Human experience Essay Example for Free

Human experience Essay Star I thought it was a big coincidence that I ended up babysitting for a cancer patient with the same name as mine, Stephanie. Star, as she was fondly called, was a picture of hope when I first met her. I was a student then at a university near the hospital where she was confined. Her mom was a friend of my sister’s and one day, she took me with her to visit Star. That visit marked the beginning of a wonderful friendship. Every day I would visit her and she will be waiting by her window. I would bring her gifts, mostly toys and books I bought from a bookstore beside our school. We would often read the books together or play with her dad. One time, we also decorated her room with paper flowers and dolls. Star shared her dreams with me. She told me she wanted to become a doctor someday and help children like her. She wanted so much to get well that seeing her fighting for her life everyday sent tears to my eyes. But I never showed her my weakness for fear that that will bring her to her end. She taught me in her own little way to remain brave and hopeful despite the trials that come my way. It was in the afternoon of August 7, 2001 that she finally bid us goodbye. She knew it was her time to go back where she belonged, among the little angels of God where there is no pain, no tears, but only joy. That experience in my life made me wonder if God really exists and if He does, how come He didn’t answer my prayers. On the other hand, I knew that it was for the best. I myself didn’t want Star to suffer any longer. I realized God works in mysterious ways and we have to pass by many significant experiences to keep our faith and love for Him strong.

World Wide Issue Of Suicide

World Wide Issue Of Suicide Suicide is a world-wide issue. Suicide is commonly referred to a permanent solution to a temporary problem. A person may choose to end his/her life for many different reasons. The person may feel unhappy, angry at a situation, helpless, or feel like it is his time to go. If people have never had suicidal thoughts or have never had to deal with the issue of suicide, it is hard for them to understand why anyone may have suicidal feelings. In many parts of the world, the issues of assisted suicide and Euthanasia are being debated. Some people see assisting suicides in any way as unethical; others have an opposing view. Assisted suicide should be legal, because it is a persons own choice as to whether to live or die, and it is his/her own life. Assisted suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia are large ethical issues and are often thought of as the same thing, but there is a difference. Assisted suicide involves the passive participation of a medical professional in an individuals decision to take their own life. This may take the form of dispensing a lethal pill or providing advice. In either case, its the patient who ultimately takes the decisive action. Euthanasia, in contrast, involves a positive action on the part of a doctor to end a life at that persons request by administering the fatal dose, for example (American Psychological Assoc.). Bernice Levitz Packford, a 95-year-old woman, was interviewed about assisted suicide. She wants her life to end but does not want to take it herself. She stated as her reasons, Because I am a coward. And its lonely. Bernice also gave an explanation of euthanasia. In euthanasia, somebody is doing it to you. Im not good at defining the differences but Im not happy with that term. (American Psychological Assoc.). Euthanasia is a disturbing thought to most people; it sounds like a form of murder. Yes, someone is taking the life of another person in assisted suicide, but what makes it different from murder is that the person wanted his life to be taken. Bernice feels that assisted suicide is better that euthanasia, because her death is her own choice and doing. Many issues need to be addressed concerning assisted suicide: whether or not assisted suicide is really a persons choice, if it is ethical, and if it should be legal. Utilitarianism supports assisted suicide. Utilitarianism is the doctrine that an action is right (wrong) in the proportion to its tendency to promote (diminish) the overall happiness of everyone concerned. (Foster, 2010) Following the reasoning of utilitarianism, as long as the majority of people are happy with an action, it is ethical. The person having assisted suicide wants to die and is happy with that decision; the person believes death will bring them pleasure. As sad as losing a loved one might be, family and friends could also find joy knowing that it was the persons decision to die and that he/she is now free from pain. The majority of people could find joy from assisted suicide. Those who object to utilitarianism state that, although it is easy for people to decide what is right or wrong based on the feelings they experience, a person cannot predict their feelings nor can they predict the consequences of such a drastic action. How does the person know they will be happier after they die? Some people who are religious believe in a glorious after-life, but what about those who dont believe this, and what if an after-life does not exist? Was assisted suicide still a good choice? Bernice doesnt believe in an after-life but said, I believe a person lives on in the memories of their friends and family. She still believes that her choice for assisted suicide will bring happiness. Because utilitarianism supports the majority, another common objection to utilitarianism is that by following this theory it often violates peoples rights. Assisted suicide would not violate anyones rights, if it was legal. In fact, by not legalizing assisted suicide, it is taking away the right of the person to make a personal decision to die. Bernice said, Can Parliament find the gumption to give me the right to assisted suicide? I could then have my family and friends around me to say goodbye as I die with dignity. The lives of people belong to no one, except themselves. Denying a person control of his/her life takes away a personal right. Under the theory of utilitarianism, assisted suicide is ethical and justified; the Divine Command Theory would disagree. The divine command theory is the view that to say that an action is morally wrong is to say that god disapproves of it, and to say that an action is right is to say that god approves of it. (Foster, Review Sheet, 2010)The Divine Command Theory bases ethics on Gods teachings. To many religious people the Bible is a book of Gods moral principles and teachings. In multiple places in the Bible, God tells people what He thinks about life and suicide. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). God gave man life, and therefore the life of all man belongs to him. Using assisted suicide is against Gods moral teachings. The Bible further explains that man belongs to Him: Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, you were b ought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Gods teachings show that assisted suicide is opposing His will. It is not a persons right to choose to take his/her life, because their body does not belong to them; it belongs to God. A person should live a full life and die when God chooses to end their life, not when that person decides to. Under the Divine Command Theory, morals come from God. God has set up laws and morals for people to follow and obey. Legalizing assisted suicide is against Gods teachings, and therefore is unethical. Just like with all theories, there are objections to the Divine Command Theory. The Divine Command Theory is flawed, because it does not consider a group of people like Bernice who are not religious and have no moral guidance under this theory. Where are people who do not believe in God supposed to get their moral teachings? How are they to decide right from wrong? Not even all religious people can agree on Gods teachings (cite). Using the Divine Command Theory, assisted suicide would be immoral for people who believe in God; however, those who do not have such beliefs in God would be left without guidance in regard to the issue of assisted suicide. The people who would like to have assisted suicide can be placed in a general category. For the most part, the people in this group are old, have health problems, are disabled in some way, and/or are near death. These people are often in pain and are incapable of living a normal life. They are no longer healthy and, in many ways, are living on the lives of others. In this kind of situation, it is very difficult to find happiness. Although an optimistic person could find joy in any situation, most people are not that optimistic and lose hope. Many people reach a point in their life where they give up. They cant find a purpose in continuing to live and would rather die a peaceful death instead of living in misery. Even though the person wants to die, he/she doesnt want to die in a gruesome way. Assisted suicide allows a person to take his/her life in a humane way. However moral or immoral the action of assisted suicide may be, a person should have the personal right to take his/her own life. Assisted suicide needs to be separated from normal thoughts of suicide. Suicide is often thought of as an irrational decision. The common methods of suicide are often inhumane and no one likes to think of a loved one participating in them. Assisted suicide is different; it is usually accomplished with a pill or an injection. Unlike the intentions of most people who commit regular suicide, assisted suicide is never meant to hurt someone or to escape from lifes troubles; rather, the person is ready to die and is not trying to escape living. A person planning to take his/her life through an assisted suicide has made a rational decision and often discusses their plans and decisions with a number of family members as well as with professional personnel. People have a blurred perspective as to whether the choice is really the persons who is participating in assisted suicide. Making assisted suicide legal would give people the right to make the decision, thus taking away the question as to whether he/she was persuaded to make the choice. Obviously, not all would choose assisted suicide for many different reasons such as religious reasons or that they just dont want to die. If assisted suicide was legal, it is possible that more people would choose to end their lives, because it could be so easily done. Some think that making assisted suicide legal persuades people to choose that action. If assisted suicide were available, people with severe disabilities because of their old age, might feel pressured to participate in assisted suicide even if they did not want to die, because they would be made to feel like they were a burden to the world. The person might decide to participate in assisted suicide, because it would be legal and conside red the proper and respectful thing to do. Although some people may feel pressure to use assisted suicide, it would still be the persons own choice. Just like anything in life, there are always people trying to persuade others to do something, but a person has to be strong and make personal decisions. The ethics of allowing assisted suicide can be compared to the issue life support. After a traumatic accident, some people are hooked up to life support, and are more like vegetables than humans, unable to do anything on their own. The family of the person has a choice as to whether or not to keep them alive with a machine or to pull the plug and let them die. The person who is on life support has no say in the decision to end his/her life. The person might want to continue living, and might not be ready to die, but if the family decides that letting them pass on is the best decision, then it is done. If disconnecting life support to end a persons life is legal, then assisted suicide should also be legal. People who are old and/or are burdened with disabilities are not living on a machine for life but rather are depending on the people around them for life. If a person is not on life support, it is unethical for family members to decide to end a persons life, but a person should have the right to end his/her own life, and it should be considered ethical. When people lose a loved one, it can be devastating. Many people die unexpectedly and in tragic ways. Dealing with the loss of any person is hard. With assisted suicide, the passing of a person can be expected, the family can be around, the method can be humane, and the family can find comfort in knowing that it was the persons own decision. The overall situation can bring joy to everyone involved. No one should be allowed to deny a person and his/her family the right to make a decision like this. Assisted suicide should be legal.

The Nature Of Crime And Criminality

The Nature Of Crime And Criminality The concept of crime is not a new term especially even in laymens word. It is an act committed in violation of the law. Indeed, it is an omission forbidden by criminal law. And in the commission of a crime, it can be punishable through imprisonment or by a fine. In some cases, there are also other forms of punishment imposed by the government or other governing bodies which aims not only in reprimanding the violator but as well as in their reformation. However, this is not the case for defining the word crime. It has been perceived that by giving definitions, one significantly outs or assigns limitations to the concept. According to Savage and Brearly (2007, p. 23), it is quite common to define crime as an act that contravenes the criminal law and is therefore punishable in law. But this should not be the case because crime is a concept that should be treated with caution and not taken for granted. The focus on crime is more evident in the study of criminology. In the definition of criminology, it has been described as the systematic study of the nature, extent, etiology and control of law-breaking behavior (Henry, n.d.). The focus on the assessment of the concept of crime is dealt by the aspect of criminology. The concept of criminology is considered to be a broad science that involves various kinds of crimes as well as societies and cultures in which the crime takes place. In addition, criminology covers the aspect of law that is made by the society in order to address the various crimes that have been committed in a given area (Info Boulevard, 2008). Thus, in the science of exploring the interaction of crime and society, there has been a range of theories formulate in an attempt to explicate what causes such reactions from individuals. Similarly, theories have been created as a reaction to the judicial or social challenges which have been created (Info Boulevard, 2008). With this, one can say that concept of crime is a very complex matter such that, it cannot be explained in a single theory alone. There have been a remarkably high number of theories which attempt to explain the concept of crime in relation to people and the society. Indeed, the nature of crime is increasingly changing largely because of the changes in the society and the environment. Today, a crime cannot be viewed on a single perspective alone. The concept of crime is explained on the basis of different contending perspectives or theories. Two of the most popular perspective that explains the nature of crime is its condition as being a social construct and being an individual criminality. In the concept of crime as a social construct, it has been believed that criminality could have been avoided if there are only prerequisites. Among these prerequisites include presence of very good living conditions, real free will, not maltreatment from the direct and indirect environment, family with principles and a job which can be considered as dignified. In the absence of the noted prerequisites, it is likely that problematic or troubled individuals can be lured into becoming criminals. On the other hand, there is also the perspective that the individuals criminality is not a question. Scholars and the researchers alike argue that genetic factories such as the wrong genes and chromosomes can drive the individuals to absence of self-control, aggressive attitudes as well as generally criminal behavior. Because of this, there is a need for the society to all the members the favorable living conditions. If not, it would be almost unavoidable for the individuals to commit criminal acts. In this paper, it will look into the theories that explain these two most argued perspectives on the concept of crime. Primarily, it will provide a separate discussion on the two perspectives. After elucidating on these perspectives, this paper will present an analysis by comparing and contrasting it. In this way, one can critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the two perspectives thereby helping in the decision-making process as to whether the concept of crime is a social construct or just plainly an individual criminality. Crime as a Social Construct Generally, the basis for explaining crime as a social construct is the social environment. While crime is committed by an individual, it is still highly relevant to the society such that, the society is attributed to the actual realization of the crime. Through the environment, it is believed that it can influence the tendency of an individual to commit or engage in crime. This perspective is highly related to the aspect of knowledge as a social construct also. in the context of different dominant values or perspectives, it is believed that the values that come to be accepted are contingent upon the knowledge that is privileged. Undeniably, knowledge in itself is believed to be subject to being socially constructed and even subject to various forms of politically motivated construction (Savage and Brearly (2007, p. 9). Throughout the history, one can see that in the beginning, it is perceived that criminality is a result of the choice on the part of the offender. However, this belief was replaced by positivism wherein it suggests that rather than crime being a matter of choice, it was a matter of pathology or some kind. In short, crime is a result not of the individuals choice of the offender but of something being wrong with them. Indeed, they were bound to commit crime and not able to exercise choice in the matter (Garland, 2002, pp. 10-11). The Role of the Laws and the Government The development of crime as a social construct can largely be attributed to the role of laws and the government itself in the society. In fact, the punishment on the commitment of crime is left on the hands of the government. This governing is being guided by the policies and rules that have been promulgated to protect the welfare of the majority or the greater good. Welsh (2005) is highly critical of the formation of crime in relation to the nature of the government and its policies. He said that majority of the crimes are created by the government by choosing to outlaw something. For instance, the non-violent drug offenses are considered as crimes because it declared by the government. Indeed, it would have not been a crime if the government did not categorize drugs as something illegal. In this context, people are considered as moral entrepreneurs. By believing that drugs are evil, or adultery is bad or even sodomy is evil, they try to convince their societys authority to make violating their mores a crime. Indeed, in this form of government construction of crime, the public play an important role in the prohibition or in the process of making something illegal. For example, in the process of prohibiting gay marriage or alcohol drinking, the coalition of the public is necessary. Another aspect of the construction of crime is when crime is constructed for its own interest such as the case of tax evasion and money tracking laws. On the third, a crime is constructed by the government when it acts to enforce the privilege of an oligopoly or even monopoly. It has been a long standing practice that can be observed in the government the enforcement of state monopoly whether it is in the form of labor, good or service (Welsh, 2005). As such, taking into considerations the only few exceptions, it can already be generalized that crime is what the society chooses it to be and the crime rate is what the society chooses it to be. This phenomenon explains why the U.S. has the highest prison population in the contemporary world. Indeed, they are the highest because they chose to be so. Until now, they still continue to dictate how their people should live their lives, when their actions are either harming only themselves or are harming those who have consensually agreed to be harmed or because it is enforcing a monopoly for those who have power or who kick back into the system Labeling It is in this context where the aspect of labeling comes to fore. Sutherland (1999) avows that it is derived from the sociological dimension of symbolic interactionism. Further, it is explained that in the labeling theory, the human actions are understood in the light of the meaning of those actions. It is believed that it is the people who provide the meaning for the different situations. Consequently, the definitions given to situations are derived from various particular situations. In other words, an image is constructed in the process. Through their interaction with other people, they are able to create an image which in turn is necessary in the giving of meaning to situations. In the case of criminality, the concept of image is deemed to be indispensable. Sutherland (1999) explains that it is the people and the society that creates the image of a criminal. As a matter of fact, criminals do not perceive themselves as criminals. Through the criminal justice system, it utilizes the stigma as a way of controlling behavior. It then notifies other people in order to enhance the image. Undeniably, there is a great distinction between the black and the white races. There is higher likelihood that the blacks will be convicted for crimes than the whites. Welsh (2005) reveals that in the United States, being black or Hispanic means that there is chance of being charged or convicted with the same crime as a white individual. In addition, being poor situates an individual to a greater chance of being convicted that being rich or middle class. Thus, there is a tangible manifestation of the concept of labeling is the US social environment setting. There are severe consequences when one has acquired a criminal record in the United States. Holding a criminal conviction on ones record means that there is little or no chance of getting a decent job. As a result, they are absorbed by the black or gray economy, wherein there is a greater chance of committing a crime. The likelihood of committing further crime can be attributed to ones economic necessity since being marked means that the unmarked will not associate with him or her. In other words, it is expected that one will fall into bad company (Welsh, 2005). The Conflict Perspective The conflict perspective was the basis of explaining the differences of society and culture in perceiving behaviors. It elucidates on the way societies perceive and define what is to be an unacceptable behavior. This perspective is highly important in explaining the social construction of crimes because it presents that the nature and definition given to the concept of crime is relative to cultures and societies. According to Lundberg (n.d.), in the nature of crime as a social construct, it involves not only of the end result (defined crime), but also of the component forces from inside and outside a society which result in that definition. In line with this, the conflict perspective declares that the definitions of unacceptable behavior differ according to whether or not the definition is in the interests of the ruling class. With this, the focus of this structural perspective is on the organization of the society as well as its effect on behavior. A concrete example of the statement given above is the opposing attributes of what is considered to be acceptable and unacceptable behaviors between the European cultures and the aboriginal cultures of Canada. Indeed, the fundamental difference that can be found on European and aboriginal cultures is a reflection on their differing philosophies on the justice system. In the aspect of cultural ethics, the European culture is governed by the concept of guilty and not guilty while in the aboriginal cultures, these words are not to be found in their language. The North American aboriginal societies stress on the role of the elders in the formation of the standards of justice. With this, the basis of their cultural norms is the holistic perspective. Being holistic is true not only on the individual context but as well as in the world in general. The assessment of the physical and mental state of an individual takes into consideration the body, mind and spirit. Moreover, the aboriginal cultures stress on the near-equality of humans and animals (Hamilton and Sinclair, 1991). Overall, the culture of the aboriginal people in North America is developed in such a way that it can adapt constantly to meet the changing circumstances. For instance, this adaptability on the case of aboriginal culture is evident on the commitment of murder. In the culture of Europe, it is not a question that murder is a crime. But in the culture of the Aboriginal societies, it is not always the case. In their culture, the nature of crime is measured based on the severity of the living conditions of the people. This means sanctions may vary depending on the situation. For example, the living conditions which can be considered as unsurviveable, infanticide or abandonment of the sick or elderly is not considered a crime in times of food shortage. In this context, the most valuable member of the group or even in the family would be the hunters wherein they are the last to starve (Hamilton and Sinclair, 1991). Countries Crime Rates To further consolidate the perspective of crime as a social construct, there is a need to look into empirical data such as the condition of living among various countries and the rate of their crimes. Through the living condition of the people and the society, one can point into the necessary elements of the social environment that help shape the development of crime and criminality. Based on the findings of the net industries (2008), the pattern on crime rates among various regions differs. Specifically, it is in Africa and Latin America where there is a high rate of crimes. On the other hands, the Western Europe and the New World are considered to have a relatively low crime rates. In the aspect of victimization, it is found put that the areas in Asia have the lowest and Latin America and Africa incurred the highest. Meanwhile, the New World and the Western Europe are considered to be close to the mean. With this finding, it is asserted that there is a decline on the victimization rates in the most industrialized countries. On the other hand, this decline is not evident on the other parts of the world. What has been observed is the simple division of the world into developed and developing countries (Net Industries, 2008). The developed countries tend to have a lower rate of crimes while the developing ones are higher. Crimes as an Individual Criminality In general, human individuals as considered as the basis of explaining crime as an individual criminality. As compared to the theory of crime as a social construct, the focus of the concept of crime as an individual criminality is already on the individual. Rooting from the person, it looks into the innate or inherent factors that can significantly influence the making of a criminal. In the perspective of individual criminality, it can be asserted that a criminal is born or can be made. In the claim that a criminal is born, it can be traced on the studies regarding the importance of heredity. On the other hand, the claim that a criminal is made, it is traced on an individuals environment- ones diet and even the environment. While, the aspect of environment is still included in the theory of individual criminality, it is still geared towards the study of the individual. On one hand, the concept of a born criminal can be traced with the studies that show the importance and power of oneself in the development of ones criminality. Being a born criminal is also equated to being hereditary. A person is more likely to become criminal is it is already in their blood to become one. In heredity, it includes the elements like physical appearance, modern genetics theory as well as learning theory. Researchers argue that criminality is a genetic trait. Or at some point, criminality is also deemed that it is a result of the individual innate psychological make-up (Savage and Brearly, 2007, p. 77). On being a born criminal, it was Cesare Lambroso who emphasized on this concept. It was said that the born criminal is the one who was pre-destined for criminal behavior due to his physical configuration. People were categorised on the basis of five dimensions: skull shape; jaw and nose shape; head size; and the degree of sensitivity to pain. The category to which a person was assigned depended on the goodness of a match to predetermined characteristics of those dimensions (Crime Library, 2007). One the other hand, a criminal is made through his/her environment. In this case, the claim suggests that a criminal is made instead of being born. It is a consequence of the environmental factors which have negative effect on the people. According to Rutter and Giller (1993), the family is an important environmental which shapes the criminality of an individuality. Various scientists like Bowlby and Fry (1953) and Rutter and Giller (1993) have elucidated on the significant role of the family. There is a place in the Philippines where it has a minimal or even zero crime rate yet the living conditions are not that high or good (Malej, 2004). The people practice honesty, non-violence and other form of positive attitudes at all times. This is in spite of their very poor living conditions. As a matter of fact, their society is very backward. Almost no modern technologies are present in the said province yet they are able to live a life with dignity and harmony. The situation described above is a reflection of the theory that individual criminality is not at question. The government may not provide even the basic needs of the people yet they are able to avoid criminality. Indeed, the commitment of crime is largely dependent on the part of the individual. Ultimately, he/she is the one who makes decisions. In other words, he is the one in control of his/her life. Crime as a Social Construct and Individual Criminality While the two perspectives are considered to be at both ends, it can also be reconciled in order to come up with a better explanation on the concept and nature of criminality. In other words, it the two perspectives will be integrated so as to provide a holistic explanation about crime. It is perceived that when one utilizes only a single perspective, it can never suffice to explain the nature of crime. Hence with the combination of the two, crime can be said to be rooting on the individual make-up as well as the social construct. Undoubtedly, there is a wide array of factors that can explain criminality and thus predict crime. Jones and Connelly (2002) categorized the different factors that influence criminality based on the different spectrums. On one end of the spectrum, criminality is explained through the biological and psychological point of view. The biological theorists claim that due to the genetic composition or even heredity, some people are more predisposed to engage in criminal activity as compared to others. On the perspective of the psychological theorists, criminality can be attributed to the personality characteristics of a person. It is believed that criminality can be traced on the personalities of the offenders rather than on biology. Meanwhile, on the middle of the spectrum, the criminal behavior is explained through the point of view of theorists who are developmental, age-graded, engaged in the concept of social control and even social disorganizations. Toward the end of the spectrum, crime is explained by radical, structural and conflict criminologists. These scholars assert that crime is a result of the inequalities among class and race. In addition, the conflicting values as well as interests significantly affect the engagement into criminal activities (Jones and Connelly, 2002). On the table below, it presents the different risk factors on the commitment or involvement on crime. It asserts here that the factors affecting as well as shaping an individual transcends the personal level. It even goes further to the community or its external environment. Table 1: Risk Factors (Jones and Connelly, 2002) Family Parental criminality Parental supervision/Management practices Income Parent-Child involvement Conflict/Separation Maltreatment Delinquent siblings School Commitment Behavior Achievement Disorganization Peer Association Alienation Early involvement in problem behavior Peer involvement in problem behavior High proportion of unsupervised time with peers Early adulthood Lack of skills Unemployment or low income Homelessness Community Disorganization Drug availability Opportunity for crime Attachment High percentage of children and/or single-parent families Indeed, the causes of crime cannot be attributed to one factor alone. The different factors play a significant part in the development of the individual of a person, especially his/her tendency to commit crime. The idea that a criminal is born into crime can also be linked to the sociological causes of crime. In short, while it is possible the certain persons a born to become criminal, the realization of this fate can also be dependent on the role of its society. For instance, a born criminal can be suppressed of his/her nature as a criminal is he/she has been raised in the right environment. Hence, it is possible to say that explanations which emphasize environmental factors, in other words that crime is linked to things that happened after birth, have become more prevalent. However, such approaches can still be based on emphasis on the human individual (Savage and Brearly, 2007, p. 63). Indeed, it is evident here that there is a link between the two perspectives. To say, these two theories are interdependent with each other. Analysis The development of the two perspectives in explaining can be traced in the history of crime and the formation of criminal laws and punishment. The development of the concept of crime throughout time is largely shaped by different factors. More importantly the disparities on the perception of crime on different societies are a reflection of the relativity of the criminality. When one talks about modern concept of crime, it is usually associated with the western ideas and notion of criminal justice. Indeed, majority of the criminal justice system today is shaped towards the western ideas of criminality. As a result, majority of the societies are western-oriented. With this increasing trend is an implication of the need to examine the nature of criminality as a social construct. On the other hand, the theory that individual criminality is not a question can be considered as a traditional form of looking into the nature and meaning of crime. Since the individual is the focus of this criminological endeavor, one can say that the influence of the society in this perspective is not as pervasive as the scholars perceive to be. Indeed, in the traditional sense, the society would not be of highly influence to individual criminality. But today, there are so many intricacies in social interactions such that the individuality of a person is highly shaped by its society or the environment. Overall, the bottom line of determining the nature of crime is to attempt in reducing or eliminating its occurrence. One can only stop the prevalence of crimes by looking into the deeper context of the concept of crime. Through the opposing perspective that crime is a social construct and that individual criminality is not at question, this paper was able to examine crime on a greater vista. On the social construction of crime perspective, it suggests that the easiest as well as the simplest manner of lessening the rate of crime is eliminate or reduce the criminalization of victimless crimes. The crime rate is considered to be a choice made by the society except in case of an anarchic situation. More importantly, the people in the prisons tell a lot about what kind of society one has (Welsh, 2005). In other words, there is a need to redefine the word and crime thus to give a new meaning or image to it. The society and the government need to explore the deeper context of crime and see where criminality can be situated. Conclusion The commitment of crime is almost an inevitable activity nowadays. Only few places are now considered to have a zero crime rate. In almost any place, the existence of crime can be observed. Its prevalence can be attributed to the kind of judicial system or the kind of government laws and policies that the place has. It can also be that the society per se is the main culprit on the existence of crime. Lastly, the role of individuals in the making of crime is inevitable. Being the main instrument in the realization of any crime, ones individuality cannot be set aside in the examination of criminality. Overall, the concern of this paper has been addressed through the critical reflection of the concept of criminology. Particularly, it emphasized on the idea that crime is a social construct as well as the individual criminality being not in question. The scope of this reflection includes the examination of the state practices, the society and the individuals. By looking into the different perspectives based on this scope of reflection, one is able to conclude that all perspectives tend to seek the liberation of those people whose lives have been affected by injustice. In the personal perspective or point of view of the author of this paper, it is believed that the nature of crime can be highly considered as a social construct. Indeed, the contemporary society has presented the people with the phenomenon of interconnectedness. Human beings are now closely connected with each other in one way or another. As such, they can be highly influenced by his/her fellow human beings as well as its surroundings. It is believed that there is a complex web of connections or interactions between men and its surroundings. Especially in the modern days, the study of ones individuality or personality cannot be complete without looking into the external factors or the society. The same is true with the case of criminality. It is not enough to study the meaning and concept of crime if it is on the context of the individual only. Especially in the modern world, the role of the environment is highly critical in the conduct of lives of every individual.

Mathew and his Amazing Journey to Break my Heart :: essays papers

Mathew and his Amazing Journey to Break my Heart â€Å"Look at how his hair curls down on his forehead! Isn’t that so cute?† I whispered to my best friend Jenny who was seated next to me. Jenny and I have known each other since we were in diapers with teething rings. I could predict what she would do or say; it was even found that I could tell what she would be wearing that day, without her even telling me. We were both exactly alike also; in love with Mathew Jackson, in love with NSYNC, in love with the color pink, and the list went on. I still have memories of the pink hats we had that matched our pink dresses that we wore on Easter. And the Barbies we played with in Jenny’s pink dollhouse. Even the coloring books we colored completely pink. I also still have trillions of best friend necklaces Jenny and I bought and trillions of letters that spell out JENNY AND VALERIE ARE BEST FRIENDS FOREVER. So this is why I could tell you that Jenny would agree with my comment about Mathew’s hair. â€Å"Yes it is!† she whispered. We were still astounded to be in the same room as Mathew Jackson, the most handsome 8th grade boy; I take that back, the most handsome middle-school boy we both had ever seen. He was an accomplished student and athlete. He had everything and anything a guy would ever want, definitely a perfect 10. He was the president of Green Valley Middle School. Which explains what we were doing in the same room with him. He was going over some of the fundraisers we could do to raise money for our trip to Washington D.C. in April. When Jenny and I found out that Mathew was going to be present on the trip, we knew we had to be there. The calendar on the wall told the month to be February, and if we skipped a few pages to April, â€Å"D.C. TRIP!† was marked in red and yellow, our school colors. We were going to be riding on a train all the way from Tennessee to Washington D.C. I wanted to raise a lot of money to help my parents out as much as possible, not to mention get noticed by Mathew, who was at the top of the fundraising committee, for raising the most money.

College Students Trapped by Credit Card Debt :: Argumentative Persuasive Argument

College Students Trapped by Credit Card Debt My best friend from my childhood is a marketing agent’s dream. Constantly duped and deceived by flashy ads and predatory marketing, this kid will buy anything - usuall on credit. At last check, my friend had maxed out 4 credit cards to the tune of over $30,000. Very rarely did the money go for something necessary, like accommodation or food, but usually was spent on a multitude of gadgets, toys, and other assorted ‘guy-stuff.’ CDs, a subwoofer, X-boxes and PlayStations, new rims and tires†¦he even whipped out the plastic to cover the $5,000 for his girlfriend’s new boobs! In my humble opinion, this was probably one of his wiser purchases, but still highlights the fact that my friend has a serious problem managing his finances. Unfortunately, my friend is not alone, but is one of thousands of unassuming college students trapped by credit card debt. Potential problems caused by lousy credit history can bite hard. They include: dropping out of college, physical and emotional health problems, family conflicts, bankruptcy, job rejections due to bad credit, loan denials, inability to rent apartments, graduate school rejections, and even suicide (Manning, 160). About 3 – 4 percent of college students suffer from serious credit problems (Manning, 160). While this number may seem small, that translates into 304 students just at HSU alone (4% of 7611 total students). College campuses make fertile feeding grounds for predatory marketing strategies. College is a time of self-discovery, when many students are enjoying their first real tastes of independence away from the home. For many, obtaining that first credit card is a natural step in establishing financial sovereignty. The fact of the matter however, is that college kids are also more prone to naivety with credit cards, which often hide the true costs of buy ing on credit. According to the Nellie Mae Corporation (a division of the federal Sallie Mae fund), over 95% of graduate students have credit cards, with the average student owing $4,776 in debt. 20% of those graduate students have debt between $6,000 and $15,000, and 6% have debt greater than $15,000.

Meaning of life †Question Essay

Freud, like Newton and Darwin, did not consider himself to be a philosopher but had an enormous influence over philosophy, he believed that to consider the question: â€Å"what is the meaning of life? † is a waste of time. The question, he thought, is rather meaningless and has no ultimate answer, asking it is being somewhat like asking what the color of time is (Mason). There are serious arguments that can be advanced in support of this point of view, especially if we agree that meaning is not something inherent to events, things, and other processes and so on, but something we ascribe to them (Mason). To think otherwise would involve ascribing them something that is a product of our intellect and consciousness. The meaning of X, whether X is an event, a thing, or a process, is actually the connection or a set of those connections X has with other events, things, and processes and so on, which we choose to consider to be of particularly importance to us (Mason). This is why the same events have different meaning for different people. For a Chinese, be he a Communist or an anti-Communist, the meaning of the war in Korea is that it marks the end of a century of national humiliation and a permanent threat of devastation through a long series of military defeats by foreign powers; for an American, the meaning of that very same war is that it put an end to the attempts to expand by direct military invasion the influence of Chinese Communism (Adams). There are undoubtedly countless amounts of explanations to this riddle, and there are many circumstances that can change one’s perspective towards this problem, but ultimately, there is no right or wrong answer. Paragraph 2: Everything changes radically, of course, if we belong to a Church. Everything is noted under God’s eye For believers, their life long goal is to sustain God’s knowledge and go his way. Go to the right passage and obey his â€Å"laws† Their passage of life consists of saving one’s immortal soul. Duty of life makes up the meaning of life. Paragraph 3: The practical Romans grasped something that over the head of two millennia of Christianity resonates with contemporary pragmatism, and with the life philosophy resumed in the dictum â€Å"the meaning of life is life itself† Meaning of life is life itself Living the life in happiness is the meaning of life. Anything that fits you the best will become your meaning of life. Find out your goals, what you want to achieve life, and that will become your meaning of life ultimately. Limitations will apply. Paragraph 4: Living your life according to this life philosophy, which is the most commonly chosen among the life philosophies derived from the answer â€Å"the meaning of life consists in living life†, is usually not too difficult for a â€Å"normal† person living under â€Å"normal† circumstances. Meaning of life depended on the status of the person. Meaning of life is to live a good life. Do not know what exactly is a good life but a good life will be noted. Everyone has different meanings to life. Paragraph 5 (Conclusion): But be it Confucius, Aristotle or even Kant with his theory of being impossible to achieve moral perfection or any other of the great minds each of whom spent years of their lives trying to provide humanity with an answer to the fatal question, essentially, they trying to tell us what to live for and how to live. Namely, almost all the answers they offered have the same basic flaw: when they are workable at all, they work only for very few exceptional individuals and are way beyond the reach for the rest of us (Shields); us, those weak, silly and prone to sin creatures that make up the vast majority of humankind. Luckily, this vast majority do not worry too much about what great minds have in mind, but just live their lives as they best can according to their own, petty, senseless wishes and notions (Metz): work their gardens, even if they never heard of Voltaire, and whether they know that Freud existed or not, do not waste their humble intellectual potential trying to answer a question that has no answer (Metz). The rest is a senseless waste of time, â€Å"Primum vivere, deindre filosofare†, and if you spend too much time and effort philophizing, you will have no time nor energy to live, which involves earning money to pay the bills. As to the great eternal and fundamental questions, let’s leave them to professional philosophers whom society pays to do this specific job, as it pays plumbers to do the plumbing, scientists to explore nature, nurses to help the sick, the clowns to entertain us.

Die Welle Essay

In the film â€Å"Die Welle†, directed by Dennis Gansel is about a teacher that is assigned to teach autocracy instead of anarchy. In the German setting, where the movie takes place, everybody knows that fascism and the Nazis sucked, they got that. Getting relegated to teaching autocracy was a real bummer since the students were filled with arrogance and laziness. Rainer Wegner constructs an unorthodox experiment, making an autocracy group of their own called â€Å"The Wave† or â€Å"Die Welle†. The real question is to what extent is an Autocratic government superior to all other governments or the counterpart the democratic government? For those who don’t know the difference between autocracy and democracy is that democracy is the form of government ruled by a group of leaders and a president elected by the people of the country. The leadership is chosen by the majority of the people. The epitome of a democratic government that is most known to us is the United States of America. On the other hand, an autocracy is basically a dictatorship is when one person rules the country without any say from the public. The people don’t have any saying at all in how the nation is run. An incredibly good example is Nazi Germany. Die Welle can be considered an allegory to modern day neo-nazism or old nazi Germany. The wave is just like hitler and the nazi group. It can make us reflect if a way of knowing, which is history, can be indeed true. How can we know something is right if we didn’t observe it first-handedly? We can think of it like this way, we can know that modern history is usually accurate since we were present at the times these events happened, and we concur that the events did indeed take place in that certain time frame. History is like police work, you piece together what one thinks happened based on the evidence available, like eye-witnesses or crime scene evidence. Historians can acknowledge these evidence and can say what happened during that time frame based on the evidence provided to us, like the police work. Nazis are basically the same thing since we study the evidence provided to us, like the video and artifacts of Nazism. In the movie, Die Welle, we can allegorize the events that occurred in the movie since after the autocracy nded, the students had many different perspectives about what happened. The events that occured in the movie can be seen in many different ways, it can be seen as very unorthodox since the experiment caused chaos and ultimately a student to get shot. Much like the Nazi-soldiers when their reign was over, many just panicked and killed themselves because they could not handle, the truth, that it was over. Much like when the wave ended and the kid took out his gun. George orwell said: â€Å"Who controls the past controls the future†. Does this relate to historical knowledge? To what extent can we trust historical â€Å"knowledge† since we didn’t experience it first-hand? This is a question we should all ask ourselves since this knowledge issue applies in a colossal way to the movie. We saw autocracy as a bad thing since it caused so much damage in the community, and even one youngster getting shot. Can we think of a way of governing a body of people as good or bad since it has been seen to be proven effective throughout history? As the movie quotes, â€Å"autocracy provides discipline†. It’s like an opiate for the masses since an ideology can rule them all. In conclusion, the movie can be seen as a knowledge issue in historical facts since we weren’t there to experience the allegory between Nazi Germany and the Wave autocratical group. It also relates to, is all knowledge historical knowledge? Since we have history, we should learn from our mistakes. A good quote that shows why the wave is so representative of national socialism is: â€Å"You’re pissed off just because The Wave does not follow your rule! †.