Why the criminal justice system should be changed Essays - Penology

Why the criminal justice system should be changed I feel like the court system and the way criminals are punished for their crimes is solid in areas but needs improvement. Criminals should be punished but sometimes i feel like this is taken to the extreme. There should be a difference for crimes that are committed by people who have no other option and people who commit crimes based on greed and ignorance. For example one thing that i see wrong in the court system is the death penalty. The death penalty should not be an option in the united states. The death penalty gives people gives people who have committed horrible crimes an easy way out of there punishment. There's a saying that's been around for awhile , ' An eye for an eye'',. My honest opinion about this statement is that if that was the case every time , then we would all be blind. Race, social and economic status, location of crime, and pure chance may be the deciding factors in the death penalty. Not only is the death penalty horrible but it is also expensive the actual cost of an execution is sufficiently higher than the cost of imprisoning a person for life. Families of murder victims go through a lot of trauma and loss and it takes alot to heal. However executing the murderer does not help these people heal nor does it end their pain Sometimes people have to steal but not for greed or for selfish reasons ,but for necessities of life. The only thing i would qualify as a necessity would would be food, water,and medicine. If someone steals two hundred thousand to buy a car would get the same prison time as someone who stole two hundred thousand to buy medicine for his sick wife. Stealing is wrong don't get the wrong idea but sometimes you have to do what's best for you and your family when there's no other option. it is necessary to be specific on what type of stealing was done due to a few factors. Generally speaking the punishment for minor theft is not as harsh, while more serious or widespread theft crimes are punished more strictly. Also some theft crimes that involve weapons or physical threats may sometimes be classified as violent crimes. I honestly think it's unbelievable that we dump nonviolent criminals in prison cells with violent ones, even in local jails and holding tanks. Even tho Most of the time nonviolent criminals do in fact learn a lesson or two. Ironically we spend an average of $20,000 per year, per inmate, teaching them this. For less than that we could be sending every nonviolent offender to college. To make matters worse, in most prisons when an inmate is threatened he or she is the one who gets locked up in a little cell for twenty-four hours a day, while those doing the threatening remain in the open population. If You ask me we should be doing the opposite and look up the violent criminals to show them them that we are not going to stand for those actions. In addition to the things that could be fixed the criminal justice system would be getting wrongfully convicted of crimes you never committed. People always feel like it's necessary to plead guilty for crimes they did not commit in order to avoid the death penalty or extremely long prison sentences. This has always been recognized by the U.S. legal system. There is a rising number in exonerations over the past couple years. However there is a growing awareness injustices occur every day in American courts.Because of this there are more and more profound doubts every day about the accuracy and fairness of the criminal justice system. This understanding is supported by considerable recent research. This rising in awareness and growing research has motivated a growing number of innocence projects. These projects work to exonerate wrongly convicted prisoners.

Major General Gideon J. Pillow in the Civil War

Major General Gideon J. Pillow in the Civil War Gideon Pillow - Early Life Career: Born June 8, 1806 in Williamson Country, TN, Gideon Johnson Pillow was the son of Gideon and Ann Pillow.   A member of a well off and politically-connected family, Pillow received a classical education in local schools before enrolling at the University of Nashville.   Graduating in 1827, he read law and entered the bar three years later.   Befriending future president James K. Polk, Pillow married Mary E. Martin on May 24, 1831.   Later that year, Tennessee Governor William Carroll appointed him a district attorney general.   Possessing an interest in military affairs, Pillow commenced service in the state militia with the rank of brigadier general in 1833.   Increasingly wealthy, he expanded his land holdings to include plantations in Arkansas and Mississippi.   In 1844, Pillow used his influence to aid Polk in obtaining the 1844 Democratic nomination for president. Gideon Pillow - Mexican-American War: With the beginning of the Mexican-American War in May 1846, Pillow sought a volunteer commission from his friend Polk.   This was granted on July 1, 1846 when he received an appointment as a brigadier general.   Initially leading a brigade in Major General Robert Pattersons division, Pillow saw service under Major General Zachary Taylor in northern Mexico.   Transferred to Major General Winfield Scotts army in early 1847, he took part in the siege of Veracruz that March.   As the army moved inland, Pillow demonstrated personal bravery at the Battle of Cerro Gordo but his leadership proved weak.   Despite this, he received a promotion to major general in April and ascended to division command.   As Scotts army neared Mexico City, Pillows performance improved and he contributed to the victories at Contreras and Churubusco.   That September, his division played a key role in the Battle of Chapultepec and he suffered a severe wound in his left ankle. Following Contreras and Churubusco, Pillow clashed with Scott when the latter directed him to correct official reports that overemphasized the role he played in the victories.   Refusing, he worsened the situation by submitting a letter to New Orleans Delta under the name Leonidas which claimed that the American triumphs were solely the result of Pillows actions.   When Pillows machinations were exposed following the campaign, Scott had him arrested on charges of insubordination and violating regulations.   Pillow then accused Scott of being part of bribery scheme to bring an early end to the war.   As Pillows case moved towards court-martial, Polk became involved and ensured that he was exonerated.   Leaving the service on July 20, 1848, Pillow returned to Tennessee.   Writing of Pillow in his memoirs, Scott stated that he was only person I have ever known who was wholly indifferent in the choice between truth and falsehood, honesty and dishonesty and willing to commit a total sacrifice of moral character to attain his desired end. Gideon Pillow - The Civil War Approaches:            Through the 1850s Pillow worked to enhance his political power.   This saw him unsuccessfully attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for vice president in both 1852 and 1856.   In 1857, Pillow was outmaneuvered by his rivals when he sought to gain a seat in the US Senate.   During this period, he befriended Isham G. Harris who was elected Governor of Tennessee in 1857.   As sectional tensions worsened, Pillow actively supported Senator Stephen A. Douglas in the election of 1860 with the goal of preserving the Union.   Following Abraham Lincolns victory, he initially resisted secession but came to support it as it was the will of the people of Tennessee. Through his connection to Harris, Pillow was appointed the senior major general in the Tennessee militia and made commander of the states provisional army on May 9, 1861.   Taking time to mobilize and train this force, he was transferred to the Confederate Army in July with the lower rank of brigadier general.   Though angered by this slight, Pillow accepted a posting to serve under Major General Leonidas Polk in western Tennessee.   That September, on Polks orders, he advanced north into neutral Kentucky and occupied Columbus on the Mississippi River.   This incursion effectively swung Kentucky into the Union camp for the duration of the conflict. Gideon Pillow - In the Field: In early November, Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant began moving against the Confederate garrison at Belmont, MO across the river from Columbus.   Learning of this, Polk dispatched Pillow to Belmont with reinforcements.   In the resulting Battle of Belmont, Grant succeeded in driving back the Confederates and burning their camp, but narrowly escaped when the enemy attempted to cut his line of retreat.   Though largely inconclusive, the Confederates claimed the engagement as a victory and Pillow received the thanks of the Confederate Congress.   As in Mexico, he proved difficult to work with and soon was engaged in a dispute with Polk.   Abruptly leaving the army in late December, Pillow recognized he had made a mistake and was able to have his resignation cancelled by President Jefferson Davis. Gideon Pillow - Fort Donelson: Assigned to a new post at Clarksville, TN with General Albert S. Johnston as his superior, Pillow began forwarding men and supplies to Fort Donelson.   A key post on the Cumberland River, the fort had been targeted by Grant for capture.   Briefly commanding at Fort Donelson, Pillow was superseded by Brigadier General John B. Floyd who had served as Secretary of War under President James Buchanan.   Effectively surrounded by Grants army by February 14, Pillow proposed a plan for the garrison to break out and escape.   Approved by Floyd, Pillow assumed command of the left wing of the army.   Attacking the next day, the Confederates succeeded in opening a line of escape.   Having accomplished this, Pillow shockingly ordered his men back to their trenches to resupply before departing.   This pause allowed Grants men to reclaim the ground lost earlier.       Irate at Pillow for his actions, Floyd saw no alternative but to surrender.   Wanted for graft in the North and seeking to avoid capture and possible trial for treason, he turned command over to Pillow.   Having similar fears, Pillow devolved command to Brigadier General Simon B. Buckner.   That night, he departed Fort Donelson by boat leaving Buckner to surrender the garrison the next day.   Informed of Pillows escape by Buckner, Grant commented if I had got him, Id let him go again. He will do us more good commanding you fellows.        Ã‚   Gideon Pillow - Later Posts: Though directed to assume command of a division in the Army of Central Kentucky, Pillow was suspended by Davis on April 16 for his actions at Fort Donelson.   Placed on the sidelines, he resigned on October 21 but had this rescinded when Davis returned him to duty on December 10.   Given command of brigade in Major General John C. Breckinridges division of General Braxton Braggs Army of Tennessee, Pillow took part in the Battle of Stones River at the end of the month.   On January 2, during an assault on the Union line, an enraged Breckinridge found Pillow hiding behind a tree rather than leading his men forward.   Though Pillow attempted to curry favor with Bragg following the battle, he was reassigned on January 16, 1863 to oversee the armys volunteer and conscription bureau.   Ã‚   A capable administrator, Pillow performed well in this new role and aided in keeping the Army of Tennessees ranks filled.   In June 1864, he briefly resumed field command to mount an attack against Major General William T. Shermans lines of communication at Lafayette, GA.   A stunning failure, Pillow was returned to recruiting duties after this effort.   Made Commissary General of Prisoners for the Confederacy in February 1865, he remained in administrative roles until his capture by Union forces on April 20.    Gideon Pillow - Final Years: Effectively bankrupted by the war, Pillow returned to practicing law.   Opening a firm in Memphis with Harris, he later sought civil service posts from Grant but to no avail.   Continuing to work as a lawyer, Pillow died of yellow fever on October 8, 1878 while in Helena, AR.   Initially buried there, his remains were later returned to Memphis and interred at Elmwood Cemetery.      Selected Sources Civil War Trust: Gideon PillowLatin Library: Gideon PillowTEHC: Gideon Pillow

All About Comment Clauses in English

All About Comment Clauses in English A comment clause, commonly heard in everyday speech and used in dialogue to  give it a natural tone, is a short word group, such as you see and I think, that adds a parenthetical remark to another word group. Its also called a  comment tag, a commenting tag or a parenthesis. You might not have known the name of it, but its guaranteed you use and hear it just about every day. Examples and Observations of a Comment Clause Commonly occurring examples [of comment clauses] are Im sure, Im afraid, I admit, I gather, I dare say and you see, you know, mind you, you must admit. Many comment clauses are stereotyped fillers which are inserted into running speech in order to establish informal contact with the hearer. When the subject is realized by I, their function is to inform the hearer of the speakers degree of certainty (I know/I suppose) or of her emotional attitude to the content of the matrix clause. -Carl Bache, Essentials of Mastering English (2000)As you know, the concept of the suction pump is centuries old. Really thats all this is except that instead of sucking water, Im sucking life. -Christopher Guest as Count Rugen in The Princess Bride (1987)The presentation went quite well, I believe.All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself to warnings or explanations. It simply is. Take it moment by moment, and you will find that we are all, as Ive said before, bugs in amber. -Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five  (1969) They [comment clauses] are so called because they do not so much add to the information in a sentence as comment on its truth, the manner of saying it or the attitude of the speaker. -Gunther Kaltenbock, Spoken Parenthetical Clauses in English: A Taxonomy (2007)Fly high above the cloudsOn the wings of a dreamI hear your whisper loud- Or so it seems. -Jackie Lomax, Or So It Seems Signals in Conversation The comment clauses you know and you see require some kind of response from the listeners, which, in a narrative turn, are more likely to be paralinguistic than vocal. Nods of the head, direct eye contact and minimal vocalizations like mm will satisfy the speaker that he still has the audiences consent to continue dominating the turn-taking. -Sara Thorne, Mastering Advanced English Language (2008) Comment Clauses and Relative Clauses In an example like Margaret Thatcher is now a life Baroness, which everyone knows, we can replace which with as with virtually no change of meaning. But unlike which, as is not generally used as a relative but as a conjunction. Note also that as everyone knows is positionally less restricted than which everyone knows: It could also be placed initially or medially. We, therefore, do not classify such an as-clause as a sentential relative clause but as a comment clause. -C. Bache and N. Davidsen-Nielsen, Mastering English  (1997)

Convinving a friend to stop smoking Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Convinving a friend to stop smoking - Essay Example Wouldn't it be wonderful for you to quit smoking Imagine the improved health, physically and mentally not to mention the extra savings from cigarettes expenses each week. Allow me to show you why you need to stop smoking. The American Heart Association (AHA) in their recent survey indicates that smokers live an average of 14 years less than smokers (Marrow, 2008). There are many reasons for this, one of them being the diseases associated with smoking. Health authorities usually puts a warning on each cigarette box against the would be smokers but I think you need more than this. Listen to this from think.quest.org estimates that over 3000 chemical substances exist in tobacco smoke. Nicotine, carbon monoxide, sulpher dioxide, methanol are just a few. Assuming now somebody comes to you and says "hey you want to inject a dose of sulpher dioxide in your blood stream." Would you deny it Yet that is what you are doing each time you smoke. Diseases such as lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, pulmonary diseases, asthma, osteoporosis, smokers cough, cancers of lynx and tongue are derived from such chemicals, and the risk is directly proportional to the cigarettes smoked. Apart from the diseases other condit ions can be foul body odor and general ill feeling (Marrow, 2008). So how do you exactly stop smoking Firstly sit down and write a list of thing that compels you to stop smoking then set a date for the action.

Arguments for and against Death Penalty Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Arguments for and against Death Penalty - Essay Example However, a common opinion in regard to the use of death penalty has not been accomplished. This essay is an argument regarding the use of death penalty. It presents some reasons why death penalty should be abolished, while on the other hand it presents several reasons why the application of death penalty is right. There are certain situations whereby I have reasoned that death penalty should be applied on some of the crimes against humanity. For example, there are situations whereby people hire killers to cause the demise of those whom they feel are a barrier to their prosperity. Others do this as a result of disputes. The most amazing thing is that those who carry out such murders would never like to be faced with a situation whereby they can lose their life. The big question is why anyone would want to terminate another person’s life while he/she would not like his/hers to be terminated. This is selfishness that does not need to be supported under all the circumstances. Case y (2000) argues that once a person kills for the first time, it is likely that he is going to take the life of another. Human beings are vulnerable to death caused by fellow humans in many cases. This is because a person with the intention of killing another is intelligent enough to way lay the unsuspecting victim regardless of the living environment. I disagree with the people who argue that assassins should be sentenced to serve jail terms whereby they get rehabilitated with a situation whereby.

The Effects of Divorce on Children :: essays research papers

The Effects of Divorce on Children Divorce is a process that many people in America go through. The divorce rate continues to escalate over the years. Divorce is a serious problem, it is a gradual process that ultimately results in families breaking up. There are various factors in which a marriage can fail and end up in divorce. Some skip the step of trying to reconcile things and make it work. In some cases it is easy for a divorce to take place. For instance, in cases where both parties are in agreement and have no children it is easier to handle a divorce. But in the cases where children are present, what happens to the kids? Both parents are at each others throats or one is devastated from the rejection, what role does the child play? It is a hard thing to cope with as an adult imagine as a little one or even a teenager, it affects them in more ways than anyone can imagine. It can affect them both physically and emotionally. The effects of divorce are immense, it permanently weakens the bond or relationship betwe en a child and his parents. Can lead to them reaching out or looking to others for attention, causing poor attitudes, low self esteem, dropping grades, loss of virginity, use of drugs and or weapons, or in some cases mutilation of the body. There are various effects that children have to deal with that maybe extremely hard to cope with. One parent may say one thing yet the other disagrees and makes it impossible for the child to have a stable relationship with both of them. Children need both biological parents at their side to be guardians and counselors in their lives, to be examples of what they need to do to become outstanding citizens in our community.

Lenin in accounting for Stalins defeat of his opponents in the years 1924-1929 Essay

How significant were the personalities of the contenders to succeed Lenin in accounting for Stalin’s defeat of his opponents in the years 1924-1929 Stalin, throughout the fierce fight for power exploited his attributes to the best of his ability, however his tactics were not the only factor in his eventual success. Perhaps what’s more interesting is the systematic fails, one by one of all of his contenders – which was due to their individual personalities. Many argue this is the more significant reason for Stalin’s rise to power, and that if this had have been changed Stalin’s success would have been entirely different. Stalin’s opponents, understandably had very different personalities. However looking in hindsight none of them seem to create a difficult situation for Stalin. This could be due to Stalin’s natural ability to change and use his opponents strengths and weaknesses, or perhaps the general naivety of many in the politburo. One main example of this is Trotsky, and his rather egotistic and arrogant personality. This intern made people weary of his power, and made him completely oversee Stalin as a contender for power. Lenin in his testament says himself he is â€Å"not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution† and the politburo completely over saw this cautious remark for their own reputation. The evidence seems to suggest members of the Bolshevik party didn’t use their personality’s to the best if their potential. Furthermore Trotsky seemed very trivial about the whole situation. In 1924 he didn’t make Lenin’s funeral, eventually blaming that on Stalin. In the successive years after he didn’t make important politburo meetings and refused to make alliances. In 1926 he did eventually see light forming the ‘united opposition’ however by then it was too late and Stalin’s fan base was too large in the central commission. Another example of this is how Bukharin in 1925 decided to stay strictly to the Bolshevik rules. This perhaps shows how good a man he is, but not how good a politician he is. In that situation he has seen his fellow socialist members being taken over by Stalin, but does very little to stop this. Furthermore he says himself Stalin is â€Å"an unprincipled intriguer who subordinates everything for his appetite for power† The evidence here suggests he saw the dilemma, but does very little about it. In hindsight we now know he allowed Stalin to use his powerbase for his own political marketing. This shows the true naivety of Bukharin and how Stalin’s personality completely overshadowed anybody else’s in the politburo. Moreover this shows how truly significant the personalities of every one of Stalin’s contenders were, in allowing and creating a path for Stalin to walk to power. Perhaps if other people in the politburo were willing to play underhand tactics like Stalin, the end would have been different. In retrospect we can see personalities might not be a main factor – perhaps the individual ideologies played a larger role, but it’s the way people acted towards Stalin, completely overshadowing him that makes personalities so significant. Other peoples personalities did play a vital role, but now in stark contrast we begin looking at Stalin’s personality strengths, and how he uses them to the best of his ability. He, from the very beginning was a ‘yes man’ following Lenin till the very end. However one major strength that Lenin foresaw was Stalin’s ability to challenge his thoughts and ideologies. Stalin from the very beginning has ‘a very strong personality’ (Lenin) and this was used this in the July days (a troubled time for the Bolshevik party) when Lenin needed this unique quality from him. Arguably this is Stalin’s biggest asset. Furthermore Stalin’s ability to change tactics and ideologies, particularly in the later stage of the power struggle was, down to an incredibly versatile personality. Moreover his ability to look into the future and plan his actions to aid his accent was stunning, as if he planned every move meticulously and almost in hindsight. Looki ng at the evidence, Stalin’s personality was vital in his accent, but perhaps if the others had been different the overall outcome would have drastically changed. Personalities were vital in the success and failures of the struggle, however Stalin’s under hand tactics played an equally important role. Before and during the 5 year struggle he implemented many tactics to undermine his opponents, and one by one remove them from the possibility of power. Lenin saw this in his final years, and discussed it in his testament, however Stalin persuaded Kamenev and Zinoviev to fight his side, and intern keep his job. Furthermore his ability to switch ideologies and allies is a testament to his versatile personality. An example of this is in the later stages of the struggle, when only him and Bukharin were left for the job. Stalin suddenly rejected NEP because it was failing and turned radically left. This sudden maneuver allowed left wing supporters and nationalist war communists to support him, as well as gaining the support of anti NEP politicians. In all this he managed to leave Bukharin to pick up the pieces of NEP. Furthermore Stalin re introduced grain requisitioning in early 1928 to make sure NEP was a complete fail. Its these quite brilliant tactics that formulate into a plan that make Stalin truly versatile and incredibly shrewd and devious. In everything Stalin did there always seemed to be a very formulated plan, and in this was surrounded by brilliant political tactics. However these tactics were merely ways of getting rid of political opponents, and due to personalities as whole, arguably tactics are not as important as other factors. Alternatively the power bases’ of other opponents could be as significant as personality in the war struggle for power, and the defeat of all his opponents. All Stalin’s opponents had important roles within the Bolshevik party, and in many ways – more significant roles than Stalin. One in particular is Trotsky. Head of the Red army, and an incredibly influential role within the Politburo. Lenin says himself â€Å"personally he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committee† His power base is remarkable, with huge amounts of Kudu’s within the Bolshevik party. However – arguably as well as him being too â€Å"self-confident† Stalin used this wealth of power base to his advantage by forming the Triumvirate with Zinoviev and Kamenev. When we turn to other members such as Bukharin, we see that generally their powerbases, although more significant for policy making were not as useful for gaining power as Stalin’s, and perhaps this was a significant reason for their in individual defeat. Stalin’s role within the party was General secretary and head of enrolment and promotions. This involved the inner workings of the Party. The evidence indicates that Stalin used his role, from 1922 to strengthen his fan base within the party and Central committee, which later in 1925/26 seemed to secure his position within the party, in 1923 it was up to 30%, and steadily rising. This seems to indicate his role and power base far out saw anyone else’s within the party, and that actually he was in the perfect position to take up power, even foreseeing this in 1924 – by controlling what Lenin saw from the politburo, and vice versa. Stalin took up a highly administrative role, and this worked in his advantage, however the evidence suggests that if other factors were stronger, such as opposition personalities that Stalin still wouldn’t have made it to power. Arguably in this light personalities seem more significant. Ideologies of the opposition and Stalin play of key significance in how arguments were won and lost. For example, Trotsky stayed far left with all his ideologies – perhaps in a more noble way than Stalin, and eventually he was engulfed by Stalin’s devious tactics. Another example would be Zinoviev and Kamenev, in the triumvirate staying right of the spectrum. However when they rejoin to form the left and united opposition – they lose huge respect for changing ideologies within the party. Interestingly this seems like an incredibly vital point – leading onto Stalin’s ideological viewpoints. Throughout the start of the political struggle, he sways right – but doesn’t involve himself in any main arguments about, for example rapid industrialisation. This tactic to stay the middle man has its disadvantages. For example he is described by members of the Bolshevik party as ‘a grey blur’. However it also has its advantages. Stalin was then able to sway from his very Right views within communism – to left views with not much notice – he was able to move ideologies to strengthen his fan base and his viewpoints. For example when the NEP failed – he removed himself from it, thus allowing Bukharin to take the blame – and him stay in the positive public spotlight. It’s this very middle ideological viewpoint that the evidence suggest allowed Stalin to change as he did, allowing him to use it to his great advantage. Despite this, other arguments perhaps suggest it is not the most significant factor in Stalin’s accent within the government, and that actually his deceitful, arrogant and shrewd personality was the true reason that allowed him to flourish the way he did. In conclusion, looking at all the evidence it is clear a combination of factors were involved in Stalin’s accent of power. On one hand it seems Stalin’s powerbase seems to be the primary factor, that despite anyone’s efforts his place within government allowed to build a vast fan base in such a short amount of time. Furthermore others power base didn’t seem to match the superiority of his, even though on the forefront they seem more important, Trotsky is a prime example of this. On the other hand his tactics seem the obvious significant factor – looking at how he manipulated allies and oppositions, such as Bukharin and Zinoviev. More over his ability to control the politburo with his allies over the testament suggests that this could have been a primary turning point for Stalin’s direction on how to achieve power. However diving into the muddle of linked causes, personalities seems to come out on top. The tactics and moral high ground was generally taken by his opposition, but it seems they didn’t play hard enough. They didn’t morally want to use underhand tactics and switch ideologies – because they believed in what they were fighting in. It’s this decorum that contributed more than anything else. Looking at the other side of the spectrum Stalin’s fierce personality, with no conscience seems to be the perfect mix to manipulate not only the communist party – but the general public as well. It is this sheer inhumane ability to be deceptive in this way that allows the evidence to suggest, on the top, personality is the most significant factor in accounting for Stalin’s defeat of his opponents in the years 1924-1929.