The Freedoms of the USA free essay sample

I believe we live in the greatest nation in the world. We have more privileges and freedom than any other place in the world, yet we are still a controlled and peaceful country. We have the rights of freedom of speech, religion and pursuit of happiness which many people from other countries only hope for. We have seen and heard of people that try to come to our great country illegally. We try to stop and punish these people. All you need to do is try living a day in their shoes. Many of these people live in a country with high poverty and crime levels. They long for a higher and better way of life. Many of their government officials are wealthy and corrupt while the common man struggles to survive. We, as an Americans, have the right to the pursuit of happiness. We can be anything we want to be if we dedicate ourselves to working toward that goal. We will write a custom essay sample on The Freedoms of the USA or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Take time to look at the kids around you. Some of them may have family problems and personal struggles but can you imagine that somewhere, kids in other countries are blowing themselves up for their leaders. We all know that we have it great living in America, but really deep down inside, do we really appreciate it? We need to take time just to pray for the leaders and military of this great country. America still has many problems such as illegal drugs, inner city crime and some prejudices. These are things that we as a nation are striving to correct. We may still have a way to go but we are moving in the right direction. Even though we are not perfect, there is no other nation in the world that compares because of our great freedoms!

Science Fair Idea and Abstract

Science Fair Idea and Abstract Abstract1. I am going to find out the different oxygen output and carbon dioxide output of multiple plants.2. The question I am going to solve is; " Which plant gives off the most oxygen, which plant takes in the most carbon dioxide and which plant is the best in both fields.3. I do not currently have a hypothesis.4. I will need a computer, a computer interface, an oxygen and a carbon dioxide sensor, a bottle, different type of plant leaves, a lamp, a shoebox and an X-Acto knife. I will get different types of leave and measure them by weight so I have the same amount of leaves for each repetition. First, I will create a chamber for the bottle to sit in. The shoebox should have a hole on top for a lamp to shine through and holes in the sides to connect the sensors.Bottling Hardware

5 Ways to Keep Parallel Lists on Track

5 Ways to Keep Parallel Lists on Track 5 Ways to Keep Parallel Lists on Track 5 Ways to Keep Parallel Lists on Track By Mark Nichol For many types of diagnostic posts on this site, in which I present a list of sentences with the same kind of error and describe the problem, I try to find real-world examples I’ve come across in editing projects or in casual reading, though sometimes I have to resort to constructing examples. One type of writing error I will never run out of live specimens for, however, is a lack of parallel structure in a run-in list. Here are just some of the many candidate sentences I’ve found: 1. â€Å"The game received prominent coverage in the video game media, high overall scores from professional reviewers, and has sold more than two million copies.† All items in a series must be accompanied by their own verbs or must share one there’s no middle ground: â€Å"The game received prominent coverage in the video game media, earned high overall scores from professional reviewers, and has sold more than two million copies.† (Or â€Å"The game received prominent coverage in the video game media and high overall scores from professional reviewers and has sold more than two million copies.†) 2. â€Å"It is fun, safe, convenient, saves energy, and a great place to meet and make new friends.† In this variation of the error illustrated in the first example, a list item equipped with its own verb is inserted among other items sharing a verb at the head of the sentence. Convert the errant item to a consistent form: â€Å"It is fun, safe, convenient, energy efficient, and a great place to meet and make new friends.† (Alternatively, tack the item on to the end of the sentence: â€Å"It is fun, safe, convenient, and a great place to meet and make new friends and it saves energy, too!†) 3. â€Å"There is an outdoor patio with picnic tables and barbecue, a fire pit with Adirondack chairs, walking trails, and beach access.† This construction implies that the fire pit has Adirondack chairs, walking trails, and beach access. To avoid implying a nonexistent association, relegate a complex list item among a string of simple items to the end of the sentence: â€Å"There is an outdoor patio with picnic tables and a barbecue, walking trails, and beach access, and a fire pit with Adirondack chairs.† (Also, I don’t understand why writers are so niggardly with the article a/an in run-in lists; I inserted one before barbecue.) 4. â€Å"Many animals such as deer, raccoon, coyote, fox, an occasional bobcat, mountain lion, and many bird species call this area home.† This sentence’s first item is an animal name that is identical in singular and plural form, and the wording of the head of the sentence suggests that all references to animals to follow will be in plural form. They’re not, and then â€Å"an occasional bobcat† distracts the reader, followed by a disorienting plural. Make the animal names consistently plural (with the necessary exception set aside as a parenthetical): â€Å"Many animals such as deer, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, mountain lions (and an occasional bobcat), and many bird species call this area home.† 5. â€Å"Miles of trails provide access through rugged chaparral, woodlands, fields, streams, a lake, and provide spectacular views.† Everything’s fine until you hit the water, and suddenly â€Å"miles of trails† is no longer relevant, except that it is for the final phrase. Retrofit the sentence to support its ideas: â€Å"Miles of trails provide spectacular views, and provide access through woodlands, fields, and rugged chaparral to streams and a lake.† (My assumption is that rugged refers only to chaparral, so move that phrase to the end of the initial list so it is not incorrectly applied to woodlands and fields as well.) Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Writing Basics category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:7 English Grammar Rules You Should KnowYay, Hooray, Woo-hoo and Other AcclamationsProverb vs. Adage

Alkaline phosphatase enzyme Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Alkaline phosphatase enzyme - Essay Example The enzyme acts by splitting off phosphorous creating an alkaline pH. Even though the physiological function of the alkaline phosphatase enzyme is not clear it still plays a vital role in the phosphate metabolism. A gene known as ALPL gives instructions for making the alkaline phosphatase enzyme. The role played by alkaline phosphatase enzyme is very important. It helps in the growth and development of bones and teeth. It is active in many other tissues in the body such as liver and kidneys. The enzyme plays an important role in the growth and development of bones and teeth. It is also active in many other tissues, particularly in the liver and kidneys. This enzyme operates as a phosphatase; it means that helps in removing clusters of oxygen and phosphorus atoms from other molecules. This enzyme is also important for recycling phosphate in the living cells. It is common in tissues that transport nutrients including intestine and kidney. In addition to the above mentioned function, alkaline phosphatase is one of the essential elements for the process of mineralization. In this process, minerals such as calcium and phosphorus are deposited in the developing teeth and bones. The process of mineralization is important for the formation of teeth which can endure chewing and grinding and for formation of bones that are strong and rigid. According to a research undertaken by Prof. Herbert Fleisch and Prof. Gideon Rodan in an article published under the name of â€Å"In searching a bone quality marker. What about Bone Mineral Density?† the biological role of alkaline phosphatase enzyme in mammals includes the following: The first three are articulated in a tissue-specific manner. The last one is ubiquitous but is abundant in liver, bone and kidney. The gene sequence of isoenzymes of alkaline phosphatase shows that the nascent polypeptide has a short signal sequence of 17 and 21 residues of amino-acid and at its c terminal site a hydrophobic

Low Cost Strategies of QuickFlight Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Low Cost Strategies of QuickFlight - Essay Example QuickFlight has no formal HR department and any room for staff development and training; this is something that the organization should look into, considering the increase in size will need an integration of forces. The expertise from Gone can help the organization streamline a strategic HR policy, including the personnel from QuickFlight as well to ensure proper representation of all stakeholders. To solve this problem, the organization should practice effective communication strategies in the company. In times of change management, effective communication plays a vital role in the success of the changing processes. Proper information dissemination to all stakeholders, equal intake for solutions from them would help the policy makers to gain knowledge from the valuable expertise of the Human Capital. In order to capitalize on the diverse features of both the organizations, the human resource should be encouraged to work in teams and work their way out of problems. Job rotation is an other management development that helps to train employees and provide them with exposure to the entire organization. All these activities will introduce a high sense of commitment in the employees towards the newly formed organization and will help fill the gap between the two cultures (Raymond, 2000). Â  With the addition of call center labor in the organization, the company should embark on formal training procedures to train the employees to boost their sales through call center bookings. Training and development in this area are bound to help the employees boost the sales; also, recognition for the hard work that they put in is important. Clearly, compensation that is being awarded can work as an incentive, along with recognition. Therefore, to reduce turnover and boost sales, the company should introduce a basic pay for all, adding performance-based rewards, depending on the sales that the personnel makes.

The Age Of Criminal Responsibility Criminology Essay

The Age Of Criminal Responsibility Criminology Essay One must be aware that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child professes anyone under the age of eighteen is a child. However, in the criminal law, greater distinctions are made: anyone under 18 is a juvenile, aged 14-18 are classed as young persons and a person under 14 years old are classed definitively as a child. What does it mean to be a child in this modern era? Every person has experienced life as a child and could easily accumulate their own perspective, but that is exactly what it would be; a subjective definition that begins with infancy and ends when they reach adolescence. However, adolescence, for legal purposes must portray a mental, intellectual, emotional and more specifically, a moral capacity to differentiate right from wrong. Before one looks at the legal observations of childhood, it is only sensible to consider the words of those who dedicate their lives to the study of child psychology, and ultimately have wider knowledge. Psychological theory Piaget in his work, The Moral Judgement of the Child  [1]  established a theory of not only the cognitive, but also the moral development of a childs mind, prà ©cising that they cannot undertake certain tasks until they are psychologically mature enough to do so. The psychologist Kohlberg expanded on Piagets position  [2]  , and their theories make it plain that by ten children are not capable of making moral decisions similar to that of an adult, as they have not fully learned to do so. The theories suggest that there are 2 stages of moral reasoning (which sometimes overlap) named the heteronomous stage and the autonomous stage. At the heteronomous stage, the child is egocentric and believes the world revolves around them, and they will act depending on the severity of the outcome. This stage continues past the age of ten, so before they reach the next stage it is unlikely that they will be aware of the severity of any outcome. Subsequently, when they are in the autonomous stage, intentions are more important than the consequences of action and should be the basis for judging behaviour, and it is then that a child should be held accountable for his or her actions, not before. The theories suggested here are, of course, non-conclusive and non-exhaustive, but at least give an insight into the questionable nature of the entire concept of an absolute age of criminal responsibility, so it would be worthwhile to keep these theories in mind throughout the discussion. The age of criminal responsibility The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is ten years.  [3]  All children under this age are presumed to be doli incapax (incapable of committing a crime). After reaching the age of ten however, and as Elizabeth Stokes informs us, there is nothing within the substantive criminal law regarding the attribution of guilt, which distinguishes the responsibility of young people from that of adults.  [4]   The Home Office White Paper in 1997, signalled the start of New Labours tough and punitive, No More Excuses campaign by declaring that; Young people who commit offences must face up to the consequences of their actions for à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ No young person should be allowed to feel that he or she can offend with impunity à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Punishment is important as a means of expressing societys condemnation of unlawful behaviour and as a deterrent.  [5]   Even though there was much discussion with reference to raising the age in the late 1960s after the Government White paper Children in Trouble  [6]  (1968) along with Section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 which would have raised the age of criminal responsibility to 14 but was never implemented and the provision was repealed in 1991. This introduced an unnaturally bold dividing line between criminal responsibility and irresponsibility for children who offend. This was the case even though arguments have been put forward suggesting that to criminalise and label children is very dangerous, with Deborah Orr proposing that, if a child has behaved in a fashion that he or she feels he had little or no control over, and then is told this is criminal, then the child is being taught that his or her criminality is something over which he has no control.  [7]  The following doctrine attempted to decrease the amount of children being labelled until it was abolished. Doli incapax Protection or a waste of time? Before the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which abolished the doctrine, there had existed for hundreds of years  [8]  protection for children aged between 10 and 14 years. This protection was the rebuttable presumption that children were doli incapax. Under this legal doctrine, as expounded in the case of C v DPP  [9]  in addition to committing the actus reus and mens rea of a criminal offence the prosecution also had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew what they were doing was seriously wrong. This doctrine was working as a filter which recognised childhood to stop 10 being the absolute age of criminal responsibility. Children aged between 10 and 14 years benefited from the presumption as it protected them from the detrimental effects of the enforcement of criminal law.  [10]  But despite this, it could be suggested that the doctrine did not work as it was professed to as it still did not stop children being prosecuted; as the prosecution only had to prove that children knew the difference between the extreme opposites of right and gravely wrong, and not mere naughtiness and wrong. For example, Bandalli suggests that children have a very flexible approach to ownership, if one were to look at the contents of the Theft Act 1968, s.1(1) describes the crime as dishonesty with intent to permanently deprive a concept which children might only be aware of as merely borrowing. So in practice it did not work sufficiently, but it cannot be ignored that it had very strong symboli sm, which was arguably the most important aspect. The symbolism of the doctrine An excellent point made by Pickford questions why the opponents of abolition continue to have faith in a doctrine which has proved to be so inadequate in protecting children anyway.  [11]  But this is perhaps because at least some acknowledgement was given to the notion of childhood with doli incapax, differentiating their treatment from that of adults. It made the police, the CPS and the judiciary stop and think about the degree of responsibility for each individual child,  [12]  and doing that, however briefly, kept the childhood status in tact. The symbolism of the abolition In spite of these arguments, Jack Straw said on 3 June 1998; with great respect, we are abolishing the concept of doli incapax and thus England and Wales saw the erosion of the policy of protection. However, this was combated with the justification that removal of protection was removal of excuse culture.  [13]  Nevertheless, supporters of the doctrine still implore the judiciary to recognise at least some protection. The recent case of R v T  [14]  in 2008 it was proposed that only the presumption had been abolished  [15]  and that the defence remained in tact. But this proposition was quickly flattened and children aged 10-14 would be treated in the same way as other juveniles in deciding whether to prosecute. The abolition of doli incapax was discoursed in conjunction with increasing the age of criminal responsibility, but now there has been an absolute abolition, the government has carried out one without the other, and has left a vacuum where protection should be. Th erefore, what doli incapax stood for; its symbolism of protection was quashed and children are treated like adults once again. The possible justifications for this are set out in Part Two. PART TWO CRIMINALISATION AND THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD There is little doubt that punitive imperatives have shaped contemporary policy responses to child offenders in England and Wales.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Goldson (2002) The government is ignoring the widespread discourse and European recommendations about the rights of children. With their apparent stubbornness, not to mention the abolition of the centuries old presumption of doli incapax, the question is why are we wedded to the extreme desire to pull children into the criminal justice system and criminalise, rather than taking the civil route which is based on the foundations of protection and welfare? Their policy has brought a large group of children under the auspices of the criminal justice system where previously they may have been successfully diverted. This current punitive climate can be justified to an extent because people have an innate interest in punishment. Namely, they will view children as adults seeing them as autonomous beings who bear responsibility for what they do, despite their age. In the NACRO youth crime briefing as recent as December 2008, the Committee expresses concern about the findings of a survey commissioned by Barnados  [16]  which show the negative public perception of children: 49% of people believe that children are increasingly a danger to each other and adults, 54% agreed that children are beginning to behave like animals, 35% of people feel like the streets are infested with children. In addition to this, after the 1994 government submission to the UNCRC, Barnados and the NSPCC highlighted their outrage of what the government purported to be happening in England and Wales, that it did not reflect what was happening in reality, and thus decided to write their own submissions such as these, showing that the UK Government has much to answer for. The public have a diverse perception of children in contrast with psychologists  [17]  and they want to prosecute them. To prosecute and put a child through the criminal system costs between  £75,000 (for a youth to be in a young offenders institute) and  £150,000 (for secure accommodation).  [18]  Although it might be a generally useful deterrent to use the threat of prosecution, recently it can be seen how arbitrarily it is used (which is in breach of Art 37(b) United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child). For example, an article in The Mail Online  [19]  states that in Newark, Nottinghamshire, letters of warning have been sent out that children face prosecution and fines of up to  £100 if they annoy neighbours with ball games. . But if the child was to be prosecuted for kicking a ball around in the street, what would this really achieve? The answer is nothing. Prosecution and custody in this respect would be equivalent to an employer paying a new employee to go through a process which they know does not work,  [20]  which is obviously a waste of time for everyone involved. The government maintains that it is providing proportionate penalties for child offending and in its report to the CRC states they are keen to ensure that children are not prosecuted whenever an alternative can be found but the NACRO youth crime briefing successfully contests this articulating even those who are diverted [away from the courts] by being dealt with reprimand of final warning, are in effect [still] criminalised. It is also exceptionally questionable whether children should be tried in the Crown Courts, as the NACRO briefing  [21]  suggests that the Crown Court is primarily an arena for dealing with adult offenders through jury trial, and children who commit grave crimes are, in large degree, processed as if they were adults.  [22]   And so, in the shadow of sympathetic European progressiveness, New Labour, with its No More Excuses draconian approach has conceded to the whims of the public and are practically stealing away what it is to be a child, including what they deserve and have a right to protection, which a higher age of criminal responsibility would ensure. In Europe: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) According to United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child regarding the age of criminal responsibility, countries should consider whether a child can live up to the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and notes that if the age of criminal responsibility is set too low the notion of responsibility would become meaningless. The Committee has recommended State Parties not to set a minimum age of criminal responsibility at a too low level and to increase an existing minimum age to an internationally acceptable level concluding that the minimum age below the age of 12 is considered unacceptable. According to UK Childrens Commissioners Report to the UNCRC, although the UK has ratified the UNCRC, the Convention is not part of domestic law and remains unenforceable. Recent legislative and policy developments are in clear breach of the UNCRC, for example, the naming and shaming of children subject to anti-social behaviour orders  [23]  . Even if these did not breach the Convention rights, it would be unsuccessful anyway, as some children, especially the higher end of the spectrum would actually be proud of having an ASBO, or as Deborah Orr suggests  [24]  , they would be badges of pride and perverse achievements. Thompson and Venables case study How it came about that two mentally normal boys aged 10 of average intelligence committed this terrible crime is very hard to comprehend . . . Morland, J The cases of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte V. and R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte T, concerned Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, both 10 ½ year old boys, being convicted of the murder of a two year old boy. They were only just over the age of criminal responsibility. They were sentenced to detention during Her Majestys Pleasure and the trial Judge; Morland J set the minimum term to be served at eight years to reflect their extreme youth. The NACRO youth crime briefing  [25]  Grave crimes, mode of trial, and long term detention, reports that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR hereafter) determined that the defendants were denied a fair trial since they were unable to participate effectively in the proceedings given the nature of the court room and the intense public scrutiny saying the formality and ritual of the Crown Court must have seemed incomprehensible and intimidating for a child of eleven. This breaches Art 3 of the Convention, to have the best interests of the child as the primary consideration. The Youth Crime Briefing  [26]  reports that even after the Lord Chief Justice issued a Practice Direction (in February 2000), which gave guidance for the conduct of such proceedings and calls upon Crown Courts to have regard to the welfare of the child and to avoid exposing him or her, so far as possible, to intimidation, humiliation or distress (my emphasis added),further cases go on to breach Convention rights. This was detailed in the case of SC v UK  [27]  where an eleven year old boy who did not have the intellectual, moral or cognitive capacity for his age group, had his right to a fair trial breached even though the procedure adopted would have complied with the Practice Direction. The ECHR stated that: [He] has little comprehension of the role of the jury . Even more strikingly, he does not seem to have grasped the fact that he risked a custodial sentence, and even once sentence had been passed à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ he appeared confused and expected to be able to go home with his foster father. The Court then went on to make recommendations as to how a child with the handicap of childhood should be processed that they should be tried in a specialist tribunal noting afterwards that there are at present no proposals to develop one. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice The Beijing Rules. The Beijing Rules adopted by the General Assembly in 1985, specifies in section 4.1 that the lower age of criminal responsibility shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity. The commentary states that a specific approach should be taken, which is whether a child can live up to the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and making explicit reference to the individual discernment and understanding. This relates profusely to the theories that Piaget and Kohlberg propose where they have said that moral development is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan, and I would suggest that to fix the age at ten is to put a limit on an uncertain event, that is to say, they are severely generalising the mental capacity of children, leading to injustices in the due process that children are entitled to have. Even if it can be argued that increasing the age would lead to net-widening of children (who may have developed moral capacity earlier) being excused for crimes, that does not displace the argument that the majority of crimes committed by children are minor, and could be prevented with concern for the individual offender and n ot the offence. . In fact, the Beijing Rules state in part 11.1, consideration shall be givenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦to dealing with juvenile offenders without resorting to formal trial emphasizing that, this practice [will] serve to hinder the negative effects of subsequent proceedings, such as the stigma of conviction and sentence. The Rules also make clear the relationship that the age of criminal responsibility must have with its other limitation counterparts; the legal age of consent, the legal age of drinking, marital status, civil majority for example. There is also the notion of the need of a higher mental intelligence, emotional and moral capacity to be responsible in respect to all of these, and this just does not sit well with having the age of criminal responsibility at ten.  [28]   Risk and Predictive Factors In addition to disregarding the Beijing Rules, the government have actually contributed to the reason that children are committing crimes, evidenced by certain predictive factors that have led to increased youth crime in certain contexts. The Youth Offending Board  [29]  maintains that anti-social behaviour and crime is not immediately down to the childs choice, but rather the context in which they are placed. From their web page headed, Targeted Prevention of Youth Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour they raise the policy issue of funding for a start, and reinforce that, one of the best and most cost-effective ways to reduce youth crime is to prevent young people from getting into trouble in the first place, by dealing with the problems that make it more likely they will commit crime or anti-social behaviour. They then proceed to list possible predictive factors such as lack of or poor education, poor family relationships (bad parenting), and the child living in public housing locat ed in high risk, inner city areas. To start with, the report from the UK Childrens Commissioners to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child evidenced that child poverty is high with around 3.1 million people living in poverty (29% of children) in England and more than 1 million children living in poor housing, which is a possible reason why children commit crime. Here it is not individual choice, but the governments own policy that is creating the increased likelihood of child offenders. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that current measures mean child poverty will rise from 18% to 33% over the next 20 years. They say the poverty gap is created by state benefits which are linked to inflation, rather than earnings, and that is of government concern. And so, if the Government is likely to miss its target to halve the number of children living in poverty by 2010, then they are in theory adding to the offending rates instead of reducing them, defeating their whole objective of being tough on crime. Other factors arise from poor parenting and bad education. In a speech to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers in 2002, the former education secretary Estelle Morris argued that bad parenting has created a cycle of disrespect among children, and again does not show it to be the individuals own choice. Poor education leads to truancy, alcohol misuse and other antisocial activities that adults would not be punished for. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that almost half the young people aged 11 to 17 reported committing at least one criminal act in a survey of 14,000 school students.  [30]  It is fair to argue that this shows crimes are being committed by children to whom doli incapax formerly applied, but this paper is not insisting that children between 10 and 14 do not commit crimes, it is reiterating that the punitive measures for this age group are a step backwards in an otherwise progressive world, and alternative measures are needed. The government have excused thems elves of any blame, when it is obvious from the above factors that they have an inherent part to play. Children are no longer treated as special cases when it comes to the types of penalties available to the courts when they ought to be. The status of childhood still remains and needs to be protected. But condemning children to the penalties that adults have, they are subverting the whole concept of childhood and are returning to the stage in history where children were no less than little adults  [31]  a definition which philanthropists such as Mary Carpenter in the very early stages of the youth justice system were trying to eradicate. PART THREE ALTERNATIVES Justice/Welfare Burgeoning youth incarceration and high reconviction rates in England and Wales have prompted a search for alternative responses. Pitts and Kuula  [32]   The overall aims of the criminal justice system are to avoid future re-offending and to exact retribution on behalf of the victim and society  [33]  as defined in s.37 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The UK government for England and Wales have two main options they could take towards a child who has committed a crime; a diversionary approach operating at a cautionary level or to prosecute amounting to either a judicial process of punishment on the basis of harm done or a punishment approach regarding the welfare of the child. The inability to comply with the UNCRC recommendations is exposed where they take the punitive route almost every time. The response to juveniles oscillates between the justice or welfare approach, that is to say whether you look to the offence of the offender. The welfare approach is founded on determinist reasons outside of the childs control, so he or she bears no responsibility. However the justice approach appears to predominate in England and Wales, which will inevitably mean that the age of criminal responsibility will remain too low, as it does not allow a child to be anything but responsible. Civil Law approach The civil family law is an example of the welfare approach. There is an odd dichotomy because, in contrast with the criminal law which employs a fixed cut-off point, family law takes an individualised and functional approach, joined with a completely different perception of childhood, which is in line with the UNCRC. The perception seems nearer to that outlined by Piaget and Kohlberg which understands the vulnerable and dependent nature of a child, and again works on the basis that the childs welfare is paramount. Helen Keating also suggests that the child may also be seen as incompetent in legal terms, and that developmental discourse has found expression in law and has made its way into the system through the test formulated from Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Another  [34]  . . The level of competence required is sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him to understand fully what is proposed and sufficient discretion to enable him to make a wise choice in his or her own interests.  [35]  Despite the problems that the test can amount to, such as delay in ascertaining the competence, its influence has become enshrined in statute. The Children Act 1989 even begins with a checklist for the welfare principle stating that the court should have regard to the the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child considered in the light of his or her age and understanding.  [36]  Ã‚   . There is no such parallel in criminal law, which begs the question of why two systems running side by side are contradictory. It cannot be that the children in family law cases are more vulnerable than those in criminal law, so it must be due to the approach. The UK Government should take a step back and try to ignore the distorted perceptions of children that the public emanate, and look more closely at the individual child perhaps even looking at them as if they were their own young. Comparative Systems With the New Labour policy so behind most other countries it is unsurprising that one can find models of welfare based systems which, despite their own shortcomings (such as paternalistic decision-making) still puts us to shame. Lesley McAra introduces a substantive summary of the developments in Scottish Youth Justice  [37]  noting it exhibited a high degree of stability in its welfare based institutional framework and policy ethos, up until it started acting like England. By filtering in punitive measures such as anti-social behaviour legislation when the Children (Scotland) Act was passed in 1995, Scotland has conceded to the publics moral panics about persistent offenders and is transforming. The fact that their age of criminal responsibility is going to raise to 12 (from 8) when the Scottish Governments Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill passes in 2009, may just have saved them from themselves. This was the philosophy of the Kilbrandon Committees  [38]  childrens hearing system. Here a child, passing several grounds for referral (which are astonishingly similar to the grounds that the civil (family) law invokes for a Care Order  [39]  .. is or is likely to suffer serious harm and/or with admission of guilt) are referred to a tribunal consisting of lay-people, who operated from a needs not deeds viewpoint was in direct contrast with Englands Ingleby Committee. It will bring Scotland into line with most of Europe, but the Scottish Government said the rise would not mean letting off younger offenders, as Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said amongst recent discourse, Evidence shows that prosecution at an early age increases the chance of reoffending so this change is about preventing crime. Rather they will be held to account in a way that is appropriate for their stage of development and ensures that we balance their needs with the need to protect our communities. Similarly in Finland a different approach is taken. The age of criminal responsibility is 15, and their answer is to look at the child on the whole; their environment whilst dividing children into their age groups based on cognitive functions, needs, and understanding. Moving from a punitive to welfare syste

Justice is a theme of all great literature Essay

Justice comes from actions and decisions being balanced, in that when someone does a good thing, they are rewarded, and when they do something bad, they are punished. It is the gods’ primary role to hand out justice and make sure everybody is treated fairly. This theme appears immediately in the Odyssey, as Zeus is considering the story of Aegisthus, who courted Agamemnon’s wife and then killed Agamemnon. Aegisthus was killed for this treacherous act. This story of justice shows us instantly that the Odyssey will be strongly structured around it. â€Å"May all who act as he did share his fate! † says Athene. This shows how openly the gods in the Odyssey despised the works of those who went against the will of the gods. Both Nestor and Menelaus repeat this story of Aegisthus, and as god fearing men, they know how important it is to stay on their right side because they know what happens as a result of an imbalance in terms of justice. The Aeneid opens however and we’re told that the poem is based on the founding of Rome and the main string of ‘justice’ seems to be coming from one scorned goddess, who simply doesn’t want her favourite city to be destroyed. The balance she tries to restore is simply an act of revenge rather than actual justice, and rather than convincing the other gods it’s the right thing to do, she simply bribes Aeolus. Justice is however looked upon a little while later as Venus goes to Jupiter and asks why the Trojans are being made to suffer after doing nothing wrong. Jupiter tells her not to fear as justice will be done and Rome will be founded. Such behaviour seems to recur constantly throughout the Aeneid. For example, in book 8 we learn of the betrayal that a Tuscan tribe suffered at the hands of Mezentius, and in book 9 he continues his evil ways killing Trojans. The Gods have decided to stay out of the battle and so the following events have nothing to do with the justice that is familiar in epic poems. Both Mezentius and his son Lausus are killed, by Aeneid. I see these deaths as acts of revenge rather than justice, although Lausus’ death is more deserving. The death of his son is Mezentius’ true punishment. I see these deaths as acts of revenge because Mezentius tried to kill Aeneid, as well as all the other innocent people and the treachery he brought upon the aforementioned Tuscan tribe, and so Aeneas kills them. The fact that the innocent Lausus dies shows that the ‘justice’ portrayed in the Aeneid is much more malicious, and it doesn’t just affect the culprit. There’s also the case of the unfortunate people in the underworld that must wait 100 years to cross the river, through no fault of their own. Justice really does seem obscure in the Aeneid. Another instance of this is when the people of Carthage feel Dido’s death was just, simply because she fell in love with the wrong man, and through no fault of her own. I believe Turnus’ death to be the best example of the incomprehensible justice served in the Aeneid. His justice only prevails once they see fit, once it fits in with their plans. In the end, it becomes obvious that while justice is a powerful motivator and regulator in the lives of mortals, it is the will of the immortals that truly controls their lives, and their disfigured system of justice On the other hand, there are moments when actual justice is served. Examples include the groups beyond the river in the underworld and the story of Hercules and the giant for example. He goes to extreme lengths to kill the giant for all the robbery and murder he’s committed, and it’s just that Hercules puts a stop to it, even though it’s brought about by someone who isn’t quite immortal, and so possibly not what the gods perceive as justice. Although we’ve already established that the gods’ perspective is fairly warped in the Aeneid. The other case of actual justice involves king Minos, who spends eternity hearing the cases of people, unjustly executed, and finally getting the plea their cases. They are finally being treated fairly, even if it is beyond life. In the Odyssey however, deaths and misfortunes seem to come about through the idea of justice, and nothing else- no malicious or unfair punishments seem to prevail i. e. there seems to be a point behind them, rather than them just being malicious acts of immortals. For example, Zeus becomes angered at Odysseus because his men eat the sun god’s cattle, despite being warned not to; however he doesn’t let Odysseus die, because the sun god only asks that the crew be punished, because after all, Odysseus did warn them. However he does unavoidably get caught in the cross fire and this is how he winds up on Calypso’s island in the first place. Another example is Poseidon. He makes Odysseus’ aqua adventures a nightmare because he impairs Poseidon’s son Polyphemus’ vision, which goes against the rules of Xenia really. It is of course, Odysseus’ own fault because he becomes arrogant about what he did to Polyphemus, by telling him his name, after he’s left. Therefore it’s just and fair to punish him. Even though he’s such a great hero, he does a wrong act and is punished as any other man would be. Then of course, there is the case of the suitors; the epic conclusion to the Odyssey. Odysseus finally returns to find all the suitors and some of the maids running riot in his home, having raunchy sex, eating all the food, and drinking away his wealth. Odysseus is of course a bit bothered by this, so he decides, and Athene, who borrows Mentor’s image again, agrees that he, Telemachus and a couple of close friends will pick up their weapons and launch them through any part of the suitors they see fit. The fact that Athene helps proves that the act is just. Rarely do gods help out in a way that we can perceive as just in the Aeneid, because most of the time, the punishments are just vicious or over-exaggerated. So anyway, Telemachus sees to it that the ill-mannered maids are hung until they stop twitching, and Odysseus destroys all the suitors so that he and Penelope can live happily ever after, as they justly deserve. By the end of homer’s poem, everyone has been served the justice they’ve earned, both good and bad. I think it’s fair to say that justice is very important in both plays, but as a modern day reader, it’s easier to understand the justice in the Odyssey because at times, the events in the Aeneid seem so obscure.