The Death Penalty

The death penalty is a very big issue. Not only does it often torment the minds of very many people – and so the question of it regularly arises both in private and in pubic discussion – but it has significant effects on the way in which our societies develop and on the manner in which we view the people within them.
And it is clearly a topic that those who would claim to be serious thinkers should reflect upon very deeply before they come to any firm conclusions.
Gut reactions are just not good enough!
The comments that follow have been inspired by a piece written by Dennis Prager. His arguments are the ones that are commonly put forward in support of the death penalty.
But if you look at these arguments closely, they fail.
1. One Dead Innocent is the Same as any Other
According to Dennis, “One of the most common, and surely the most persuasive, arguments against capital punishment is that the state may execute an innocent person.”
But, Dennis continues, if those who are against capital punishment are so concerned about ‘innocent’ individuals, then why are they not making a fuss about any social policy which brings about the death of innocent individuals – such as car accidents. Here are his words. 
“First of all, there is almost no major social good that does not lead to the death of innocent individuals. Over a million innocent people have been killed and maimed in car accidents. Would this argue for the banning of automobiles?”
In other words, why make such a fuss about the death penalty when so few innocents are killed, compared to the number of innocents in car accidents?
Well, there are many reasons why the state execution of innocent others is very different from the accidental deaths of innocents.
a. For all intents and purposes, the state is all-powerful. Not only has it the wherewithal to ensure that innocent individuals are put to death for political reasons, it actually does put innocents to death for such reasons! For example, the recent exoneration of over 100 allegedly very dangerous criminals in the USA through DNA testing demonstrates quite clearly that people are convicted on the basis of false evidence. 
Science and nature did not convict these innocents – legal policies and procedures based on political considerations did.
And it is far too dangerous to allow an all-powerful state to execute innocent people without some form of public outrage being generated every time that this happens.
And so, for example, just imagine if absolutely everyone in the USA was in favour of the death penalty.
What reaction would there be to the discovery that the state was executing innocent people?
Well, presumably, none! – since those in favour of the death penalty do not seem to be outraged when innocent people are executed.
Dennis certainly isn’t outraged!
But is this the kind of society that we would want to live in?
Do we really want to live in a society where the state employs procedures that kill innocents, but no-one makes a fuss about it?
What kind of people are we supposed to be?
b. There is something decidedly different about coldly and calculatedly putting an innocent person to death when compared to an innocent dying by accident. Indeed, the former is so utterly unacceptable and abhorrent to the vast majority of people that only the cruelest of psychopaths would ever do such a thing.
And if we claim that it is morally acceptable for the all-powerful state to put to death innocent others, then we are claiming that it is morally acceptable for the all-powerful state to do what only the cruelest of psychopaths would ever do.
And, surely, nothing could be more stupid than to allow an all-powerful state to act like a cruel psychopath!
And how Dennis can possibly equate morally such a horror to those deaths that occur by accident is astonishing.
Now Dennis would presumably respond by saying, Aha! When the American state puts an innocent person to death, it does not believe the person to be innocent. It believes the person to be guilty. And so it is not true to say that the state is “coldly and calculatedly” putting innocent people to death. It believes them to be guilty. It is just that, on occasion, mistakes are made.
But this is no let-out clause!
Even though the state does not intend to execute innocents, this does not alter the fact that innocents are sometimes “coldly and calculatedly” put to death.
This is how they die!
And this is not the case when it comes to most everyday accidents.
Accidents are different from executions.
c. Thousands of people die in accidents of one form or another every day. And Dennis’ arguments here concerning the death penalty really boil down to this. What does it matter that a very small number of innocents are killed by the state given that so many thousands already die in accidents?
In other words, Dennis’ arguments are to do with a consideration of numbers rather to do with a consideration of moral processes. Why do these relatively few innocents who suffer the death penalty actually matter? – is, effectively, what he is saying.
Well, I have some news for Dennis. They matter very much! 
It is NOT merely the number of innocents (and please remember that in this part of the discussion we are talking only about innocents) that concern those who oppose the death penalty, it is the sheer immorality of killing innocents that concerns them.
And Dennis must be able to recognise this.
Look. There were some 30,000 road fatalities in the USA last year, and only a very tiny number of innocents have probably been executed during the past few years.
But, just for the sake of argument, just imagine that the number of road fatalities dropped dramatically to only 10,000 a year, while the numbers of innocents executed jumped up to 1000 a year.
Would Dennis say that this was, overall, a significant change for the better?
After all, with 20,000 fewer innocent deaths on the roads, and with, roughly, only 1000 extra innocent deaths in the electric chair, then, on balance, there is a saving of 19,000 lives!
On the basis of the numbers alone, that’s a pretty good improvement!
But would Dennis, or anyone, really feel better about their society knowing that 1000 innocent people were actually being executed every year?
No, of course not.
In fact, they would be horrified.
And the reason for this is that there is a huge difference between the state execution of an innocent and the death of an innocent by a normal everyday type of accident.
They are just not the same.
Indeed, what if there were no road fatalities at all, but there were 20,000 innocents executed every year?
How would Dennis feel then?
Would he feel better because fewer innocents had died? – compared to the original 30,000 road fatalities.
Would his society have improved?
Would he consider his society to be more ‘moral’?
I don’t think so.
20,000 innocents executed would make us far worse off by a long way compared to 30,000 road fatalities.
In other words, the numbers alone, do not help us very much.
d. Dennis equates the deaths of innocents by accidents with the executions of innocents by the state.
He is saying that given that death-penalty opponents do not seem to give a hoot about the accidental deaths of innocents, why on earth are they so concerned about the accidental execution of innocents by the state?
If they do not care about the one, why do they care about the other? After all, they are both ‘accidents’, and the outcomes are just the same.
The execution of innocent others is, after all, just another type of ‘accident’ – due to unfortunate errors that occurred somewhere in the legal procedures.
OK.
Well, let’s follow that through.
If the state execution of an innocent can be deemed to be an ‘accident’, then, presumably, the act of a murderer who kills an innocent can also be viewed as an ‘accident’.
What is the difference between the two?
After all, sh* t happens.
Putting this another way: If Dennis is not worried about the execution of innocent others who are already living inside a prison cell – having been falsely convicted of a crime – then why on earth is he so concerned about murderers who are not living inside a prison cell who also kill innocent others ?
After all, innocent is innocent – no matter where you might live.
Dennis’ own argument flies right back in his face.
He cares for one type of innocent (the one who is murdered on the street) but he cares not about the other one – the falsely-accused one sitting inside a prison cell – and living on Death Row.
e. If Dennis is prepared to endorse policies that result in the execution of innocent others – for various reasons – then, presumably, it will not be long before he also proposes that, for example, anyone involved in the causing of ‘accidental’ deaths (e.g. a surgeon making a mistake on the operating table) should also be executed.
No. No, Dennis, would say. There is a big difference between a murderer and a doctor who makes a mistake.
Yes, indeed there is.
There is the question of intent.
But, at this juncture, we are not talking about murderers. We are only talking about innocents!
And so the question of intent does not arise.
In other words, if it is all right to execute innocents, then it is certainly all right to execute doctors who make fatal mistakes (and who are, in fact, somewhat less than innocent).
Anyway.
Moving on.
2. Executions Save Lives
Dennis says that, “Far more innocent people have already died because we did not execute their murderers.”
a. Aha! Dennis is definitely concerned about the deaths of a few innocents.
How strange! A few moments ago, he did not seem very concerned about them.
He is prepared to accept fatal car accidents and death by roller coasters and the zillions of fatal accidents that take place in normal life, but he is suddenly worried about a few murders!
And it really is only a few murders that he is talking about at this juncture – though even this few is doubtful.
After all, he is not talking about all homicides. He is only talking about the extra homicides that he alleges take place when the death penalty is not imposed.
So, why is Dennis worried about the few extra murders of innocents (if there is no death penalty) when he is not worried about roller coasters etc?
Do you see? His whole criticism about people not being concerned about roller-coaster and road accidents etc, and yet being very concerned about a few innocents being executed – which he implied was hypocritical – has completely backfired on to himself.
He is now worrying about the few extra deaths that might arise if convicted murderers are not executed!
b. Dennis was castigating death-penalty opponents for not being concerned about everyday accidents …
… “Anyone whose criterion for abolishing capital punishment is saving innocent lives, should be for a 40-mile-per-hour speed limit and for abolishing roller coasters.”
You see. He is trying to say that if you care about the executions of a few innocent people, then you should be far more concerned about the accidental deaths of many people.
But he does not apply the same reasoning to himself!
If Dennis is so concerned about the few extra murders that he reckons takes place when there is no death penalty, then why isn’t he the one wanting to ban roller coasters, and why isn’t he the one proposing a 40 mile-per-hour speed limit?
This man has a double standard! One for him, and another one for opponents of the death penalty.
c. As a point of fact: There is no strong evidence to suggest that capital punishment reduces the number of homicides any more than do very long prison sentences. If there is an extra deterrent effect of capital punishment, then it is marginal at best. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that capital punishment (and very long prison sentences) increases the likelihood of violence throughout society (e.g. as in the drugs war, prohibition etc) and, as a consequence, the homicide rate almost certainly increases as a result of it.
3. Capital Punishment Achieves Social Good
Dennis says, “if abolitionists were intellectually honest, they would have to argue that capital punishment achieves no social good or that it is immoral to kill any murderers.” 
Well, as mentioned above, not only does the evidence suggest that capital punishment achieves no social good, it actually suggests that it achieves a lot of social bad!
And, furthermore, here are some more socially bad things that it does.
a. Criminals who commit particularly heinous forms of murder usually have had an appalling history. And, very often, they also have clearly visible signs of severe brain damage.
Just think what the world would gain by studying them rather than by killing them!
With the rapid developments taking place in the field of brain-scanning technology and the growing understanding of brain chemistry, there is a great deal to be gained from studying individuals who are very dysfunctional.
Why should we destroy such a valuable resource?
Surely such a resource would contribute hugely to the very ‘social good’ that Dennis is seeking.
b. State execution in the USA is, in reality, mostly about hatred and vengeance. It does not bring about a better world and it does not bring back the dead. It mostly satisfies people’s thirst for revenge. And revenge is not a good thing for people in a society to believe in and to act upon. Cool, calm, reasoned justice, yes, but not revenge, because a belief in the virtues of revenge tends to entitle all of us to take any action that we feel is appropriate to the hurt that has befallen us.
And, unfortunately, feelings of revenge too often result in gross over-reactions, with matters quickly getting out of hand, as one person responds and then another person counter-responds. 
One only needs to look at the decades of troubles and revenge attacks in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East, and in many other parts of the world to see that it is mostly feelings of revenge that tend to maintain and escalate all the violence.
And public acceptance of the death penalty just greatly encourages people to accept revenge as a legitimate tool of justice.
Conversely, abolishing the death penalty would achieve a ‘social good’ because it would be abolished at least partially on the grounds that, firstly, revenge is not the same as justice, and, secondly, revenge is not something conducive to societal harmony.
4. It is not Immoral to Kill Murderers
Dennis’ suggests that those who oppose the death penalty need to show that, “it is immoral to kill any murderers”.
Well. No, they do not!
Indeed, it might be perfectly moral to kill all murderers. It might be perfectly moral to cut off the hands of people who steal. It might be perfectly moral to kill women who abort babies. It might be perfectly moral to beat the hell out of a man who just fondled your wife’s breasts.
But are these the roads down which we want our societies to travel?
And, anyway, what, exactly, is a murderer? On what basis does one murderer morally deserve the death penalty whereas another one does not?
Who decides?
Would we all agree on the infinitely complicated dividing lines?
Would we also claim to know all the circumstances and the ins and outs of each case?
Can the vote of 12 people in a jury determine what everybody else’s morality is supposed to be?
You see. The moral question posed by Dennis does not really even have an answer that is simple enough to solve ‘in practice’.
5. Some Murderers may go on to Kill Others
Dennis says, “Murderers who are not executed have murdered innocent people — usually fellow prisoners. And the very real possibility of escape from prison means that murderers threaten far more innocent lives than capital punishment does.
a. Dennis is back to those numbers again. 
Why is Dennis so concerned about these few extra murders when he is not concerned about the execution of innocents nor about the death toll through driving and roller coaster accidents etc.
b. Dennis says that opponents of the death penalty, “believe that only advocates of capital punishment can have blood on their hands, when and if the state executes an innocent person. But they, the abolitionists, somehow have no blood on their hands when a convicted murderer murders an innocent.”
Well, the reason for this difference in attitude is quite simple. 
When the state executes innocents, its actions are taken in the name of – and on behalf of – the people, and, further, it is acting in a manner which is in accordance with the wishes of those who support capital punishment.
On the other hand, murderers who kill innocents are not acting in the name of – and on behalf of – the people, and, further, they are not acting in a manner which is in accordance with the wishes of those who oppose capital punishment.
As such, those who do support capital punishment do have ‘blood on their hands’ when the state executes innocents because the state is acting in accordance with their wishes. 
But those who oppose capital punishment do not have ‘blood on their hands’ when non-executed murderers commit further offences – because murderers are not acting in accordance with their wishes.
6. The Deaths of a Few Innocents Don’t Matter 
Dennis begins his last paragraph by saying, “I fully acknowledge my moral responsibility for any innocent person executed by the state.” 
a. He seems to be suggesting that he is resigned to the fact that innocents will be executed by the state if it maintains the death penalty. On balance, he reckons, the death penalty is still worth the price.
But the truth of the matter is this.
Dennis would have a completely different attitude if it was he, or his wife, or his children, or his brother, or his father, or his friend, or if any of those who are close to him, were going to the electric chair for a crime that they did not commit.
He would not simply shrug his shoulders and say, “Oh well, sh*t happens.” 
He might say this if one of his loved ones was accidentally killed in a car crash. But would he really have the very same attitude if one of his loved ones was actually being incarcerated, and was later to be executed for a crime that he or she did not commit?
No way!
Dennis would kick up a real stink about it for months and years. And he would be well and truly outraged.
In other words, he has a double standard – one for people who are close to him, and another for people who are not. (And, of course, the same is true for most of us, including me.)
His attitude toward the state’s purposeful execution of his innocent loved one, would be very different indeed compared to what his attitude would be if his loved one had simply been killed in an accident.
And so what Dennis is really saying is that, in practice, he is resigned to the executions of innocent others – for various reasons – provided that he, himself, remains personally unaffected by it all.
And this is not a satisfactory moral position to take.
And it also takes people along a very slippery slope.
If people are prepared to support the inflicting of serious injustices upon innocent others in order to achieve a marginally improved outcome for everyone else – and particularly for themselves – then surely they can have no complaints should others inflict serious injustices upon them!
For example, would Dennis find it acceptable for 10 homeless winos to kill a millionaire and take over his mansion on the grounds that their lives would improve enormously compared to living on the streets, and given that they would also be far better protected from any passing lunatics who might want to kill them?
Well. Probably not.
But why not? – given that he is prepared to accept the deaths of innocents in order to make the world – particularly his world – a safer place.
Why shouldn’t the winos have the same attitude?
———————–
About three months ago, one of my car windows was smashed, and a couple of CDs were stolen. It was probably one of the many delinquent teenagers round here who was responsible. For 48 hours I would have murdered the culprit if I could have gotten my hands on him. It cost me time. It cost me money. And I felt generally less secure.
A cricket bat to the skull. A good few punches in the face. 
Grrrr!
And when my father died on the operating table a few years ago, I pretty much had only one thing in mind.
Kill.
Kill that f^^k^^g surgeon.
But, as I said above. Sh*t happens.
And the best way for society to deal with it – if possible – is non-violently.
With their huge resources, their skills and their super powers, Americans do not nowadays need to execute their home-grown murderers – particularly since they have already got them stuck inside prison cells. 
And it is very depressing for a lot of people to see that they still do execute people.
Of course, some murderers definitely deserve the death penalty. And some deserve even worse! And none of my arguments above suggests otherwise.
But the treatment that truly heinous criminals ‘deserve’ should not count for anything. Why on earth should we even care what they ‘deserve’? Surely, such criminals have lost the right to have taken into consideration what they deserve.
It is what their treatment does to the rest of us that we need to consider – and this, of course, includes those innocents who are caught up in such treatment.
At the end of the day, we are aiming toward a world where there are no murders, and where there are no purposeful killings. And the all-powerful state just has to lead the way.
There was a time, perhaps not long gone, when the death penalty was an extremely valuable and necessary tool for western countries. The people just had to curb serious crimes and violence with very limited resources. There was no other realistic way of doing this.
But the USA now has huge resources. It is simply a question of redirecting some of them into more effective crime-preventative measures, as, perhaps, advised by its very own police chiefs …
USA A new national survey of police chiefs from around the country discredits the repeated assertion that the death penalty is an important law enforcement tool. 
“While politicians have extolled the importance of capital punishment in fighting crime, they have failed to assess the actual priorities of those in law enforcement and have saddled the taxpayers with an enormously costly death penalty at the expense of more effective crime fighting strategies. Police chiefs rank the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime, placing it behind curbing drug abuse, more police officers on the streets, lowering the technical barriers to prosecution, longer sentences, and a better economy with more jobs. The death penalty was rated as the least cost-effective method for controlling crime. Insufficient use of the death penalty is not considered a major problem by the majority of police chiefs.”

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

Allegory Of American Pie By Don Mc Lean

Ask anyone what was the defining moment in the rock history of the 1960s was and all you will get is a one word answer: Woodstock. The three day rock festival that defined an era was only one of many music festivals of the '60s. But Woodstock has come to symbolize, "an era of peaceful, free- loving, drug- taking hippie youth, carefree before harsher realities hit..." (Layman 40). The Woodstock festival ended a century filled with many metamorphoses of rock'n'roll, from the era of pop music to the rebirth of folk music to the invention of acid rock. But some cynics say that rock'n'roll died with the death of Buddy Holly before the 60s even began. One such person is Don McLean. The poet behind the haunting epic song about the death of 'danceable' music, McLean wrote the ever popular song, "American Pie" (appendix 1). The most important song in rock'n'roll history, "American Pie", is the song about the demise of rock'n'roll after Buddy Holly's death and the heathenism of rock that resulted. Although McLean himself won't reveal any symbolism in his songs, "American Pie" is one of the most analyzed pieces of literature in modern society. Although not all of its secrets have been revealed, many "scholars" of the sixties will agree that the mystery of this song is one of the reasons it has become so successful- everyone wants to know the meanings of its allegories. Proof of "American Pie's" truth lies in the allegory of the song. Many People enjoy the song but have no idea what it means- Who is the Jester? What is the levee? When the deeper story is found, the importance of the song is unearthed. "American Pie" is not only a song, it is an epic poem about the course of rock'n'roll...

Carl Orffs Philosophies In Music Education

While Carl Orff is a very seminal composer of the 20th century, his greatest success and influence has been in the field of Music Education. Born on July 10th in Munich, Germany in 1895, Orff refused to speak about his past almost as if he were ashamed of it. What we do know, however, is that Orff came from a Bavarian family who was very active in the German military. His father's regiment band would often play through some of the young Orff's first attempts at composing. Although Orff was adamant about the secrecy of his past, Moser's Musik Lexicon says that he studied in the Munich Academy of Music until 1914. Orff then served in the military in the first world war. After the war, he held various positions in the Mannheim and Darmstadt opera houses then returned home to Munich to further study music. In 1925, and for the rest of his life, Orff was the head of a department and co-founder of the Guenther School for gymnastics, music, and dance in Munich where he worked with musical beginners. This is where he developed his Music Education theories. In 1937, Orff's Carmina Burana premiered in Frankfurt, Germany. Needless to say, it was a great success. With the success of Carmina Burana, Orff orphaned all of his previous works except for Catulli Carmina and the En trata which were rewritten to be acceptable by Orff. One of Orff's most admired composers was Monteverdi. In fact, much of Orff's work was based on ancient material. Orff said: I am often asked why I nearly always select old material, fairy tales and legends for my stage works. I do not look upon them as old, but rather as valid material. The time element disappears, and only the spiritual power remains. My...

Johann Sebastian Bach Biography

Throughout the history of music, many great composers, theorists, and instrumentalists have left indelible marks and influences that people today look back on to admire and aspire to. No exception to this idiom is Johann Sebastian Bach, whose impact on music was unforgettable to say the least. People today look back to his writings and works to both learn and admire. He truly can be considered a music history great. Bach, who came from a family of over 53 musicians, was nothing short of a virtuosic instrumentalist as well as a masterful composer. Born in Eisenach, Germany, on March 21, 1685, he was the son of a masterful violinist, Johann Ambrosius Bach, who taught his son the basic skills for string playing. Along with this string playing, Bach began to play the organ which is the instrument he would later on be noted for in history. His instruction on the organ came from the player at Eisenach's most important church. He instructed the young boy rather rigorously until his skills surpassed anyone?s expectations for someone of such a young age. Bach suffered early trauma when his parents died in 1695. He went to go live with his older brother, Johann Christoph, who also was a professional organist at Ohrdruf. He continued his younger brother's education on that instrument, as well as introducing him to the harpsichord. The rigorous training on these instruments combined with Bach?s masterful skill paid off for him at an early age. After several years of studying with his older brother, he received a scholarship to study in Luneberg, Germany, which is located on the northern tip of the country. As a result, he left his brother?s tutelage and went to go and study there. The teenage years brought Bach to several parts of Germany where he...

Michelangelo

Michelangelo was pessimistic in his poetry and an optimist in his artwork. Michelangelo?s artwork consisted of paintings and sculptures that showed humanity in it?s natural state. Michelangelo?s poetry was pessimistic in his response to Strazzi even though he was complementing him. Michelangelo?s sculpture brought out his optimism. Michelangelo was optimistic in completing The Tomb of Pope Julius II and persevered through it?s many revisions trying to complete his vision. Sculpture was Michelangelo?s main goal and the love of his life. Since his art portrayed both optimism and pessimism, Michelangelo was in touch with his positive and negative sides, showing that he had a great and stable personality. Michelangelo?s artwork consisted of paintings and sculptures that showed humanity in it?s natural state. Michelangelo Buonarroti was called to Rome in 1505 by Pope Julius II to create for him a monumental tomb. We have no clear sense of what the tomb was to look like, since over the years it went through at least five conceptual revisions. The tomb was to have three levels; the bottom level was to have sculpted figures representing Victory and bond slaves. The second level was to have statues of Moses and Saint Paul as well as symbolic figures of the active and contemplative life- representative of the human striving for, and reception of, knowledge. The third level, it is assumed, was to have an effigy of the deceased pope. The tomb of Pope Julius II was never finished. What was finished of the tomb represents a twenty-year span of frustrating delays and revised schemes. Michelangelo had hardly begun work on the pope?s tomb when Julius commanded him to fresco the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to complete the work done in the previous century under Sixtus IV. The overall organization consists of four large triangles at...

Oscar Wilde

Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde was born in Dublin Ireland on October 16, 1854. He is one of the most talented and most controversial writers of his time. He was well known for his wit, flamboyance, and creative genius and with his little dramatic training showing his natural talent for stage and theatre. He is termed a martyr by some and may be the first true self-publicist and was known for his style of dress and odd behavior. Wilde, 1882 His Father, William Wilde, was a highly accredited doctor and his mother, Jane Francesca Elgee, was a writer of revolutionary poems. Oscar had a brother William Charles Kingsbury along with his father's three illegitimate children, Henry, Emily, and Mary. His sister, Isola Emily Francesca died in 1867 at only ten years of age from a sudden fever, greatly affecting Oscar and his family. He kept a lock of her hair in an envelope and later wrote the poem 'Requiescat' in her memory. Oscar and his brother William both attended the Protora Royal School at Enniskillen. He had little in common with the other children. He disliked games and took more interest in flowers and sunsets. He was extremely passionate about anything that had to do with ancient Greece and with Classics. Wilde during school years In 1871, he was awarded a Royal School Scholarship to Trinity College in Dublin and received many awards and earned the highest honor the college offered to an undergraduate, the Foundation Scholarship. In 1874, he also won the College's Berkley Gold Medal for Greek and was awarded a Demyship to Magdalen College, Oxford. After graduating from Oxford, Oscar moved to London with his friend Frank Miles, a well-known portrait painter of the time. In 1878 his poem Ravenna was published, for which he won the...

The History Of Greek Theater

Theater and drama in Ancient Greece took form in about 5th century BCE, with the Sopocles, the great writer of tragedy. In his plays and those of the same genre, heroes and the ideals of life were depicted and glorified. It was believed that man should live for honor and fame, his action was courageous and glorious and his life would climax in a great and noble death. Originally, the hero's recognition was created by selfish behaviors and little thought of service to others. As the Greeks grew toward city-states and colonization, it became the destiny and ambition of the hero to gain honor by serving his city. The second major characteristic of the early Greek world was the supernatural. The two worlds were not separate, as the gods lived in the same world as the men, and they interfered in the men's lives as they chose to. It was the gods who sent suffering and evil to men. In the plays of Sophocles, the gods brought about the hero's downfall because of a tragic flaw in the character of the hero. In Greek tragedy, suffering brought knowledge of worldly matters and of the individual. Aristotle attempted to explain how an audience could observe tragic events and still have a pleasurable experience. Aristotle, by searching the works of writers of Greek tragedy, Aeschulus, Euripides and Sophocles (whose Oedipus Rex he considered the finest of all Greek tragedies), arrived at his definition of tragedy. This explanation has a profound influence for more than twenty centuries on those writing tragedies, most significantly Shakespeare. Aristotle's analysis of tragedy began with a description of the effect such a work had on the audience as a "catharsis" or purging of the emotions. He decided that catharsis was the purging of two specific emotions, pity and...

Scholarship Essay About Goals

Ever since I was a young kid I have always been interested with aircraft. I was so curious of how airplane's fly. I remember taking my toys apart to see how it works. As a kid I wanted to go to the airport to watch the airplanes land and fly and pondered how this happens. Other kids wanted to go to the amusement places. As I grew older I became more and more interested in aircraft and the technology behind it. I always involved myself with aviation early on. I read books and magazines on aviation, took museum tours, built model airplanes. When I was younger my father would take me to aircraft repair facilities where I would watch in great fascination. In my teens, went up to the military bases and befriended many soldiers involved with aircraft and asked them numerous questions. I got to meet many aeronautics engineers and borrowed their old textbooks and read them till the wee hours of the morning. As technology improved with information superhighway, I logged on the web. Stayed up for hours and hours searching through web pages and web pages of information about aircraft and technology. I started my elementary school in the Philippines, then we moved to U.S. and continued my high school education and graduated. Enrolled at the CCSF to pursue my college education and now I am in the 2nd year in CCSF taking aeronautics. My goal now is to obtain my AS degree from the City College of San Francisco (CCSF) so I can transfer to a University and get a Bachelors degree and to continue for my Masters degree in Aeronautics Engineering. I will strive hard to reach the peak level of my career which is a Professor and hopefully to be an aeronautic professor so...

Circus Circus Enterprises Case Studies

Executive Summary: Circus Circus Enterprises is a leader and will continue to be in the gaming industry. In recent years, they have seen a decline in profit and revenue; management tends to blame the decrease on continuing disruptions from remodeling, expansion, and increased competition. Consequently, Circus has reported decreases in its net income for 1997 and 1998 and management believes this trend will continue as competition heightens. Currently the company is involved in several joint ventures, its brand of casino entertainment has traditionally catered to the low rollers and family vacationers through its theme park. Circus should continue to expand its existing operations into new market segments. This shift will allow them to attract the up scale gambler. Overview Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc founded in 1974 is in the business of entertainment, with its core strength in casino gambling. The company?s asset base, operating cash flow, profit margin, multiple markets and customers, rank it as one of the gaming industry leaders. Partners William G. Bennett an aggressive cost cutter and William N. Pennington purchased Circus Circus in 1974 as a small and unprofitable casino. It went public in 1983, from 1993 to 1997; the average return on capital invested was 16.5%. Circus Circus operates several properties in Las Vegas, Reno, Laughlin, and one in Mississippi, as well as 50% ownership in three other casinos and a theme park. On January 31,1998 Circus reported net income of 89.9 million and revenues of 1.35 billion, this is a down from 100 million on 1.3 billion in 1997. Management sees this decline in revenue due to the rapid and extensive expansion and the increased competition that Circus is facing. Well established in the casino gaming industry the corporation has its focus in the entertainment business and has particularly a popular theme resort concept....

Effect Of Civil War On American Economy

The Economies of the North and South, 1861-1865 In 1861, a great war in American history began. It was a civil war between the north and south that was by no means civil. This war would have great repercussions upon the economy of this country and the states within it. The American Civil War began with secession, creating a divided union of sorts, and sparked an incredibly cataclysmic four years. Although the actual war began with secession, this was not the only driving force. The economy of the Southern states, the Confederacy, greatly if not entirely depended on the institution of slavery. The Confederacy was heavily reliant on agriculture, and they used the profits made from the sale of such raw materials to purchase finished goods to use and enjoy. Their major export was cotton, which thrived on the warm river deltas and could easily be shipped to major ocean ports from towns on the Mississippi and numerous river cities. Slavery was a key part of this, as slaves were the ones who harvested and planted the cotton. Being such an enormous unpaid work force, the profits made were extraordinarily high and the price for the unfinished goods drastically low in comparison; especially since he invention of the cotton gin in 1793 which made the work all that much easier and quicker. In contrast, the economical structure of the Northern states, the Union, was vastly dependent on industry. Slavery did not exist in most of the Union, as there was no demand for it due to the type of industrial development taking place. As the Union had a paid work force, the profits made were lower and the cost of the finished manufactured item higher. In turn, the Union used the profits and purchased raw materials to use. This cycle...

Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Trade Embargoes

Although I am a strong critic of the use and effectiveness of economic sanctions, such as trade embargoes, for the sake of this assignment, I will present both their theoretical advantages and their disadvantages based upon my research. Trade embargoes and blockades have traditionally been used to entice nations to alter their behavior or to punish them for certain behavior. The intentions behind these policies are generally noble, at least on the surface. However, these policies can have side effects. For example, FDR's blockade of raw materials against the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s arguably led to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, which resulted in U.S. involvement in World War II. The decades-long embargo against Cuba not only did not lead to the topple of the communist regime there, but may have strengthened Castro's hold on the island and has created animosity toward the United States in Latin America and much suffering by the people of Cuba. Various studies have concluded that embargoes and other economic sanctions generally have not been effective from a utilitarian or policy perspective, yet these policies continue. Evaluation of the effectiveness of Trade Embargoes Strengths Trade embargoes and other sanctions can give the sender government the appearance of taking strong measures in response to a given situation without resorting to violence. Sanctions can be imposed in conjunction with other measures to achieve conflict prevention and mitigation goals. Sanctions may be ineffective: goals may be too elusive, the means too gentle, or cooperation from other countries insufficient. It is usually difficult to determine whether embargoes were an effective deterrent against future misdeeds: embargoes may contribute to a successful outcome, but can rarely achieve ambitious objectives alone. Some regimes are highly resistant to external pressures to reform. At the same time, trade sanctions may narrow the...