An Argument Against the Death Penalty :: Death Penalty Argumentative Persuasive Papers

An eyewitness to the execution of John Evans in Alabama describes this scene from the final moments of a death penalty sentence being carried out: "The first jolt of 1900 volts of electricity passed through Mr. Evans' body. It lasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flame erupted from the electrode tied to his leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in the electric chair and his fist clenched permanently. A large puff of grayish smoke and sparks poured out from under the hood that covered his face. An overpowering stench of burnt flesh and clothing began pervading the witness room. Two doctors examined Mr. Evans and declared that he was not dead." It took three jolts of electricity and 14 minutes before John Evans was declared dead (Radelet, "Facing the Death Penalty"). Throughout history, various forms of executions such as this one have taken place as a punishment for crime. In 1976, the United States reinstated the death penalty after having revoked it in 1972 on the grounds that it "violated the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment" (MacKinnon, "Ethics" 289). Since its reinstatement, the morality of such punishment has been extensively debated. I argue that the death penalty cannot be morally justified on the basic grounds that killing a human being as a form of punishment is wrong. A major argument supporting capital punishment is that it serves as a deterrent to crimes - specifically, murder. However, this argument requires that the would be killer would take at least a moment to consider what the consequences of murder within our legal system are. This assumes that the killer is capable of such reasoning, and that the crime would be considered before it occurred. In fact, "those who commit violent crimes often do so in moments of passion, rage and fear - times when irrationality reigns" (Information, "Capital Punishment" 107). Whether or not a murder or crime is premeditated, there are statistics existing that cause us to question how supportive an argument of deterrence can be. In 1989, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee said that if we look at other Western democracies, "Not one of those countries has capital punishment for peacetime crimes, and yet every one of them has a murder rate less than half that of the United States" (Information, "Capital Punishment" 110). The Information Series on capital punishment also says that states that FBI statistics from 1976-1987 show that "In the twelve states where executions take place, the murder rate is.

Global Warming and Geomorphology Essay

In his article â€Å"Global Warming and Geomorphology†, David K. C. Jones attempts to distinguish between the doom and gloom predictions surrounding and offer a more realistic approach to the effects that climate change will have on the geological and biosphere aspects of the planet and specifically on the British Isles. Climate fluctuation based on the presence of so-called greenhouse gases has been occurring for most of the last geological period. At issue, however, are several factors that have not been considered in previous periods of rapid climate change including the impact of humanity on greenhouse gases and humanity’s knowledge of its impact (Jones, 124). This knowledge of humanity’s impact on geomorphology can be used for either gain in the coming global change or can be used to incite doomsday predictions. Jones theorizes that geomorphologic change may have happened this rapidly in the British Isles at the end of the last ice age, but that since humanity was not aware of it or could simply respond to the changes as they happened, modern man may have an advantage to protect his environment. The problem with the knowledge that humanity has affected global climate change is that it also points out how much we do not know. The author discusses this in terms of regionalization, the idea that some global effects of climate change will only affect certain regions. The effects he identified as potentials were: (i) The likelihood of catastrophic outcomes; (ii) The potential distribution of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ within an economy, both over space and through time; (iii) Whether winners and losers can be reliably identified through improved modeling in sufficient time to allow effective policy formulation; (iv) Evaluation of the costs and benefits of climatic change prevention compared with those generated by responding to changed climate through adjustment; and (v) Evaluation of the costs of attempting to maintain the status quo compared with managed adaptation to changing environmental conditions. † (Jones, 126) In essence, Jones begin his argument by saying that it is the socio-economic factors of global warming which might be more devastating to humanity than the actual physical changes on the planet. Much ado, he says, has been made about the effect the rising of the mean sea level on the planet could have in areas such as Bangladesh, where 9 percent of the population would be affected by a rising sea level, creating millions of climate refugees or in Egypt, where the nation could lose as much as 15 percent of its farmland to rising water (Jones, 127). None of these factors threatens the existence of humanity, but they do threaten life as we know it. Changes in weather patterns, top soil erosion and rainfall could have enormous effects on agricultural production, for instance, which may have a major effect on the world’s economy, but it is unlikely to have such a far-reaching effect as to produce global food shortages. Jones does not completely negate the idea that humanity could face dire consequences associated with global climate change, but he does argue that they are more likely to be economic than physical. (127). However, Jones also argues that the ability to predict the impact of global warming on geomorphology and the biosphere is somewhat limited. Specifically, he claims that: â€Å"Predicting changes in the atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases remains problematic because of uncertainty as to existing sources, pathways, fluxes and stores of the various gases involved, combined with difficulties of estimating future patterns of human inputs (Houghton et al. , 1990, 1992; DOE, 1991; Wigley and Raper, 1992) ; 2 Climate is the great integrator and, therefore, reflects a huge range of influences, both global and extra-terrestrial, some natural others human-induced, working at varying temporal and spatial scales. Both identifying and predicting the influences of greenhouse gases are, therefore, extremely difficult; 3 The relationship between greenhouse gases and climatic parameters is not simple because of both positive and negative feedback mechanisms, step-wise changes resulting from the existence of threshold conditions, synergies, and the complex influence of the oceans and their circulation patterns ; 4 Predicting change remains hampered by lack of knowledge regarding system parameters (e. g. ocean-atmosphere coupling) and the awesome magnitude of the computing task required by the most sophisticated models. † (Jones, 126-127) Perhaps the most important part of the thesis that Jones is trying to make is that once we have accepted that global warming is affected by human action, we must therefore accept that we can affect how significant that climate change will be. Specifically, Jones talks about the potential impact of actions taken to mitigate global warming including attempts to reduce the production of greenhouse gases and actions taken with regard to soil shift which is likely to occur rapidly during the temperature increase. Efforts to discuss beach erosion, cliff erosion and affects on deltas and coral islands should emphasize what actions can be taken to lessen the effect of rising ocean levels. Any action then taken to attempt to control these forces of natures will have a substantial effect on the outcome related to those climate changes. The first thing I noticed about this article is that it was published nearly 15 years ago, making some of its basic assumptions rather obsolete. For example, Jones discusses the massive computer power needed to perform the complex projections related to weather patterns and global warming. While it is possible that this limitation was considered a severe one in 1993, the rapid expansion of computer processing power means that more recent looks at global warming can attempt to analyze weather-related data and infer probability based on those history patterns. Furthermore, the computer models can be very detailed and discuss specific projected ocean levels in individual cities or nations and over a specific time frame. No longer is it just a cataclysmic claim that the sea levels will rise, but it is a specific claim regarding how much water will be where. The second thing I noticed about this article was that it was published in the midst of some of the worst flooding in modern United States history, the great flood of 1993 on the Mississippi River. Flood levels that year reached beyond the 100-year-floodplain and ignited questions about the effects of changing weather patterns on agriculture and population centers in the central United States. Since then, we have seen major flooding along several major rivers in the United States including the Rio Grande, the Missouri River and the Ohio River, while at the same time seeing the Colorado River suffer from enormous drought conditions, creating a lack of potable water for major western American cities. On the British Isles, we recently observed massive flooding along the Thames River and associated death and destruction. Already, just 15 years after Jones’ article, we are seeing the effects of global warming as weather patterns shift causing record heat waves in Europe, killing hundreds, and shifts in the American food producing states where rain seems to come at inappropriate times or inappropriate amounts. Next, I began to consider Jones’ theory that massive global climate change is primarily concerning most people because of the economic shifts it will likely cause. If several countries see their major crops begin to die out because of a climate shift, will we see the food production belts shift further northward and further southward from the equator? And, what effect will this have on the habitable portions of the world? As additional areas of the world become classified as tropical and subtropical, what will be the effect on population patterns? Will regions now largely devoted to population centers need to give the land back to agrarian tasks? Already we are seeing the effects of the global climate shift in India and Pakistan. India with about 1 billion people does not have the ecological resources to support its population, including, but not limited to, clean water. This contributes to the political instability of the region as Pakistan and other Indian neighbors face regular mass immigration from India. These massive population shifts are causing or contributing to political strife worldwide. Likewise, as food production suffers because populations are no longer nomadic and able to follow the seasons to appropriate growing conditions, it seems likely that increased international strife will develop over the supply of natural resources ranging from deciduous trees to natural grains. Further impacting this is a move to biofuels as an attempt to curb the production of greenhouse gases. So far, we have been able to observe that the high demand for grains and sugar cane to be converted in to ethanol and other biofuels has begun to drive up the cost of food stuffs on an international basis. As some point, the system will break and people will demand that they be able to afford to eat. Perhaps the most interesting portion of Jones’ article is his claim that the doomsday predictions are overblown and that climate change is not necessarily a cataclysmic event. Though it is unlikely that human-induced climate change will be the cause of an extinction event, it appears more likely that the economic and political strife caused by the climate change may cause severe population reducing events including limited warfare or extinction events such as a nuclear confrontation. Given the recent receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize to American Albert Gore Jr. for his work on informing the public about global warming, the lessons of Jones’ article are particularly timely. His advice that a plan for mitigating the effects of global warming needs to be developed and implemented beginning in the 1990s and extending to 2050 is very well received. The only tragedy is that this advice was soundly ignored for the first decade after he gave it and real attention to global warming has only come in recent years as a result of the Kyoto Treaty and efforts like those of Gore. It seems unthinkable that the debate over the validity of the science of global warming still exists when there is evidence of its existence and of humanity’s effect on it. I feared at first when reading Jones’ introduction that he was going to be one of the people who claim that the climate shift is part of a semi-predictable pattern of geological history as so many naysayers are wont to do. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that his analysis acknowledges that it is happening at an accelerated rate because of the impact of humanity and his statements in support of the idea that humanity can thus also mitigate its impact on the globe and on the species. More importantly perhaps is that some of Jones’ suggestions can be applied to mitigating the effects of global climate even if the climate change is a completely natural cycle unaffected by the pollutants added to the atmosphere by humanity. Efforts to prevent soil erosion and to minimize building in floodplains make simple sense. Anyone who simply accepts the fact of changing weather patterns can easily see the logic in these efforts regardless of whether they have any desire to reduce their carbon footprint. Using technological advances to help prevent soil loss during flood events and to insist that populations take climate change into consideration are of value regardless of the causes of global warming. Furthermore, Jones’ explanation regarding the geological history of interglacial periods can be viewed as reassuring to even those who are convinced of the human factor in global warming. At some times, the earth has undergone rapid ecological change in the past and the biosphere has not been destroyed. Therefore, his conclusions that global warming is neither something to be ignored nor the world ending event that it has been portrayed as is a very lucid approach. Too many zealots follow the anti-global warming crusades with a fervor that is as unhealthy as ignoring the issue could be. Simple changes in everyone can help prevent the need to massively adjust our lifestyles by mid-century. Efforts must be made to preserve the coastlines as much as possible and to prevent soil erosion when flooding occurs. Simple efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be attempted as well and people should adjust to the ideas of different crop patterns and therefore a different distribution of food resources. We should also prepare for an influx of immigrants from nations where receding coasts will leave populations with no place to live and we should take international action to address issues like the sub-Saharan drought in Africa, encouraging the sharing of natural resources like water among neighbor states. With these efforts now and an eye toward the issues that global warming will create in the relatively near future, we can prevent climate change from becoming an extinction event. If we ignore it, the strife brought on by it will likely be the end of humanity. Works Cited Jones, David K. C. â€Å"Global Warming and Geomorphology†, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 159, No. 2, July 1993, pp. 124-130.

Sigmund Freud - The Father of Psychoanalysis

Sigmund Freud is best known as the creator of the therapeutic technique known as psychoanalysis. The Austrian-born psychiatrist greatly contributed to the understanding of human psychology in areas such as the unconscious mind, sexuality, and dream interpretation.  Freud was also among the first to recognize the significance of emotional events that occur in childhood. Although many of his theories have since fallen out of favor, Freud profoundly influenced psychiatric practice in the twentieth century. Dates: May 6, 1856 -- September 23, 1939 Also Known As: Sigismund Schlomo Freud (born as); Father of Psychoanalysis Famous Quote: The ego is not master in its own house. Childhood in Austria-Hungary Sigismund Freud (later know as Sigmund) was born on May 6, 1856, in the town of Frieberg in the Austro-Hungarian Empire (present-day Czech Republic). He was the first child of Jacob and Amalia Freud and would be followed by two brothers and four sisters. It was the second marriage for Jacob, who had two adult sons from a previous wife. Jacob set up business as a wool merchant but struggled to earn enough money to take care of his growing family. Jacob and Amalia raised their family as culturally Jewish, but were not especially religious in practice. The family moved to Vienna in 1859, taking up residence in the only place they could afford -- the Leopoldstadt slum. Jacob and Amalia, however, had reason to hope for a better future for their children. Reforms enacted by Emperor Franz Joseph in 1849 had officially abolished discrimination against Jews, lifting restrictions previously placed upon them. Although anti-Semitism still existed, Jews were, by law, free to enjoy the privileges of full citizenship, such as opening a business, entering a profession, and owning real estate. Unfortunately, Jacob was not a successful businessman and the Freuds were forced to live in a shabby, one-room apartment for several years. Young Freud began school at the age of nine and quickly rose to the head of the class. He became a voracious reader and mastered several languages. Freud began to record his dreams in a notebook as an adolescent, displaying a fascination for what would later become a key element of his theories. Following graduation from high school, Freud enrolled at the University of Vienna in 1873 to study zoology. Between his coursework and lab research, he would remain at the university for nine years. Attending University and Finding Love As his mothers undisputed favorite, Freud enjoyed privileges that his siblings did not. He was given his own room at home (they now lived in a larger apartment), while the others shared bedrooms. The younger children had to maintain quiet in the house so that Sigi (as his mother called him) could concentrate on his studies. Freud changed his first name to Sigmund in 1878. Early in his college years, Freud decided to pursue medicine, although he didnt envision himself caring for patients in a traditional sense. He was fascinated by bacteriology, the new branch of science whose focus was the study of organisms and the diseases they caused. Freud became a lab assistant to one of his professors, performing research on the nervous systems of lower animals such as fish and eels. After completing his medical degree in 1881, Freud began a three-year internship at a Vienna hospital, while continuing to work at the university on research projects. While Freud gained satisfaction from his painstaking work with the microscope, he realized that there was little money in research. He knew he must find a well-paying job and soon found himself more motivated than ever to do so. In 1882, Freud met Martha Bernays, a friend of his sister. The two were immediately attracted to one another and became engaged within months of meeting. The engagement lasted four years, as Freud (still living in his parents home) worked to make enough money to be able to marry and support Martha. Freud the Researcher Intrigued by the theories on brain function that were emerging during the late 19th century, Freud opted to specialize in neurology. Many neurologists of that era sought to find an anatomical cause for mental illness within the brain. Freud also sought that proof in his research, which involved the dissection and study of brains. He became knowledgeable enough to give lectures on brain anatomy to other physicians. Freud eventually found a position at a private childrens hospital in Vienna. In addition to studying childhood diseases, he developed a special interest in patients with mental and emotional disorders. Freud was disturbed by the current methods used to treat the mentally ill, such as long-term incarceration, hydrotherapy (spraying patients with a hose), and the dangerous (and poorly-understood) application of electric shock. He aspired to find a better, more humane method. One of Freuds early experiments did little to help his professional reputation. In 1884, Freud published a paper detailing his experimentation with cocaine as a remedy for mental and physical ailments. He sang the praises of the drug, which he administered to himself as a cure for headaches and anxiety. Freud shelved the study after numerous cases of addiction were reported by those using the drug medicinally. Hysteria and Hypnosis In 1885, Freud traveled to Paris, having received a grant to study with pioneering neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot. The French physician had recently resurrected the use of hypnosis, made popular a century earlier by Dr. Franz Mesmer. Charcot specialized in the treatment of patients with hysteria, the catch-all name for an ailment with various symptoms, ranging from depression to seizures and paralysis, which mainly affected women. Charcot believed that most cases of hysteria originated in the patients mind and should be treated as such. He held public demonstrations, during which he would hypnotize patients (placing them into a trance) and induce their symptoms, one at a time, then remove them by suggestion. Although some observers (especially those in the medical community) viewed it with suspicion, hypnosis did seem to work on some patients. Freud was greatly influenced by Charcots method, which illustrated the powerful role that words could play in the treatment of mental illness. He also came to adopt the belief that some physical ailments might originate in the mind, rather than in the body alone. Private Practice and Anna O Returning to Vienna in February 1886, Freud opened a private practice as a specialist in the treatment of nervous diseases. As his practice grew, he finally earned enough money to marry Martha Bernays in September 1886. The couple moved into an apartment in a middle-class neighborhood in the heart of Vienna. Their first child, Mathilde, was born in 1887, followed by three sons and two daughters over the next eight years. Freud began to receive referrals from other physicians to treat their most challenging patients -- hysterics who did not improve with treatment. Freud used hypnosis with these patients and encouraged them to talk about past events in their lives. He dutifully wrote down all that he learned from them -- traumatic memories, as well as their dreams and fantasies. One of Freuds most important mentors during this time was Viennese physician Josef Breuer. Through Breuer, Freud learned about a patient whose case had an enormous influence upon Freud and the development of his theories. Anna O (real name Bertha Pappenheim) was the pseudonym of one of Breuers hysteria patients who had proved especially difficult to treat. She suffered from numerous physical complaints, including arm paralysis, dizziness, and temporary deafness. Breuer treated Anna by using what the patient herself called the talking cure. She and Breuer were able to trace a particular symptom back to an actual event in her life that might have triggered it. In talking about the experience, Anna found that she felt a sense of relief, leading to a diminishment -- or even the disappearance of -- a symptom. Thus, Anna O became the first patient to have undergone psychoanalysis, a term coined by Freud himself. The Unconscious Inspired by the case of Anna O, Freud incorporated the talking cure into his own practice. Before long, he did away with the hypnosis aspect, focusing instead upon listening to his patients and asking them questions. Later, he asked fewer questions, allowing his patients to talk about whatever came to mind, a method known as free association. As always, Freud kept meticulous notes on everything his patients said, referring to such documentation as a case study. He considered this his scientific data. As Freud gained experience as a psychoanalyst, he developed a concept of the human mind as an iceberg, noting that a major portion of the mind -- the part that lacked awareness -- existed under the surface of the water. He referred to this as the â€Å"unconscious.† Other early psychologists of the day held a similar belief, but Freud was the first to attempt to systematically study the unconscious in a scientific way. Freuds theory -- that humans are not aware of all of their own thoughts, and might often act upon unconscious motives -- was considered a radical one in its time. His ideas were not well-received by other physicians because he could not unequivocally prove them. In an effort to explain his theories, Freud co-authored Studies in Hysteria with Breuer in 1895. The book did not sell well, but Freud was undeterred. He was certain that he had uncovered a great secret about the human mind. (Many people now commonly use the term Freudian slip to refer to a verbal mistake that potentially reveals an unconscious thought or belief.) The Analysts Couch Freud conducted his hour-long psychoanalytic sessions in a separate apartment located in his familys apartment building at Berggasse 19 (now a museum). It was his office for nearly half a century. The cluttered room was filled with books, paintings, and small sculptures. At its center was a horsehair sofa, upon which Freuds patients reclined while they talked to the doctor, who sat in a chair, out of view. (Freud believed that his patients would speak more freely if they were not looking directly at him.) He maintained a neutrality, never passing judgment or offering suggestions. The main goal of therapy, Freud believed, was to bring the patients repressed thoughts and memories to a conscious level, where they could be acknowledged and addressed. For many of his patients, the treatment was a success; thus inspiring them to refer their friends to Freud. As his reputation grew by word of mouth, Freud was able to charge more for his sessions. He worked up to 16 hours a day as his list of clientele expanded. Self-Analysis and the Oedipus Complex After the 1896 death of his 80-year-old father, Freud felt compelled to learn more about his own psyche. He decided to psychoanalyze himself, setting aside a portion of each day to examine his own memories and dreams, beginning with his early childhood. During these sessions, Freud developed his theory of the Oedipal complex (named for the Greek tragedy), in which he proposed that all young boys are attracted to their mothers and view their fathers as rivals. As a normal child matured, he would grow away from his mother. Freud described a similar scenario for fathers and daughters, calling it the Electra complex (also from Greek mythology). Freud also came up with the controversial concept of penis envy, in which he touted the male gender as the ideal. He believed that every girl harbored a deep wish to be a male. Only when a girl renounced her wish to be a male (and her attraction to her father) could she identify with the female gender. Many subsequent psychoanalysts rejected that notion. The Interpretation of Dreams Freuds fascination with dreams was also stimulated during his self-analysis. Convinced that dreams shed light upon unconscious feelings and desires, Freud began an analysis of his own dreams and those of his family and patients. He determined that dreams were an expression of repressed wishes and thus could be analyzed in terms of their symbolism. Freud published the groundbreaking study The Interpretation of Dreams in 1900. Although he received some favorable reviews, Freud was disappointed by sluggish sales and the overall tepid response to the book. However, as Freud became better known, several more editions had to be printed to keep up with popular demand. Freud soon gained a small following of students of psychology, which included Carl Jung, among others who later became prominent. The group of men met weekly for discussions at Freuds apartment. As they grew in number and influence, the men came to call themselves the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. The Society held the first international psychoanalytic conference in 1908. Over the years, Freud, who had a tendency to be unyielding and combative, eventually broke off communication with nearly all of the men. Freud and Jung Freud maintained a close relationship with Carl Jung, a Swiss psychologist who embraced many of Freuds theories. When Freud was invited to speak at Clark University in Massachusetts in 1909, he asked Jung to accompany him. Unfortunately, their relationship suffered from the stresses of the trip. Freud did not acclimate well to being in an unfamiliar environment and became moody and difficult. Nonetheless, Freuds speech at Clark was quite successful. He impressed several prominent American physicians, convincing them of the merits of psychoanalysis. Freuds thorough, well-written case studies, with compelling titles such as The Rat Boy, also received praise. Freuds fame grew exponentially following his trip to the United States. At 53, he felt that his work was finally receiving the attention it deserved. Freuds methods, once considered highly unconventional, were now deemed accepted practice. Carl Jung, however, increasingly questioned Freuds ideas. Jung didnt agree that all mental illness originated in childhood trauma, nor did he believe that a mother was an object of her sons desire. Yet Freud resisted any suggestion that he might be wrong. By 1913, Jung and Freud had severed all ties with one another. Jung developed his own theories and became a highly influential psychologist in his own right. Id, Ego, and Superego Following the assassination of Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, thus drawing several other nations into the conflict which became World War I. Although the war had effectively put an end to the further development of psychoanalytic theory, Freud managed to stay busy and productive. He revised his previous concept of the structure of the human mind. Freud now proposed that the mind comprised three parts: the Id (the unconscious, impulsive portion that deals with urges and instinct), the Ego (the practical and rational decision-maker), and the Superego (an internal voice that determined right from wrong, a conscience of sorts).   During the war, Freud actually used this three-part theory to examine entire countries. At the end of World War I, Freuds psychoanalytic theory unexpectedly gained a wider following. Many veterans returned from battle with emotional problems. Initially termed shell shock, the condition resulted from psychological trauma experienced on the battlefield. Desperate to help these men, doctors employed Freuds talk therapy, encouraging the soldiers to describe their experiences. The therapy seemed to help in many instances, creating a renewed respect for Sigmund Freud. Later Years By the 1920s, Freud had become internationally known as an influential scholar and practitioner. He was proud of his youngest daughter, Anna, his greatest disciple, who distinguished herself as the founder of child psychoanalysis. In 1923, Freud was diagnosed with oral cancer, the consequence of decades of smoking cigars. He endured more than 30 surgeries, including the removal of part of his jaw. Although he suffered a great deal of pain, Freud refused to take painkillers, fearing that they might cloud his thinking. He continued to write, focusing more on his own philosophies and musings rather than the topic of psychology. As Adolf Hitler gained control throughout Europe in the mid-1930s, those Jews who were able to get out began to leave. Freuds friends tried to convince him to leave Vienna, but he resisted even when the Nazis occupied Austria. When the Gestapo briefly took Anna into custody, Freud finally realized it was no longer safe to stay. He was able to obtain exit visas for himself and his immediate family, and they fled to London in 1938. Sadly, four of Freuds sisters died in Nazi concentration camps. Freud lived only a year and a half after moving to London. As cancer advanced into his face, Freud could no longer tolerate the pain. With the help of a physician friend, Freud was given an intentional overdose of morphine and died on September 23, 1939 at the age of 83.