970s (Rutter Giller, 1983). The ideology increasingly narrowed onto punishment and control (Geisthorpe Morris, 2002) throughout the 1980s, especially in England and Wales. The issue of juvenile crime was focused onto the victims, with the criminals perpetrated as depraved (Jones, 1994). Echoes of this can be seen in present day society where hooded teenagers are feared by adult society (for an example of this see MacLean, 2008). Importantly, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 brought in a s eparation of systems, one to deal with juveniles requiring judicial attention, and one for those in need of welfare provision (Geisthorpe Morris, 2002). While England and Wales fully segregated these two systems, Scottish practices of juvenile justice policies maintained a higher level of communication between the two approaches. However, societal moral panics regarding serious youth crime and repeat offending has created a concern that juvenile offenders are not aware of the impact of their actions (Jones, 1994). This could possibly be related to the breakdown of community. These concerns have paved the way for a juvenile justice ideology that is based upon restorative justice as set out by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Geisthorpe Morris, 2002). Penal welfarism refers to a system that presents positive motivations for juvenile offenders to develop while in the penal system. The concept arose with the birth of the welfare state. Penal welfarism resulted in the segregation of juveniles from adults in the judicial process, the eradication of capital punishment for juveniles and anonymity of juvenile offenders from the media. As a concept, it was challenged for the welfare state’s impact upon free trade. It was also challenged by its characterisation of the juvenile offender; diversion and decriminalisation were offered as alternate ideologies. The concept demised with the segregation of welfare and judicial proceedings for adolescents. Societal factors for this include a fear of the juvenile offender. This has led to a focus on restorative justice which is implemented in juvenile reform today. References Austin, J., Krisberg, B. (2002). Wider, stronger and different nets: the dialects of criminal justice reform. In J. Muncie, G., Hughes E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Daunton, M. (2007). Wealth and Welfare: An Economic and Social History of Britain 1851-1951). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Garland, D. (2002). Penal strategies in a welfare state. In J. Muncie, G., Hughes E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Geisthorpe, L., Morris, A. (2002). Restorative Youth Justice: the last vestiges of welfare? In J. Muncie, G., Hughes E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Goldson, B., Muncie, J. (2008). Youth Crime and Juvenile Justice. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Hudson, A. (2002). ‘Troublesome girls’: Towards alternative definitions and policies. In J. Muncie, G., Hughes E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Ikin, A.E. (1933). Children and Young Persons Act, 1933: Being the Text of the Statute together with Explanatory Notes. London: Sir I. Pitman and Sons. Jones, M. (1994). Images and reality: Juvenile crime, youth violence and public policy. London: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Kaplow, L., Shavell, S. (2002). Fairness versus Welfare.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Leonard, M. (2003). Promoting Welfare? Government Information Policy and Social Citizenship. Bristol: Policy Press. MacLean, D. (2008). New hoodies are a yob’s dream. The Shields Gazette, 9th August. Muncie, J. (2006). From Borstal to YOI. In Y. Jewkes H. Johnston (Eds.) Prison Readings. Devon: Willan Publishing. Platt, A. (2002). The triumph of benevolence: the origins of the juvenile system in the United States. In J. Muncie, G., Hughes E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Rutter, M., Giller, H. (1983). Juvenile Delinquency: Trends and Perspectives. New York: Guilford Publications. Smith, R. (2007). Youth Justice: Ideas, Policy, Practice. Devon: Willan Publishing.

Creationism Essay -- essays research papers fc

In a typical American high school, Mr. Doe, the science teacher begins his discussion on the theory of evolution. John, a student opposes the idea the humans came from apes and evolved. John believes that men came from God and that man was created in 6 days. Jane hears this and argues against John, â€Å"How could anything possibly be created in 6 days? This sort of project would take millions of years!† By using up all 45 minutes of class time discussing creationism and evolution, this is a metaphor to the eternal debate as to the origin of the human species. The question of how man came into existence is one of the great debates of this century. There is not enough evidence to support creationism, yet there is even less to support evolution.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The controversy on the origins of life is still hotly debated to this day. The origins of life can be conceived from the theory of evolution or the theory of creationism. The argument is old earth [evolution] versus young earth [creationism] (Seely 2). An astounding 95% of Americans believe in God or a universal spirit, as compared to the 9% who conclude not to have a religion at all (Sheler 2). People have geared towards a more eclectic background on their â€Å"spiritual journey to meet our own personal need† (Sheler 2). Throughout history, humans have been through a gradual accretion rather than one â€Å"sporadic event† after another (Tattersal 58). It is only in the United States that this debate is such a conflict. Humans have an impulse to look unto a higher being rather than a human leader who has faults similar to their own. The higher being [God] should be one of pure perfection. It is the development or creation of man which is what is so intriguing, it is the mystery of man. As individuals and as a whole, people tend to get uneasy between their â€Å"religious compulses and our [their] unwavering commitment to a secular society† (Sheler 1). As a contradiction within itself, â€Å"we [humans] profess fidelity to traditional morality yet champion individual freedom and resist religious authoritarianism† (Sheler 1). Our own manifestations of how we originated and where we came from, the debate of â€Å"the chicken or the egg† is just blurred by the ambiguities between creationism and evolution. Was it the egg? If so, where did the egg come from? Eggs come from chickens, but then where did the chicken come ... ...act that we come from something and somewhere, it’s just the fact that we are searching for answers. Works Cited â€Å"Creationism.† World Book Encyclopedia. Vol. 4, 1994:1123. â€Å"Evolution.† World Book Encyclopedia. Vol. 6, 1994:436-443. Graham, Charlotte. â€Å"The Eternal Debate.† SIRS. http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst- ar†¦&type=ART&sound=no&key=CREATIONISM. 22 Oct. 1994:1-3. Gould, Stephan Jay. â€Å"Nonoverlapping Magistera.† SIRS. http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst- ar†¦&type=ART&sound=no&key=CREATIONISM. March 1997:1-8. Marlantes, Liz. â€Å"The evolution of a controversy.† ProQuest. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?TS=†¦&sid=1&1dx=25&Deli=1&RQT=309&Dtp=1 23 Dec. 1999:1-2. Onken, Michael. â€Å"Physics.† Microsoft Explorer. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec96/835000890.Phr.html. 18 June 1996:1. Sagan, Carl. The Dragons of Eden : Ballantine Books, 1997. Sheler, Jeffrey L. â€Å"Spiritual America.† SIRS. http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst- ar†¦&type=ART&sound=no&key=CREATIONISM. 4 April 1994:1-10. Sullivan, Robert. â€Å"2000 Years of Christianity.† Life. December 1999:50-68. Tattersal, Ian. â€Å"Once We Were Not Alone.† Scientific American. Jan. 2000:56-62.

The Road to Freedomâ€the Underground Railroad Essay -- Slavery South Pa

The Road to Freedom—the Underground Railroad Introduction "Many times I have suffered in the cold, in beating rains pouring in torrents from the watery clouds, in the midst of the impetuosity of the whirlwinds and wild tornadoes leading on my company—not to the field of...war...but to the land of impartial freedom, where the bloody lash was not buried in the quivering flesh of a slave...." (7,p.i). Such were the conditions of the Underground Railroad. It was a fictitous railroad but served the same purpose: to transport people from one place to another. This railroad, however, was not sanctioned by any government, in fact if it had been discovered many would have died. The Underground Railroad was a huge risk. If you used it, and were caught, you could die. For some that was better than being treated like pack animals or breeding animals by their southern owners. That was a risk they chose to take and conditions they must endure. The Underground railroad was a means by which slaves in the south could escape to the north and to freedom. The pioneers of the railroad went back to help their brothers and sisters in bondage. Many of them were leaders, or conductors that led others to freedom and risked theirs to do it again and again. National Standards This particular subject deals a lot with maps. Understanding the Underground Railroad means understanding maps and spatial organiation. The journeyers, themselves, had to know, distinctly, where north was or which way to follow the Ohio River. A reader will glean an understanding of the people that chose to journey on the railroad. They were fierce believers in freedom, willing to die for it. From this paper, readers will be able to define differe... ... 2. History and Geography of the Underground Railroad. 199?. http://www.niica.on.ca/csonan/UNDERGROUND.htm (April 14, 1998). 3. May, Ilana, Mark Beigel, and Lenny Hothchild. The Underground Railroad in Rochester, New York. http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/ugrr/home.html (April 14, 1998) 4. National Park Service Study: Taking the Train to Freedom. 1998. http://www.nps.gov/undergroundrr/contents.htm (April 14, 1998). 5. Quarles, Benjamin. Black Abolitionists. Oxford Universoty Press: New York, 1969. 6. Siebert, Wilbur H. The Underground Railroad. Arno Press and The New York Times: New York, 1968. 7. Smedley, R.C. History of the Underground Railroad. Arno Press and The New York Times: New York, 1969. 8. Weisberger, Bernard A. Abolitionism: Disrupter of the Democratic System or Agent of Progress? Rand McNally & Company: Chicago, 1963.

Comparing Spiritual Growth in Gardeners Grendel and Hesses Siddhartha

Spiritual Growth in Gardener's Grendel and Hesse's Siddhartha      Ã‚   A mythical beast who finds meaning in killing and a questioning wanderer who cannot find meaning in being: both John Gardener's Grendel and Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha grow and develop spiritually, yet their authors use vastly different styles to convey these changes.    John Gardner's revolutionary style is not encompassed by a single genre; instead, he mixes first-person narrative and several different literary styles to give the "Ruiner of Meadhalls" a unique voice. The use of first-person narrative is essential to convey Grendel's spiritual growth. Were it not for Grendel's often self-deprecatory tone, which varies from mocking - "big shaggy monster intense and earnest, bent like a priest at his prayers" (72) - to bitter and cynical - "I, Grendel, was the dark side. The terrible race that God cursed" (51) - Grendel would be impossible to relate to. Even Grendel's bouts of insanity - (whispering, whispering. Grendel has it occurred to you my dear that you are crazy?)" are easily understood.    Grendel varies from the simple, childish tone of "'Why can't I have someone to talk to? The Shaper has people to talk to'" (53) to the dense philosophical metaphors and complex diction of Grendel's conversation with the dragon. Gardener gives Grendel a purposefully guileless voice to illustrate both the monster's feelings of lost youth as well as his progression into a more sentient being.    "I think I was half prepared, in my dark, demented state, to see God, bearded and gray as geometry, scowling down at me, shaking his bloodless finger. (53)    The nihilistic dragon disagrees with Grendel's humanization, regarding men scornfully a... ...orld, not to despise it, not for us to hate each other, but to be able to regard the world and ourselves and all beings with love, admiration, and respect.' (147)    Siddhartha progresses from an aloof and slightly arrogant youth, not unlike young Grendel, to a wise, satisfied man.    The central difference between John Gardener's Grendel and Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha, both stories of spiritual growth and development, is not thematic. Instead, vast differences in tone and language make the self-deprecating monster easy to empathize with and the soul-searching wanderer simple and detached. Despite their stylistic differences, both works stand alone as examples of philosophical and spiritual evolution.    Works Cited   Gardner, John. Grendel. 1971; rpt. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Hesse, Herman. Siddhartha. Dover Publications, 1998.   

Tok Natural and Human Sciences

In my opinion I believe that expectations influence or observations greatly. If we think something will happen we are more likely to look hard for it. If we want something to appear then it is more likely that we will think that we see it. An example of this is when people hallucinate. Someone is more likely to see a ghost if they believe or are expecting to see one. In natural sciences when looking for something in an experiment we may think we see it if we are really hoping or expecting to see it.For example when looking for bubbles rising in different liquids and we are expecting one to rise then we may think we saw one and if not expecting one to rise we may think that it wasn’t one. Another supporting example is when we are looking for someone and we see someone either in the distance or we see a flash or someone, if we are expecting to see that person or hoping to see them we may interpret them as the one we are looking for.This shows how expectations can influence our o bservations in seeing what we want and/or what we expect to see. Although to an extent expectations don’t completely influence our observations. They don’t change them only impact on them. We may see after that it isn’t when we focus more on the subject. So our observations can be momentarily manipulated but not completely. It depends whether it is a positive expectation or negative expectationHuman Sciences – How do the human sciences differ from the natural sciences? Human sciences study human life and human activities. It includes fields of study such as social sciences like history, anthropology, sociology and many others. Basically, everything that has humans all over it. Natural sciences on the other hand studies the universe. It includes fields of study such as biology, astrology, chemistry, physics and others. Basically, everything about nature and what is around us.

Mitosis and Meiosis Essay

Abstract: There are two types of nuclear division, mitosis and meiosis. Mitosis is usually used for the growth and replacement of somotaic cells, while meiosis produces the gametes or spores used in an organism’s reproduction. Hypothesis: Mitosis occurs in whitefish blastula and onion root tip, and it is easily observable. Meiosis and crossing over occurs in the production of gametes and spores. Materials: This lab required prepared slides of whitefish blastula, onion root tips, ovary, and testis, a microscope, and chromosome kit. The prepared slides of whitefish blastula and onion root tips, ovary, and testis were observed under the 10x and 40x objectives. Mitosis is easily observed in cells that are growing at a rapid pace such as whitefish blastula or onion root tips, which was used in this lab experiment. The root tips contain and area called the apical meristem that has the highest percentage of cells undergoing mitosis. The whitefish blastula is formed directly after the egg is fertilized. This is a period of rapid growth and numerous cellular divisions where mitosis can be observed. In mitosis the cell is in interphase, and have a distinct nucleus and nucleoli where the thin threads of chromatin thicken into distinct chromosomes and the nuclear evvelope breaks open releasing them into the cytoplasm. The firs signs of the spindle begin to appear, next the cell begins metaphase, where the spindle attaches to the Centromere of each chromosome and moves them to the same level in the middle of the cell. This level position is called the metaphase plate. Anaphase begins when the chromatids are separated and pulled to opposite poles, th en the final stage is telophase. The nuclear envelope is reformed and the chromosomes gradually uncoil. Cytokinesis may occur, in which, a cleavage furrow will form and the two daughter cells will separate. Meiosis is more complex and involves two nuclear divisions. The two divisions are called Meiosis I and Meiosis II and they result in the production of four haploid gametes. This  process allows increased genetic variation due to crossing over where genes can be exchanged. This process allows increased genetic variation due to crossing over where genes can be exchanged. The process , like mitosis, depends on interphase to replicate the DNA. Meiosis begins with Prophase I. In this stage, homologous chromosomes move together to form a tetrad and and synapsis begins. This is where crossing over occurs resulting in the recombination of genes. Metaphase I moves the tetrads to the metaphase plate in the middle of the cell, and Anaphase I reduces the tetrads to their original two stranded form and moves them to opposite poles. Telophase I then prepares the cell for its econd division. Meiosis II generally resembles mitosis except that the daughter cells are haploid instead of diploid. DNA replication does not occur in Interphase II, and prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase occur as usual. The only change is the number of chromosomes. Reference: LabPaq, Englewood Co, 2008 Raven, Johnson, Mason, Losos, and Singer. Biology 10th Ed., McGraw-Hill., New York, NY., 2014 http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/bio%20101/bio%