The state is corrupt and corrupting. Bakunin believed ‘there is nothing more dangerous for a man’s morality than the habit of commanding’. The state is also destructive. It encourages individuals to fight on their behalf, at the expense of others. As Randolph Bourne put it, ‘war is the health of the state’.
The philosophy of retribution is that of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In other words, that to cause a crime violates the social contract and a criminal must pay his or her debt to society by being punished. This principle suggests that a crime against one individual is a crime against all citizens. According to Lawlink, retribution is the theory that the guilty should endure the punishment which they entirely deserve. Denunciation then again, involves the imposition of a sentence which is in fact severe with regards to make a statement, which the crime in question is not to be tolerated by the community (2003).
WHO WE ARE IS TRULY TESTED AND PROVEN WHEN WE ENCOUNTER CONFLICT. It is a part of our human nature to experience conflict, as we are each forced to respond to conflict at various times in our lives. In order to live serenely we must attempt to avoid and resolve the conflict. Whilst conflict may merely involve two parties disagreeing over minor differences and opinions. We view through our history that major conflict in the form of war and political matters lead may to experience horrific life-changing conflicts.
The circumstances mentioned above encompasses self defense, serious offenses against persons and apprehension to name a few, for the sake of this paper we are going to look at when law enforcement uses self-defense and its legality. However knowing the verbatim standard for self defense is important before discussing the cases that will appear later. The federal government defines it as the following under 10 CRF 1047.7 Section A "When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm."
The Real Effects of Torture “If we are unwilling to torture, we should be willing to wage modern war.”(Harris). This quote is from the article “In Defense of Torture” where author Sam Harris makes a stance stating that torture should be legal. Throughout this article Harris makes comparisons between the lives of innocent people and the lives of terrorists and other war criminals. His main point of argument is that dropping a bomb on a foreign country creates collateral damage killing some innocent people along the way, and that collateral damage is more detrimental to a foreign country than torturing people for information. Harris provides a good point of argument with these examples, however, this argument is flawed.
King's opinion on civil disobedience. Patrick is anxiously waiting on the facts and then is attempting to skip right into direct action. Organizations such as Win Without War carefully plan their protests to not only get their point across but do it in a justified way that gets the public on their side. The overall goal in Dr. King's mind is to nonviolently protest an unjust law and let the surrounding people realize what's going on and why things need to change. Patricks method not only runs the risk of stirring up a violent situation, but by intervening on somebodys everyday routine you are negatively being viewed by society therefore no one wants to support your cause.
Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of personal construct theory’s contribution to our understanding of individual differences in personality. (2000 words). Theories of personality developed in three psychological strands clinical, psychometric and experimental tradition. They were all interested in human behaviour and were mainly concerned with explaining why individual behaved differently to similar situations, and how behaviour could be altered for the good of oneself and society (Butt, 2007). The quantitative psychometric testing and the experimental tradition in which individual difference can be known were the dominant methodologies for many decades.
Can a single person be held responsible for crimes against humanity? Crimes against humanity can be defined extreme and sustained degradation or humiliation of one or more individuals, as a part of a wider and systematic practice condoned by a higher authority, and i think, taking this definition into account that Ultimately, while an individual may be the controlling force and ignite the wave of extreme violence and discrimination, he has to be supported by others in order to build a culture of such extreme hatred; implicating his allies and as such an individual cannot be held wholly responsible for crimes against humanity, although he can be allocated a great portion of the blame. An individual cannot be wholly responsible for such a widespread and sustained practise of atrocities as actions of many are due to being subjected to oppression or under orders of someone of higher authority. In such a case, when the order comes form a higher authority, most often people do not have an option to rebel against their orders. It is usually a "kill or be killed order".
“The Role of Taking Conflict Personally in Imagined Interactions" This study examines thoughts and feelings about conflict. A person may use imagined interactions (IIs) to work through a conflict situation. One factor that may affect the nature of IIs about conflict is the tendency among some individuals to take conflict personally. Taking conflict personally (TCP) is the feeling that conflict is a negative life event that is aimed at the self (Hample & Dallinger, 1995). This study examines the relationship between TCP and IIs about conflict.
For example, violent protesting might be seen as an outlet for expression of discontent avoiding wider and more serious challenges to social order. Finally; by acting as a warning device that society is not working properly. For example, high rates of suicide, drug addiction and divorce show what social problems need to be solved before serious threats to social order develop. Although Durkheim’s theory is valid, some