Death Penalty

Death Penalty In 1962, Daniel Frank was executed by the death penalty for the crime of theft. This was the first known execution by capital punishment. Since then, the death penalty has been a major part of the criminal justice system. In 1930, death penalty statistics began to be collected on a regular basis. From 1930-1967, 3, 859 people were executed under civil jurisdiction in the United States.

During this period, 54% of those executed were black, 45% were white and the one remaining percent were members of other racial backgrounds. During the same period, the U.S. Army and Air Force executed 160 people. 106 were for murder (some involving rape), 53 were for rape and one for desertion. By the end of the 1960’s, all but 10 states had laws that allowed the death penalty, but because of heavy pressure by those who opposed the death penalty, an unofficial delay was placed on the performance of any other execution for several years.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

There are many different beliefs and arguments on this subject. Death penalty advocates justify capital punishment under the idea an eye for an eye, which is the belief that the punishment should fit the crime. They feel that murderers should be executed for their crimes and that such retribution is justice for murder victims and their survivors. People opposing the death penalty emphasize the sacredness of life, arguing that killing is always wrong no matter who it’s done by, and that justice is best served through reconciliation. There will always be never-ending arguments on this topic. Personally, I feel that both sides have very good cases. However, through my upbringings in the Catholic faith, I was taught that killing is wrong no matter what. One murder does not justify another.

There are other means of rehabilitation that can be used. On the other hand, I have never had a close friend or family member murdered or raped, and God forbid should that ever happen to a loved one of mine. For I feel that if that should ever happen to someone I love, I do believe that my belief in Christianity would be tested. Sociology Essays.

Death Penalty

Death Penalty For years, capital punishment has been a controversial issue in our society. Many arguments can be made in favor and against it. It ultimately, however, comes down to personal beliefs and opinions. Personally, I feel that the death penalty is a very serious punishment, and should be used very carefully and sparingly. The death penalty is unremediable.

What is done cant be corrected. This aspect of the sentence plays a heavy part in my opinion. The death penalty also is more costly than life imprisonment, and has not been found to be a greatly effective deterrent. Florida, as one example, calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost the state $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000.(Harries and Cheatwood). Figures from the General Accounting Office are close to these results.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population, non-death row, of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year. (Porter). From this; the cost of keeping a 25-year-old inmate for 50 years at present amounts to $805,000. Assuming 75 years as an average life span, the $805,000 figure would be the cost of life in prison. So roughly it’s costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life.

This is just the dollar cost. The risk of executing innocent persons is a decisive objection to the institution of capital punishment in the United States. Consequentialist arguments (you get what you deserve) for the death penalty are inconclusive at best; the strongest justification is a retributive one. However, this argument is seriously undercut if a significant risk of executing the innocent exists. Any criminal justice system carries the risk of punishing innocent persons, but the punishment of death is unique and requires greater precautions. Mistakes can be and have been made. This mistake is not remediable.

Retributive justifications for the death penalty are grounded in respect for innocent victims of homicide; but accepting serious risks of mistaken executions demonstrates disrespect for innocent human life. United States Supreme Court decisions of the 1990s (Coleman v. Thompson and Herrara v. Collins) illustrate the existence of serious risk and suggest some explanations for it.(Linehan) Another argument for the death penalty has been that of its ability to deter people from committing crimes punishable by death. The death penalty aggravates the level of violence in society instead of diminishing it. Empirical studies indicate that it has no effect as a deterrent.(Linehan) It contributes to disrespect for human dignity and human life.

Increasingly, our society looks to violent measures to deal with some of our most difficult social problemsmillions of abortions to address problem pregnancies, advocacy of euthanasia and assisted suicide to cope with the burdens of age and illness, and increased reliance on the death penalty to deal with crime. We are tragically turning to violence in the search for quick and easy answers to complex human problems. We are losing our respect for human life. We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. In order to display the majority of Americans uncertainty on the death penalty, Ive include the results of a recently conducted survey: When asked whether they prefer to keep or abolish the death penalty, about 60 to 80% of American adults say that they want to retain capital punishment. Numbers vary depending upon the wording of the question asked by the pollsters. When asked whether they would like to see executions continue or have them replaced with a system that guaranteed: *life imprisonment with no hope for parole *that the inmate would work in the prison to earn money *that the money would be directed to helping the family of the person(s) that they killed, about 55 to 60% of Americans prefer the latter system.

Citizens need to know the alternatives that are available.(Roby) Prison reform is a great alternative that, in my opinion, is not getting the publicity it deserves. The death penalty will continue to be one of the most heated topics of debate for years in the future. People will continue to go in circles on the issue until sincere efforts are made to find worthy alternatives. I believe that investigating alternatives is in our best interest. I also hope that it will become much harder to sentence someone to their death in the future. Hopefully this will ensure the protection of falsely accused citizens Current Events Essays.

Death penalty

When turning on the television, radio, or simply opening the local newspaper, one is bombarded with news of arrests, murders, homicides, and other such tragedies. There are many things that I don’t agree with in today’s society but, out of all the wrongdoing that takes place, I believe murder including the death penalty is the worst of them. I am strongly against the death penalty because it violates God’s rules, costs the tax payers too much money, the possible “wrongly accused,” and it is cruel and unusual punishment. How often do these concepts creep into the public’s mind when it hears of our ‘fair, trusty’ government taking away someone’s breathing rights?
I do not support having the death penalty because it violates religious beliefs. Many religions, such as my own, Catholicism, follow the rules that God sent to use through the Ten Commandments. One of the most important of those ten states, “Thou shall not kill.” If you are executing an individual, that clearly violates this commandment. Murdering any person, no matter what the individual has been convicted of, is a mortal sin. Therefore, God will punish anyone who aids in executing people. I believe that religious beliefs, such as the Ten Commandments, are the corner stone for our law system. Executing someone should not be made an exception to God’s rule.
My next reason against the death penalty is that taxpayers waste too much of their money with the death penalty. The average death penalty case is appealed three times. This means that the taxpayers must pay for the same trial to be heard three times. This is a very expensive practice. Also, the average convicted murder spends 12 years on death row. If supporters of the death penalty are positive enough to kill the person for committing the crime, shouldn’t the supporters be confident enough to execute them in a timely manner? Why spend the taxpayer’s money keeping these inmates in jail for so long? Taxpayer’s money should go to better society, not to accommodate the prisoners that are going to end up dead.
There’s always the chance of the innocent being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A handful of evidence from a strong lawyer could sentence someone to life in prison, and even the death penalty. One could be spending and ending his life in captivity for simply walking down the wrong street on the wrong day. That person does not deserve to serve the time that’s not rightfully his and take the needle that shouldn’t prick his skin. It’s a small fault in the justice system that is not easy to overcome.

Death Penalty

Death by execution has existed as a punishment since the dawn of time.Yet although this has existed seemingly forever, the question of its morality has also existed for that same amount of time.Killers kill innocent people, there is no question about that, but does that give us the right to kill these killers? I do not think so.

Racism is often the driving force behind crime.Yet in a justice system that preaches equality, it too is led by racism.There is a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty according to a 1990 U.S. Government report.An overwhelming majority of death row defendants since 1977 were executed for killing whites despite the fact that whites and blacks are victims of murder in approximately equal numbers.In Texas, for example, blacks found guilty of killing whites were found to be six times more likely to receive the death penalty that whites convicted of killing whites.Of the 3,061 inmates on death row 1,246 of them are black, making 40% of death row inmates black.Compare this to the fact that blacks make up 12% of the U.S. population. Furthermore, many black prisoners on death row were sentenced to death by all-white juries after prosecutors had deliberately excluded black people from the jury pool.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Racism alone is not the only problem with Capital Punishment.Many inmates on death row suffer from mental retardation.The 1984 ECOSOC safeguards state that the death penalty must not be carried out on persons who have become insane, while the ECOSOC resolution 1989/64 on the execution of the 1984 safeguards recommends that UN member states eliminate the death penalty for persons suffering from mental retardation or extremely limited competence. Amnesty International has documented the cases of more than 50 prisoners suffering from mental illness or mental retardation who have been executed in the U.S. in the past decade.Humanitarian standards maintain that mentally impaired people should not be held criminally responsible for their acts.The prohibition against executing insane recognizes that killing people who cannot comprehend the nature or purpose of their punishment is not a deterrent or retribution.Despite all this the mentally ill are still being executed.

Innocent people will be killed if the death penalty is kept in the same way that it is used today.Three hundred fifty people convicted of capital crimes in the U.S. between 1900 and 1985 were innocent of the crimes charged, according to a 1987 study.Some prisoners escaped execution by minutes, but 23 were not so lucky and found innocent of their crimes after they had been put to death.

A U.S. Congressional report by the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights in October 1993 listed 48 condemned men who had been freed from death row since 1972.The report blamed inadequate legal safeguards to prevent wrongful executions and listed numerous built-in flaws in the criminal justice system.The report concluded: Judging by past experience, a substantial number of death row inmates are indeed innocent, and there is a high risk that some of them will be executed.

The death penalty violates the right to life, and subjects the prisoner to the ultimate form of cruel, inhumane or degrading punishment which goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, proclaims each persons right to protection from deprivation of life, and it also states that no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment.The pre-meditated and cold-blooded killing of prisoners in state custody violates these rights.Over half the worlds countries have abolished in law or practice capital punishment.43 nations have abolished the death penalty since 1976, the year it was reinstated in the U.S., placing us among such bastions of fairness and justice as Iran and China.

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation.A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil.Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.

-Pope John Paul II, January 27, 1999, St. Louis
The death penalty which violates these rights cannot be justified as a necessary public safety measure because detailed research, both in the U.S. and other countries, has produced no evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments.This is not surprising, most persons who murder are not thinking rationally when they commit the crime.The threat of execution at some future date does not enter the minds of killers acting under of drugs and/or alcohol, in the grip of fear or rage, or while panicking during the commission of another crime.

Personally I feel that the death penalty is an immoral act of legislature which does not take into account the prejudices of the people who enforce the law.Racism exists along with the execution of the innocent and mentally retarded.This inhumane act serves the same purpose as life in jail but at a much greater cost.We should spend more money on crime prevention than the enforcement of punishments.

Death penalty

Fifty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the trend towards worldwide abolition of the death penalty is unmistakable. When the Declaration was adopted in 1948, eight countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes; today, as of November 1998, the number stands at 63. More than half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, and the numbers continue to grow.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty as a violation of fundamental human rights – the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Both of these rights are recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other international and regional human rights instruments and national constitutions and laws.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Defense of life and defense of the state may be held to justify, in some cases, the taking of life by state officials; for example, when law-enforcement officials must act immediately to save their own lives or those of others or when a country is engaged in armed conflict. Even in such situations the use of lethal force is surrounded by internationally accepted standards of human rights and humanitarian law to inhibit abuse.

The death penalty, however, is not an act of defense against an immediate threat to life. It is the premeditated killing of a prisoner for the purpose of punishment – a purpose that can be met by other means.

The cruelty of the death penalty is manifest not only in the execution but in the time spent under sentence of death, during which the prisoner is constantly contemplating his or her own death at the hands of the state. This cruelty cannot be justified, no matter how cruel the crime of which the prisoner has been convicted.

The cruelty of the death penalty extends beyond the prisoner to the prisoner’s family, to the prison guards and to the officials who have to carry out an execution. Information from various parts of the world shows that the role of an executioner can be deeply disturbing, even traumatic. The right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment are the two human rights most often cited in debates about the death penalty. But the death penalty also attacks other rights.

In many cases prisoners are sentenced to death in trials which do not conform to international norms for a fair trial. Prisoners facing a possible death sentence are often represented by inexperienced lawyers, and sometimes by no lawyer at all. The defendants may not understand the charges or the evidence against them, especially if they are not conversant with the language used in court. Facilities for interpretation and translation of court documents are often inadequate. In some cases prisoners are unable to exercise their right to appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction and the right to petition for clemency or commutation of the death sentence. In some jurisdictions, capital cases are heard before special or military courts using summary procedures.
The death penalty is often used disproportionately against members of disadvantaged social groups, and thus in a discriminatory fashion, contrary to Articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the ultimate denial of the dignity and worth of the human person, affirmed in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There is no criminological justification for the death penalty which would outweigh the human rights grounds for abolishing it. The argument that the death penalty is needed to deter crime has become discredited by the consistent lack of scientific evidence that it does so more effectively than other punishments.

International human rights standards have developed in a way that favors even tighter restrictions on the scope of the death penalty. This progressive narrowing of the death penalty is mirrored by actual practice in most states which still use the punishment.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966, states in Article 6(2): “In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes”. In a general comment on Article 6 of the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee established under that treaty stated that “the expression ‘most serious crimes’ must be read restrictively to mean that the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure”
In the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, adopted in 1984 (ECOSOC Safeguards), the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) reiterated that the death penalty should be imposed only for the most serious crimes and stated that the scope of these crimes should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences.

There have been various specific standards and statements about the crimes for which the death penalty should not be used. Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) states that the death penalty shall not be inflicted “for political offences or related common crimes.” The Human Rights Committee has stated that “the imposition of the death penalty for offences which cannot be characterized as the most serious, including apostasy, committing a third homosexual act, illicit sex, embezzlement by officials, and theft by force, is incompatible with article 6 of the Covenant. The summary of arbitrary executions has stated that the death penalty “should be eliminated for crimes such as economic crimes and drug-related offences”
The international standard of restricting the death penalty to the most serious crimes, in particular to those with lethal consequences, is broadly reflected in practice. Most states, which continue to carry out executions today, do so only for murder, although they may retain the death penalty in law for other crimes. Moreover, the rate of executions in most such countries has declined to a point where it represents only a tiny fraction of the number of reported murders.

International standards have also developed in such a way as to exclude more and more categories of people from those against whom the death penalty might be used in countries which have not abolished it.

The exclusion of juvenile offenders – those under 18 years old at the time of the offence – is so widely accepted in law and practice that it is approaching the status of a norm of customary international law. The prohibition is widely observed in practice. Between January 1990 and October 1998 Amnesty International documented only 18 executions of juvenile offenders worldwide, carried out in six countries. Half of the executions were carried out in just one country, the United States of America.

The exclusion of pregnant women, new mothers, and people over 70 years old, set forth variously in the ICCPR, the ACHR and the ECOSOC Safeguards, are also widely observed in practice. The ECOSOC Safeguards also state that executions shall not be carried out on “persons who have become insane”
Although the safeguards exist in principle in many countries which retain the death penalty, they are often not fully observed in practice, and even where an effort is made to observe them, the use of the death penalty often remains arbitrary. Factors such as inadequate legal aid and prosecutorial discretion result in some defendants being sentenced to death and executed while others convicted of similar crimes are not. The safeguards have failed to prevent the arbitrary use of the death penalty or to preclude its use against people innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted.

International bodies have increasingly made statements and adopted policies favoring abolition on human rights grounds. These statements and policies are beginning to be backed up by national court decisions ruling out the death penalty as a violation of human rights.

On 20 December 1971,the UN General Assembly affirmed the desirability of abolishing the death penalty in all countries. The desirability of abolishing the death penalty was reiterated in General Assembly resolution of 8 December 1977 and – most recently – by the UN Commission on Human Rights in resolution of 3 April 1998.

In resolution of 3 April 1997, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its conviction “that abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and to the progressive development of human rights”.
Protocol No. 6 is the most widely ratified of the three in comparison to the number of states parties to the parent treaty; as of October 1998 it had been ratified by 28 states and signed by another five. The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR had been ratified by 33 states as of the same date and signed by another three, while the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty had been ratified by six states and signed by one other.
Sixty-three countries today have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Another 16 have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes. Alongside the countries which have abolished the death penalty for all crimes or for ordinary crimes only, there are 24 which can be considered abolitionist de facto, in that they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years, or have made an international commitment not to do so. As Roger Hood has stated, the death penalty in these countries “has a far greater symbolic than practical significance”
.The trend to abolition seems inexorable, yet the battle has to be fought over and over again. Each country has to go through a process which is often long and painful, examining for itself the arguments for and against, before finally – we hope – rejecting the death penalty.

The decision to abolish the death penalty has to be taken by the government and the legislators. This decision can be taken even though the majority of the public favour the death penalty. Historically, this has probably almost always been the case. Yet when the death penalty is abolished, usually there is no great public outcry; and once abolished, it almost always stays abolished.

This must mean that although a majority of the public favours the death penalty in a given country, it is also the case that a majority of the public is willing to accept abolition. This is a feature of public opinion which is not usually revealed by polls asking respondents to state their position on the death penalty. If the questions were more sophisticated, the polls would probably give a better sense of the complexities of public opinion and the extent to which it is based on an accurate understanding of the actual situation of criminality in the country, its causes and the means available for combating it.

As the UN Secretariat suggested as long ago as 1980, governments should take on the task of educating the public on the uncertainty of the deterrent effect of capital punishment. A better public understanding of crime prevention and criminal justice would produce more support for anti-crime measures which are genuine and not merely palliative. At the very least, politicians should not make demagogic calls for the death penalty, misleading the public and obscuring the need for genuine anti-crime measures.

Often the national debate on the death penalty is conducted in purely national terms. The international dimension needs to be brought in. Countries can learn from other countries’ experience.

Over the centuries, laws and public attitudes relating to torture have evolved. It is no longer permissible to use thumbscrews or the rack as legally sanctioned means of interrogation and punishment. Attitudes toward the death penalty are also changing, and bringing about abolition requires courageous political leadership, leadership that will be exercised in the defense of human rights. The requirement of respect for human rights has to include the abolition of the death penalty. It is not possible for a government to respect human rights and retain the death penalty at the same time.


Words
/ Pages : 1,985 / 24

Death Penalty

.. appeal recourse procedure or proceeding relating to pardon or commutation of the sentenced. 8. Also capital punishment shall be carried out so as to inflict the minimum possible suffering. (Laijas 2) People say that the death penalty does not belong in a civilized society.

I could not agree more. The trouble with that is our society is not civilized. If it were, then there would be no murder and rape and no need for capital punishment. Some people say that the death penalty does not really deter crime. This can not be proven.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

It is impossible to know what person is deterred from criminal activities. Some people are so crazy that nothing can discourage them from committing a crime. Protesters of capital punishment say that since it is illegal for regular citizens to commit murder then the state government should not be allowed to put someone to death. They even go so far as to give it a name: “Judicial homicide.” (Cox 2) The people, of the people, and for the people elect the state government. It clearly has more rights than its citizens because the state government has to make decisions that effect an entire people.

Besides, if the citizens truly wanted a change, they could petition or vote the lawmakers out of office. Some people think that when the death penalty is involved in a trial that the verdict is automatically going to be guilty just because people are bloodthirsty and looking for a slaughter. This is a blatant lie. All trials in the United States of America are carried out via due process of the law, guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. Most importantly, the Supreme Court declared capital punishment did not violate the Eighth Amendment.

This means that the people that were elected by the citizens of the United States to interpret the law have found no reason to say that the death penalty should not be used. Supreme Court Justices have devoted their lives to studying the law and the effects of law on history, government, nations, and people and they are the ones who can best decide if a certain law is acceptable to the people it governs. There are some irrational and radical people that believe that everyone should have their rights no matter what they do. Some acts of violence are so cruel and inhuman that the individual who committed those crimes should have all of his rights denied. Not to mistreat him, but to show him and others like him that crime will not be tolerated. Someone who kills our parents, our children, and our siblings should have no right whatsoever to live in luxury and comfort in these air-conditioned resorts called federal penitentiaries for free. Our tax dollars should be used to solve and end problems, not sustain them.

The banning of the death penalty is absurd. If the death penalty is removed, the justice system will be ineffective. Homeless people and people who live in poverty will commit crimes just to get an extended stay in a nice home, with plenty of socializing and good times. Let us face it, if we had the choice of living in and out of garbage bins or living in a clean, healthy, free environment, which would we choose? To eliminate the death penalty would be to say it is okay to mooch off of good, taxpaying citizens. There are several benefits of the death penalty. Capital punishment affects a lot of people, both directly and indirectly.

Here are just a few illustrations as to why the death penalty should be imposed. Society will feel that the justice system is working properly. When people see crime being punished, they sense that all things are not as bad as they seem. If people see criminals getting what they deserve, then those people will think that they are doing something right by living and interacting with their government. The most basic principle involving the disciplining of crime is that the punishment must fit the crime.

If someone is a murderer, there is nothing else to do but to end that persons life as well. No amount of jail time, fines, and rehabilitation can compensate for his crime. As for a rapist, how can you repay a rapist? Isolation from the outside world in no wise cancels his debt to society and the people he violated. The only way to resolve his guilt is death. One of the most important factors of the death penalty is its deterrent value.

Potential criminals are more likely to think about the total consequences of their actions if they know their own lives are at stake. No one in their right mind will risk a one time thrill or moment of revenge when they know beyond the shadow of a doubt they will die for it. Families of those who are murdered are often hurt the worst. They obviously have a deep emotional burden to carry, but on top of that, they are often worried and bother by the extra financial and physical load that results. If a murderer goes to jail he will be living off of his victims’ family’s tax money.

This is a great disrespect to that family. What is more, a lot of murderers are out walking free. How can a menace to society be allowed back on the streets to haunt more good, moral citizens? I will tell you how: It is the likes of radicals who have gone completely out of their mind to try to be liked by everyone. When everyone has been murdered there is no one to be liked by. One of the less popular reasons that capital punishment is better than jail time is the fact that executions are far less expensive. Food, shelter, clothing, recreation, and the numerous appeals of the incriminated cost only the taxpayers.

By treating criminals like this, we are encouraging crime rather than impeding it. One of the major problems of prisons today is that they are overcrowded. Execute those most vile criminals and there will be plenty of room left over for the minor felons. It is estimated that there are 5,000 offenders on death row each year that could and should be put to death. That translates into 100,000 crime deterring executions in the next 20 years.

The fact is there have never been more than 200 executions in one year since 1933. No wonder we have a problem with too many criminals in our prisons: One reason is that death row inmates take up a good bit of the room, and another is that the deterrent value is not as great as it can be. In conclusion, there is no better way to deter and punish violent crime than the death penalty. It has been effective down through time, since the earliest civilizations. It will continue to be effective if we exercise it in a manner that is similar to our predecessors.

That is, not trying to work around it but to employ it as often as needed and in a way that affects as many people as possible.

x

Hi!
I'm Adrienne!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out