Self-evaluation People Have Become Overly Dependent on Technology Essay

Self-evaluation People Have Become Overly Dependent on Technology - Essay Example The argument that people embrace a culture dependent on technology needs to be explained a little more. Spell checker argument does not clearly explain if it is the attraction of the feature that is making us use it or we are doing it berceuse of laziness and boredom. The statement needs to be elaborated in this regard. The paper shows the different benefits of technology on human life but is insufficient in establishing the human factor. Technology affected human behavior which led them to use it frequently that ultimately converted their life styles. This needs to be elaborated. Technology is human a creation but how it influences human emotions and its activities needs to be researched on. There are negatives aspects of technology too and it needs to be extended a little more in this contexts. By using technology we are losing our human values like sending emails instead of a personal greeting in festivals and celebrations. Though it is fast and more convenient, it lacks its human appeal. But still human beings go by it. Why is this so? The paper needs to explain this clearly. Technology and its advantages have captured human consciousness and their capacity to work and use their power for completing a task. There has to be a behavioral element to it that would explain how technological advancements affect human willingness to do a task themselves (Jones, 1984). The examples explained in the paper talks about the different advantages that technology has brought in our lives but it does not firmly establish how humans become increasingly exposed towards it. There are benefits but what compels us towards it? Is it the feature, our tendency to work fast or our lack of willingness to do it ourselves? This needs to e differentiated. The paragraph talks about the negative impacts of technology in our lives. I think it is not necessary as the paper is to ascertain if technology has affected us or we have become its slave willingly (Taslitz, 2002). But

Hydraulic Fracking Essay Example for Free

Hydraulic Fracking Essay This paper explores the hydraulic fracturing process, exactly what it is, what the fracturing process does to the earth and the surrounding environment in addition, to the consequences. Hydraulic fracturing is fracturing of rock by pressurization. This process by which oil and natural gas can be forced from the earth. The hydraulic fracturing process takes millions of gallons of clean water, sand, chemicals and pumps them underground at high pressure to break apart rock to release gas and or oil. My research has led me to the discovery that there are as many proponents for fracking as that are those that oppose the process. One thing no-one can deny or easily hide is that once the damage is done and something has gone wrong, the evidence usually speaks volumes that this is not something we should be doing to our planet or its people. The diagram on page 3 outlines the process defined as fracking for an easier understanding of how invasive the process is to the environment. Hydraulic Fracking Research Paper and Why the process of Fracking is bad for our environment Hydraulic fracturing experimentation started in 1947 and it had its first commercially successful applications by 1949, so it has been around for a long time. In twenty-thirteen, it is estimated that well over sixty five percent of all new oil and gas wells worldwide are using the process of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing, has allowed the United States to tap into domestic sources of natural gas and oil that were previously not economical to extract from such as shale beds. This has created numerous economic benefits for communities and governments in a time of economic instability. Hydraulic fracturing Scientists are worried that the chemicals used in fracturing may pose a threat either underground or when waste fluids are handled they are sometimes spilled on the surface which can cause site contamination or find its way back to water clean water. The natural gas industry defends hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as safe and efficient. Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-industry non-profit organization, claims fracking has been â€Å"a widely deployed as safe extraction technique,† dating back to 1949. What Mr. Pyle fails to explain is that until recently energy companies had used low-pressure methods to extract natural gas from fields closer to the surface than the current high-pressure technology that extracts more gas, by digging to deeper levels and it also uses significantly more water, sand and chemicals. There have been serious environmental impacts associated with the process which has raised public concern. At this point, a causal relationship has not been established but increasing attention opens the possibility that further government action could be imminent regarding the practice. According to Baumgartner and Jones’s Punctuated Equilibrium theory, policy processes are generally characterized by stability and incrementalism in the subsystem level of government, but occasionally if enough attention can be garnered toward an issue, then large scale change can occur. Thus far, policy regarding hydraulic fracturing has been incremental and mainly consists of agency rules and state regulations. However, it can be argued that if a definite relationship can be established between fracking activities and public health risks, then the likelihood of a major punctuation occurrence would increase and allow for significant policy change on a national level regarding this issue. The issue is being brought to the forefront due to the changes in the fracking process, the original method forced fluid down a vertical shaft to create fissures in the bedrock to release more gas or oil but this method limited extraction to directly under the well. Now, the current method forces fluid under extreme pressure down a vertical shaft with horizontal or directional sections that allows for extraction from a wider area within the formation. The pressure and fluid create fracture systems that allow the natural gas or oil to move more freely from rock pores to production wells that bring it to the surface. The fluid used is mainly composed of water (ninety percent), propping agents (such as sand account for nine percent) and chemicals (point five percent). The specific make-up and combination of chemicals is often considered confidential or a â€Å"trade secret† by many companies. The Democratic Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce found that 750 different chemicals are used in fracking and range from harmless substances such as salt and citric acid to extremely toxic ones such as lead and benzene. Assertions have been made that the chemicals used may be contaminating water sources and causing air pollution however, confirming the pollution is a result of fracking has been difficult. The line is very light gray it has been difficult to prove the relationship which has contributed to allow the industry to operate with minimal regulations until recently. According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), fracking has produced 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 7 billion barrels of oil and is projected to account for 70% of future natural gas development. Natural gas is considered by some to be a â€Å"bridge† fuel that will allow for the transition from petroleum to alternative fuels. Over its full cycle of production, distribution, and use, natural gas emits just over half as many greenhouse gas emissions as coal for equivalent energy output,† wrote the Worldwatch Institute. The promise of a significant domestic energy supply is extremely attractive as the nation strives to find a way toward energy independence. Fracking has also been touted as a job creator and economy stimulator. American Petroliem Institute (API) estimates that the development of the Marcellus fairway (which covers Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia) could generate 300,000 new jobs, over $6 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue and nearly $25 billion in value added to the economy by 2020. In the northern part of South Texas Eagle Ford Shale, Exco Resources will acquire about 55,000 net acres in Zavala, Dimmit, La Salle and Frio counties. The properties contain 120 producing wells that had average net daily production of 6,100 barrels of oil equivalent during May. Chesapeake Energy Corp. plans to sell assets in the Eagle Ford and Haynesville shales to Dallas-based Exco Resources for $1 billion. According to the American Chemistry Council, fracking has decreased the price of natural gas which has resulted in more industrial companies choosing to keep their business in America. Investments from these companies could hit $16 billion and create 17,000 direct jobs and 400,000 indirect jobs. However, these economic benefits need to be balanced against potentially negative environmental impacts including water contamination and air pollution that could cause serious health concerns. Problems with Hydraulic Fracturing Fresh water is one of the most precious resources on earth and also a very scarce one. Fresh water makes up only 2. 5% of all the water on earth and of that, 1. 3% is surface water and 30. 1% is groundwater. The rest is in the form of ice and snow in either glaciers or ice caps, according to the United States Geological Survey. Water is necessary for life on earth, it is extremely critical that it be protected from harmful pollution. Allegations have been made that fracking has led to the contamination of both surface and groundwater sources. Groundwater consists of all water located below the surface. Fracking activities have been linked to ground water contamination in a variety of ways. Most fracking happens at about 8,000 feet below the surface depending on the geological makeup of the area, while most underground water aquifers are located about 1,000 feet below the surface. Fracking proponents argue that there is no way for the contaminants to migrate due to the significant space between the activity and the aquifer. However, the composition of the earth may be extremely porous, have natural fissures or fractures that would allow contaminants to migrate. Combine a porous formation with the extreme pressure used in the fracking process and the potential for migration increases. One particular worry is methane gas, which occurs naturally in the earth, and is released in concentrated amounts when the fracking process breaks apart the rock formations. According to a study done by the National Academy of Sciences, methane gas concentrations in drinking water wells increased with the proximity to the nearest gas well at levels that had the potential to be an explosion hazard, in comparison to dissolved methane samples in wells next to nonextraction sites. In Dimock, Pennsylania, the study found that some residents’ water wells that were in close proximity to where fracking activities were known to be happening had their wells explode or their water could be lit on fire due to concentrated levels of methane gas. In Texas, several cities and surrounding counties of Lubbuck, Weatherford, Beaumont and Ft Worth have complained of methane contamination in drinking water. Levels are confirmed up but the cause has not yet been determined. Another possible point of aquifer contamination is in the construction itself. Oftentimes, the shaft is drilled down through the aquifer on its way to the shale formations below. If the shaft is poorly constructed, there is potential for the fracking fluid to leak directly into the aquifer as it is going down or coming back up as flowback. Contamination to ground water can also come from the fracking wastewater that is brought back to the surface. Once it has been used, it can be disposed of in an injection well. Currently, this waste is considered â€Å"oil/gas waste† and not â€Å"hazardous waste† so it is not subject to the stricter disposal guidelines associated with the hazardous distinction which leaves the potential for hazardous chemicals to reach groundwater sources if the injection well is poorly constructed. Besides ground water contamination, fracking activities have been blamed for surface water pollution as well. Surface water consists of all fresh water on the surface of the earth usually in rivers, streams or lakes. Fracking creates millions of gallons of wastewater that is extracted back to the surface in the recovery of the oil and gas. Typically, the flowback is treated by waste water treatment plants and released back into surface waters but is only tested for tier 1 2 chemicals, not tier 3 which are volatile chemicals. If they cannot dispose of it in this manner, some companies will utilize large â€Å"containment ponds† which are lined and used to hold the wastewater while it evaporates. Recently in Texas fracking operations have been blamed on recent increase in air pollution, perhaps these containment ponds are the issue. The liners are typically plastic and sometimes crack or get damaged which allows the contaminated fluids to leach into ground or surface water. Another potential danger comes from plugged wells. During the fracking process, large amounts of pressure is used and if the cement plug used to close the well is not sealed properly, there is a risk of it exploding and spewing the fracking chemicals into nearby surface water. In some areas, naturally occurring radioactive elements, such as radium, have been found in concentrated levels in local waterways due to fracking activities. In addition to water contamination, there have been serious allegations of air pollution caused by fracking activities. Natural gas fracking extraction emits greenhouse gases, smog-inducing compounds and potential carcinogens causing health and environmental concerns. Increased levels of methanol, formaldehyde, carbon disulfide, and benzene have been found near fracking sites. These pollutants are known to cause asthma attacks, cancer, and even premature death. Some airborne pollutants from fracked gas wells, like volatile organic compounds, can react with sunlight to create smog. Loopholes The Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from the restrictions and standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It created the â€Å"Halliburton Loophole† which prohibited the EPA from regulating the injection of fracking fluids under the SDWA except in cases where diesel is used. Since the exact chemicals used in fracking are often considered proprietary by the industry so it is difficult to ascertain when or if diesel is used in a fracking operation. Some companies have chosen to disclose the chemicals they use on www. fracfocus. org. While this is an encouraging first step, it is entirely voluntary at this time on private land. The Department of the Interior has mandated that companies drilling on public and Indian lands will be required to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations. The new rules also set standards for proper construction of wells and wastewater disposal. These rules could serve as a model for state regulators. Some states such as Wyoming, Michigan, and Texas, have been proactive and required full public disclosure of fracking fluid chemical constituents. The other federal law that governs water is the Clean Water Act which authorizes the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System to provide permits to companies who dispose flowback into surface waters. Currently, flowback that is released back into surface water is not tested for volatile organic compounds which can cause cancer or birth defects in humans. The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to regulate industry emissions into the air to protect its quality and the stratospheric ozone layer. According to an April article in USA Today, the EPA released first-ever air pollution rules for â€Å"fracking† wells, requiring that drillers burn or capture the gas and its smog-producing compounds that are released when wells are first tapped. The rules went into effect in June of 2012 but have a two year transition period. During that time, drillers may burn off the gas and chemicals but will need to move towards capturing them (called â€Å"green completions†). EPA estimates that this will cut 95% of the smog-related chemicals that are released by fracking wells. Given the lack of a definitive link between fracking activities and public health risks, fracking was allowed to develop with minimal regulations for decades because it was not on the public radar. It has only been in the last few years that the practice has come under scrutiny due to the increased usage of fracking and the undeniable potentially harmful impacts of the practice. Therefore, until it can be proven that the danger to human health posed by the environmental impacts of the practice can be shown beyond a doubt, fracking is going to continue. However, there needs to be more regulation of the industry and monitoring of the impacts of the practice to ensure that it is done in a safe manner. . If this happens, the likelihood for policy favoring more vigorous regulation of hydraulic fracturing is greatly increased. However, if there continues to be ambiguity and questions raised by proponents of fracking the changes will likely be small and incremental on the subsystem level. The response by the industry and its political allies to the scientific studies of the health and environmental effects of fracking â€Å"has approached the issue in a manner similar to the tobacco industry that for many years rejected the link between smoking and cancer,† say Drs. Bamberger and Oswald. Not only do they call for â€Å"full disclosure and testing of air, water, soil, animals, and humans,† but point out that with lax oversight, â€Å"the gas drilling boom . . . will remain an uncontrolled health experiment on an enormous scale. † References Bibliography of Works Cited: http://earthjustice. org/our_work/campaigns/fracking-gone-wrong-finding-a-better-way? gclid=CJ-tqOHWr7gCFWFp7Aod9GAAFw http://geology. com/articles/hydraulic-fracturing/ http://lubbockonline. com/filed-online/2012-10-19/methane-found-drinking-across -us-brings-concern-lubbock community#. UeMaf6Uo5Ms http://psehealthyenergy. net/data/Bamberger_Oswald_NS22_in_press. pdf www. coalitiontoprotectnewyork. org http://www. counterpunch. org/2012/03/19/the-perils-of-fracking/ http://www. marcellusoutreachbutler. org/ http://www. provostumphrey. com/blog/2013/01/texas-man-finds-benzene-and-methane-in-his-drinking-water. shtml http://www. scribd. com/doc/97449702/100-Fracking-Victims http://stateimpact. npr. org/texas/2012/08/07/frackings-link-to-smog-worries-some-texas-cities/ http://www. propublica. org/special/hydraulic-fracturing-national http://frack. mixplex. com/content/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-fracking http://www. hydraulicfracturing. com/Pages/information. aspx http://www. epa. gov/hydraulicfracture/ http://www. usatoday. com/money/industries/energy/environment/story/2012-04-18/fracking-pollution-

The Concept Of Imprisonment And Human Rights Criminology Essay

The Concept Of Imprisonment And Human Rights Criminology Essay The terms prison and imprisonment are used interchangeably in a way that the existence of the first term is a mandatory precondition for the existence of the latter one, or vice-versa. In other words in criminal justices process, the first term prison refers to the place where in the latter term imprisonment is to be taken place; and imprisonment indicates the limitation of inmates liberty. However, different terms are used by different countries and legal systems to explain terms prisoner, prison and imprisonment. For example in the US different states use different terminologies like inmate and prisoner; correction and imprisonment interchangeably.  [1]   Of course some legal systems use detention instead of imprisonment and detainee instead of prisoner.  [2]  Hence, these above discussed facts show that there is no uniformity in the use of terms in the criminal justice system of different states. However, after the establishment of the United Nations organization (UN) and the regional organizations states are adopting uniform usage of terms through the ratification of binding and normative treaties and standards. In order to avoid ambiguity during the writing and reading this research paper, the writer will use the term prison to mean a place where individuals deprived of personal liberty as a result of conviction for an offence serve their conviction  [3]  emphasis added. Likewise, the term prisoner will be used to refer to an individual deprived of personal liberty as a result of conviction for an offence.  [4]  Finally, the term imprisonment will be used to mean deprivation of liberty as a result of conviction.  [5]  However, readers should be aware that the term inmate to mean prisoner may be used in some parts of this research paper. Evolution Indeed, crimes as a source of social evil emerged from the biblical times; however with the change of socio-economic situations its nature and techniques also changed; in line with this, the modes of control and punishment used by the state changed.  [6]  Therefore, prisons as we know today are result of recent developments compared to the age of commission of crimes. From these facts one can understand that before the coming of the contemporary prison system there were other modes of punishment against wrongdoers. To borrow the words of Thorsten Sellin; [s]societys offenders have been dealt with in many ways. Until recent times, historically speaking, punishment was harsh; criminals were exiled, enslaved, tortured, mutilated, and executed. The use of imprisonment as a method of treating the offender is relatively new, dating back no further than the last quarter of the 18th century. Of course, jails, lockups, and places of detention of various kinds have been in existence for hundreds of years. But it was only 200 years ago that they were used for anything other than places of detention for offenders awaiting a harsher kind of punishment.  [7]   During the Roman Empire, prisons were used to detain offenders pending trial or execution and to punish defiant servants.  [8]  Hence, it was not used to imprison convicted individuals like the practice today. The English prison was used for the same purpose with Roman ones in the 9th and 11th centuries. However, unlike the contemporary situation, all costs incurred during the stay of a prisoner in the prison, including salaries for sheriffs, would be covered by the prisoner himself.  [9]  To rectify the rising of petty offences in Europe, prison labor was introduced in correction centers in the sixteenth century.  [10]  This new system was aimed at rehabilitating prisoners so that they can serve the society after release. Latter on transporting prisoners from Europe to colonies, which was aimed at engaging them in the farm lands in America and Australia was introduced.  [11]  This system ended together with the end of colonialism in the Northern America and Australia . In America the concept of prison is related with the Quakers, a protestant religious sect, who were highly concerned about the cruelty and harshness of the then system.  [12]  As a result of their concern about the redemption of the souls of the criminals they came up with the idea of the penitentiary, a place of separation where criminals could think upon their evil deeds and repent.  [13]  Though it is debating, there is a view that prisons as a means of social institutions emerged in Pennsylvania in the last part of the eighteenth century.  [14]  In general the need to reform young offenders, the detention of those politically in disfavored and banishment constituted to the 19th century prisons. Function of imprisonment From the historical point of view imprisonment has had different objectives at different times. As mentioned above, prisons used to serve as a place where detainees awaiting trial or execution stay. In this case its purpose is aimed at keeping the individuals until conviction or execution. It is widely known that the purpose of imprisonment is firmly related with the objective of criminal punishment. Accordingly, the best way to discuss about the function of imprisonment would be to look in light of the objectives of criminal law. However, looking at the historical point of view on the treatment of prisoners is of worth. Typically, inmates in ancient times were put to death or used as slave labor force, but, in most of these cases, a period of incarceration or detention was preceded. When they were not otherwise engaged in labor they were held in remote and hostile surroundings, making escape virtually impossible and these drastic sanctions and inhuman treatments continued until the coming of 18th c Enlightenment.  [15]   The 17th c colonial jails and earlier various confinement and detention facilities hardly resembled the institutions that the term prison implies today. That is because such places were solely for the purpose of detention and confinement with no pretence of rehabilitation or reformation and such places were called penal institutions or penitentiaries.  [16]   However, following the coming of 18thc Enlightenment, prison officials began to develop the ideas of reformation and rehabilitation programs to their inmates. For instance, during the 1800s; New York prison officials developed two major systems of prison organization.  [17]  The first system was introduced in 1821 and under this system; prisoners stayed in solitary confinement at night and worked together during the day and it emphasized silence. That is to mean prisoners could not speak to, or even look at, one another because prison officials hoped that this silence and isolation would cause inmates to think about their crimes and reform. However this system failed without fully achieving its purpose partly because the rigid rules and isolation drove inmates insane. The 2nd system, however, was different both in methods of admission and treatment. It was opened in 1876 as a model person for offenders between the ages of 16 and 30 and this system made use of flexible sentences and allowed inmates to earn early release for good behavior and, moreover, it offered physical exercise, military training and an educational program which generally used education as a means of rehabilitation.  [18]  But the institution did not fully achieve its high expectations, largely because it judged inmates on their prison behavior and conduct instead of on their actual fitness for release. Further improvement and modification have been made in the 1900s. For instance, in the 1930s prison officials began to develop rehabilitation programs based on the background, personality, and physical condition of the individual inmate and this approach made rehabilitating and reforming programs more meaningful.  [19]  This is indication of well-developing system that laid the foundation for cotemporary rehabilitation and correction systems. But despite such efforts attempts to rehabilitate and reform inmates could not bring the desired results largely because of poorly trained staffs, lack of funds, and ill-defined goals. An extension of these rehabilitating and reforming process further strengthened and enlarged in 1960s and many people in the field of corrections felt that inmates could be helped better outside prison. As a result, community correctional facilities and halfway houses were established in 1960s and inmates lived in these facilities just before release and received counseling to help them adjust their life outside prison.  [20]  Following the emergence of rehabilitation and reformation programs, modifications of the various prison terminologies became feasible. As mentioned above, in the past, prisons were called penitentiaries or penal intuitions. Now days, however, the popular name is correctional institutions or correctional facilities. Similarly a modification is made from the term guard to correctional officers and these modifications in nomenclature emerged with the professionalism of the field of corrections during recent decades and the desire to modify the harsh images eluted by the terms prison and guard. In the past and still now, there has been a lively debate regarding the purposes for establishment of prisons and sending inmates in to these institutions. Some commentators argue that prisons are established only to imprison convicted criminals.  [21]  That is to say their purpose is to punish convicted law-breakers using imprisonment as a means of retribution. Indeed as Edward Kaufman said, retributive purpose of imprisonment is necessary for the society, however it is considered as barbaric now days.  [22]  He further mentioned that; [I]imprisonment for retribution may drive a delinquent further along the road of crime through forcing association with criminal elements and increasing rage toward and alienation from society. Permitting brutal retribution may stimulate brutal responses not only in the individual but in society as a whole, as in riot control and war.  [23]   Based on the above stated reasonable pitfalls, it is fair to suggest that retribution as a purpose should be supported by rehabilitation to halt further wrongdoings in the community. Others insist that their main purpose is to deter offenders from committing further crimes after they are released and to deter those potential law-breakers from committing crime in the future.  [24]  That is to mean the purpose of these institutions is to present convicted offenders from relapsing in to crime after their release by taking lessons from their first incarceration and the existence of prisons as penal institutions will make potential law-breakers to be refrained from committing crimes as well. However, there is an idea that sending someone to prison might not deter him/her from committing crime inside the prison compound.  [25]  The same problem can be deducted from the third objective of imprisonment incapacitation which is aimed at halting possible commission of crime by the individual prisoner by putting him in prison. Therefore, the deterrence and incapacitation objectives of imprisonment lonely cannot realize the aimed purpose of deterring or incapacitating unless it is supported by other mechanisms like rehabilitation. Still others advocate that inmates are sent to correctional institutions to be reformed or rehabilitated.  [26]  That is to say during their stay in the institutions they will come to realize and learn the wrongfulness and hazardous effects of committing crime and will further learn skills which will help them to be a law abiding and productive citizens when they are released. In practical terms, the purposes for the establishment of prisons could be interpreted as a combination of the above reasons and, therefore, they are established for more than custody and control. Now days, the concept of rehabilitation is being claimed as a right based on different international and regional treaties and standards. This is aimed at striking the balance between the two seemingly contradicting duties of prison centers humane treatment of prisoners and its punitive nature to maintaining peace and security. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), under its article 10 deals on human treatment of prisoners. It further states that [t]he penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation.  [27]  As per this provision, states parties have the obligation to employ rehabilitation as a main purpose of imprisonment in their criminal justice system. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules (UNSMR), which interprets the rights of prisoners under the International bill of rights, states that; [t]he purpose and justification of a sentence of imprisonment or a similar measure derivative of liberty is ultimately to protect society against crime. This end can only be achieved if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure that upon his return to society, the offender is not only willing but able to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life.  [28]   In a similar way of expression, under its general comment No. 21, the ICCPR human rights committee has stated that no penitentiary system should be only retributory; it should essentially seek the reformation and social rehabilitation of the prisoner.  [29]  Similar way of expression is used in different regional treaties and standards.  [30]   Generally, the above discussed arguments together with the biding and normative international and regional treaties tell us that rehabilitation is the main purpose of imprisonment in todays criminal justice system. Accordingly, it imposes obligation against states in general and prison centers in particular to use rehabilitation tools for their prisoners. But, this does not mean the other purposes of imprisonment will be totally disregarded they will rather use them side by side. Prisoners rights: Do Prisoners have a right? Some people believe that inmates should have no rights for the reason that any rights that they once had were forfeited, while they were incarcerated as part of the price they had to pay for their crimes.  [31]  Of course, rights namely human rights and freedoms are not absolute and, thus, they may be subject to limitations so as to protect the rights of others and the interests of the society. On the other hand, the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), dictates that, All persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights. However, equal enjoyment of rights might not be practicable due to various grounds where imprisonment is one among these. The above stated arguments and other factors pose the question do prisoners have rights once imprisoned? Researches show that, many people are of the opinion that imprisonment results in forfeiture of rights of prisoners in general.  [32]  Sometimes this assertion is confirmed by court decisions. In the famous price v Johnston  [33]  case the US Supreme Court declared that lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of privileges and rights. Indeed history tells us that prisoners were facing the worst punishments in prisons because it is believed that they forfeit their rights. But what about human rights, which follow human beings where ever they go? Are prison center unreachable for human rights? Is it an exception to the universal application of human rights? The above decision of the US Supreme Court is a reflection of the belief of the then society. However, after the establishment of the UN and adoption of the UDHR, SMR, ICCPR and other regional Treaties the perception that imprisonment forfeits rights changed. This is because issues related to the rights of prisoners were included in all the International and Regional Human rights Treaties and Standards. Indeed the concept of regulating the rights of prisoners in the international level was raised during the League of Nations. For this reason the then Penal and Penitentiary commission has prepared rules on the treatment of prisoners which was approved by the League of Nations Assembly in 1934.  [34]  These rules were finally inapplicable and latter on revised by the UN secretariat and finally approved by the UN ECOSOC as Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR) in 1957.  [35]  These standards are now implemented through many regional and domestic legislation s and standards to gain binding status. Particularly, Europe through its European prison Rules and the US the 1962 model penal code and standard correction rules of the 1973 are considered as Bill of Rights for prisoners.  [36]   It is after such an international effort of the UN and other regional organizations that courts began to pronounce that rights follow human beings. The same court of the US (the Supreme Court) in the coffin v Reichard case decided that -a prisoner retains all the rights of ordinary citizen except those expressly or by necessary implication taken from him by law.  [37]  This decision was a stepping stone for further realization of rights of prisoners in the US and all over the world. In strengthening the above decision of the Supreme Court, Justice Blackmun said, Fundamental rights follow the prisoner through the walls which incarcerate him, but always with appropriate limitations.  [38]  But the main point that has to be asked is what are the limitations and how one can know what his rights are and what are not in prison. Justice Blackmun said that the court shall use a Balancing test of protecting the interest of the individual and restricting them for different reasons. The UN general assembly in the adoption of the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners has declared the same and urged states parties to apply the standards and international or regional treaties where they are party to. As mentioned above determining what rights of prisoners will be limited during their imprisonment is crucial. There are some people who argue that the rights that are limited and retained by prisoner during his imprisonment could be easily identified by the purpose of punishment intended.  [39]  Form this proposition we can easily understand that except for rehabilitation, most of the other purposes of imprisonment discussed above results in forfeiture of most of the rights of prisoners. Basically, Richard L. Lippke suggested certain criticisms against those who said prisoners forfeit their rights during imprisonment. He said that, in practice it is only state officials who can impose penalties on prisoners, however if their rights are forfeited during imprisonment it is not clear why any ordinary person cannot impose same.  [40]  The other problem identified is the duration of forfeiture, which according to Lippke is difficult to know for the reason that; [M]any criminals violate their victims rights only briefly, though they do them great harm in the process. If we tie the duration of forfeiture to the time it takes victims to recover, the problem is that some victims may never recover from brief, but devastating, right violations. Yet not all right violators can justly be punished indefinitely, not even all serious right-violators who do their victims permanent or irreversible damage.  [41]   The third problem is related to breadth or scope of the forfeiture. Accordingly, this poses a question Does someone who punches another person in the nose forfeit the relatively narrow right to not be punched in the nose, or the broader right to bodily autonomy? For him both the narrower and broader approaches are problematic since the narrower gives dubious ground for officers where as the broader approach authorizes forfeiture of rights which can be claimed not violated by the prisoner.  [42]   Now it seems fairly clear that prisoners retain their rights except those deprived specifically by law and due to their deprivation of liberty. However, there is well known perception and practice that the retained prisoners rights is less stringent than ordinary persons rights, therefore can be overridden for the benefit of less weighty ordinary persons rights.  [43]  It is not clear why a state discriminates between its citizens based on status, in this case prisoner and ordinary citizen despite its prohibition in different treaties including the UDHR. Rights retained Identifying rights retained is highly related with the purpose of imprisonment that we deserved to attain. Most obviously, this involves severe curtailment of their rights to freedom of movement for some period of time. We might also have to curtail their rights to freedom of association and intrude upon their privacy, though to what extent in each case are matters that require further substantive analysis. Prisoners would fully retain other moral rights. These might include rights securing interests in political participation, freedom of speech and conscience, control over labor, subsistence, health care, visitation with family and friends, and access to culture and entertainment. Pp 134 Incapacitation It is hard to see how more extensive restrictions on the rights of prisoners will reduce threats to the rights of others in ways that are clearly greater in magnitude than the direct burdens such restrictions will impose on inmates. Pp135 Keeping prisoners locked in cells most of the time with few opportunities to exercise their autonomy or to maintain or develop social and labor skills may marginally reduce crime within prisons in the short-term. However, such an approach seems a prescription for disaster in the longer term if our aim is to reduce crime. The vast majority of prison inmates will eventually be released from prison, most sooner rather than later. 136 (If prison life is better than life outside prison (an unlikely proposition in any case), the solution might be to improve the living conditions of the least advantaged members of civil society). It should be apparent that rehabilitative crime reduction considerations point us away from harsh prison regimes toward those that impose moderate or minimal deprivations on offenders. Prisoners are unlikely to become better functioning members of civil society if they are kept under conditions that deny them access to education, meaningful work, mental health treatment, and ready access to the family members and friends who care about them.. 138 retribution Retributive logic demands that serious offenders suffer losses or deprivations commensurate with their crimes. In all probability, penal confinement will always satisfy that demand. Thus, the only point of contention among retributivists will likely be about precisely which rights must be maintained and facilitated if prisoners are to retain the capacities vital to moral personality. Pp 141 More intriguing is Edgardo Rotmans claim that prisoners have a moral right to rehabilitation (Rotman 1990, 10-13). Rotman interprets this right both negatively, as a right not to be allowed to deteriorate in prison, and positively, as a right to improvement in such things as work skills and mental health while in prison. His primary argument for this right is that deprivation of freedom is the sine qua non of modern legal punishment. Freedom is the highest value and its loss is what offenders appropriately suffer. The other things (mostly bad, unfortunately) that happen to them in prison are not part of punishment, so prisoners should be protected from them. Moreover, many offenders come from socially and economically deprived backgrounds, and this requires the state to not only prevent them from deteriorating while in prison but to actually improve their lives. Pp 143 critics Even if we grant that freedom is the highest value in modern societies, it does not follow that its loss, or its loss alone, is all that offenders should suffer However, the detention or incarceration of prisoners does not mean that all the rights they have are lost as a result of such detention or incarceration. That is because certain rights like the right to respect inherent human dignity and human ways of treatment, the right to food and health care, shelter and Freedoms like freedom of thought, belief and so on are fundamental to human existence and they are inherent entitlements that come to every person as a result of being human. As a result, inmates under detention or imprisonment have such and the like fundamental human rights and freedoms and retain these rights with the exception of those that have been lost as a result of deprivation of liberty. Following the declaration of the UDHR in 1948, states have developed considerable number of human rights instruments including the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (BPT), Standard Minimum Rules of the Treatment of Persons (SMR) and other instruments specifically dealing with the rights and human treatments of prisoners at the national, regional and international level. These basic principles and minimum standard rules form part of customary international law, which means that they are binding, regardless of whether a state has ratified international treaties concerning these instruments. Moreover, states have undertaken obligations under international and domestic legislations both to promote and protect the wide variety of human rights in general and that of prisoners in particular.

Summary of 1984 by George Orwell :: 1984 by George Orwell

What do you think a normal human being needs to have a good, hearty life? I believe that you need the freedom of thought, the rights of love, the right to express yourself on paper, and freedom of speech. In Orwell’s world of totalitarianism you don’t have any of these freedoms. You are to obey the party and do nothing but obey the party. The only way of temporarily escaping totalitarianism is through conspiracy and lies. The characters in 1984 give us readers an idea of how INGSOC ruins lives and makes the very idea of conspiracy hopeless. Winston Smith is your â€Å"average Joe† in Oceania. He struggles with how to determine what is true or not. Winston is a fatalist because, â€Å"no matter what he does, he believes that the party will eventually kill him. At the beginning of the book, Winston buys a diary from a junk shop, which is against the party’s will because he buys the diary he is committing a crime against the party. Simply by purchasing the diary made no difference if he wrote in it or not he would still be killed. On pg. 19 of the book Orwell wrote, â€Å"Whether he wrote DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER, or whether he refrained from writing it, made no difference. Whether he went on with the diary or whether he did not go on with it, made no difference. The thought police would get him the same.† This shows Winston’s sense of fatalism. While in the shop where Winston bought the diary, he spies a piece of coral enclosed in glass. He immediately takes an interest in it and decides to buy it. This piece of coral symbolizes his ability to connect to the past. Winston’s first inclination once he sees Julia following him is to kill her, and smash her head on the cobblestone. Winston thinks to himself, â€Å"I could keep on her track till they were in some quiet place, and then smash her skull with a cobblestone. The piece of glass in my pocket should do the job.† By smashing the piece of glass into Julia’s head Winston would be destroying two things. One is Julia and his hopes of having a decent life but his obsessive desire to know the truth and the second is the piece of coral which is Winston’s way of linking the past to the present. Winston is afraid that Julia could be part of the thought police.

Entrepreunership of Indra Nooyi Essay

INTRODUCTION Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi(born 28 october 1956) is an Indian-American businesswoman who is currently the Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo which is the world’s second largest food and beverage business in terms of net revenue. She is one of the World’s 100 Most Powerful Women as ranked by Forbes magazine. In 2014, she was ranked 13 in the list of Forbes World’s 100 most powerful women. Early life and career Nooyi was born to a Tamil Family in Madras (presently Chennai), Tamil Nadu, India. She was educated at Holy Angels Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School in Madras. She received a Bachelor’s degree in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics from Madras Christian College in 1974 and a Post Graduate Diploma in Management (MBA) from Indian Institute of Management Calcutta in 1976. Beginning her career in India, Nooyi held product manager positions at Johnson & Johnson and textile firm MetturBeardsell. She was admitted to Yale School of Management in 1978 and earned a Master’s degree in Public and Private Management. While at Yale, she completed her summer internship with Booz Allen Hamilton. Graduating in 1980, Nooyi joined the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), and then held strategy positions at Motorola and Asea Brown Boveri. PepsiCo executive Nooyi joined PepsiCo in 1994 and was named president and CFO in 2001. Nooyi has directed the company’s global strategy for more than a decade and led PepsiCo’s restructuring, including the 1997 divestiture of its restaurants into Tricon, now known as Yum! Brands.Nooyi also took the lead in the acquisition of Tropicana in 1998, and merger with Quaker Oats Company, which also brought Gatorade to PepsiCo. In 2006 she became the fifth CEO in PepsiCo’s 44-year history. According to BusinessWeek, since she started as CFO in 2000, the company’s annual revenues have risen 72%, while net profit more than doubled, to $5.6 billion in 2006. Nooyi was named on Wall Street Journal’s list of 50 women to watch in 2007 and 2008, and was listed among  Time’s 100 Most Influential People in The World in 2007 and 2008. Forbes named her the #3 most powerful woman in 2008. In 2014, she was ranked #13 by Forbes.Fortune ranked her the #1 most powerful woman in busi ness in 2009 and 2010. On the 7th of October 2010 Fortune magazine ranked her the 6th most powerful woman in the world. INDRA NOOYI’S CHARACTERISTICS AS AN ENTREPRENEUR â ¦ HARDWORKING- Nooyi recommends not sitting on your laurels just because you have attained a high rank in the professional sphere. A tireless worker herself, she gets only 5 hours of sleep a night, and continuously educates herself, re-evaluating her decisions and ensuring that she is keeping the best interest of the company and its employees in mind. To her, her employees are like an extended family, and she ensures that their needs and concerns are addressed so as to ensure the overall running efficiency of the company. The formal and impersonal atmosphere at PepsiCo, therefore, is a friendly one where her receptionist is known to have fielded calls from her daughter regarding home work and television privileges. â ¦ PRUDENCE (WISE)- Nooyi said she tries to ascribe positive intent to everything people do or say. â€Å"When you do that it’s so much better to deal with people,† Nooyi said. â€Å"Does that mean I give people more rope than I need to? Yeah, but I’m very comfortable with it.† In this way, she aims to cultivate trusting relationships with both colleagues and direct reports, and to focus on developing executive talent. It’s a style that encourages entrepreneurial thinking across the company, says Reinemund, her predecessor and another influential mentor. â ¦ PLANNING AND ORGANIZING- Nooyi’s strategic measures to tackle the slow-down in the beverages and snack food industry included a productivity improvement program, the benefits of which were expected to the tune of US$ 1.2 billion over the next three years  beginning 2009. Other measures under her leadership included aggressive expansion into the emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, China, When Nooyi was SVP, the strategic measures that she planned and implemented resulted in a growth in PepsiCo’s sales and profits. â ¦ INNOVATION She implemented a number of measures to improve the sustainability of the company’s operations and image by focusing on improvements in the health implications of PepsiCo products. Measures such as removing trans-fats from PepsiCo snacks, product innovations in the Quaker Oats brand to come out with a range of consumer perceived healthy snacks, categorization of its snacks into three categories named fun for you, good for you, and better for you were undertaken under her leadership. â ¦ ACHIEVEMENT AND MOTIVATION Forbes magazine ranked Nooyi fourth on the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 lists of The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women. Fortune magazine has named Nooyi number one on its annual ranking of Most Powerful Women in business for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. In 2008, Nooyi was named one of America’s Best Leaders by U.S. News & World Report. In 2008, she was elected to the Fellowship of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences â ¦ RISK TAKING Pepsi faces rising production costs, lackluster U.S. sales, and attacks on its core snack and soda products from both competitors and health-conscious critics. As the company’s head and, since May, its chairman, Nooyi is taking on Pepsi’s challenges. And Nooyi, who formally took the CEO reins in October 2006, is giving Pepsi’s employees and shareholders good reason to ride her train — a powerful locomotive that has driven the company’s stock up 22% in the 12 months through Dec. 4, near a 52-week high. In May, the company hiked its dividend 25% and boosted its share buyback goal to $4.3 billion from  $3.3 billion. Revenue is expected to rise more than 10% this year. BARRIERS TO INDRA NOOYI:- â ¦ PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS Nooyi used to announce a specific profit target that the company will gain. But the company was unable to gain that much profit. So this annoyed the investors. During her tenure pepsi has often failed to hit her statuted profit target, which investor consider an unforgivable scene. â ¦ ECONOMIC FACTORS- Capital requirements are low for taking over a franchise, and profit margins are stratospheric. Nooyi’s plan looked plausible, and investors seemed willing to give it a chance; they pushed the stock down only incrementally despite the surprisingly downbeat profit forecast. Now she absolutely must execute the plan against strong and merciless competitors in a volatile economic environment. â ¦ COMPETITIVE FACTOR- The company is getting beaten up in its flagship product category, drinks, in the world’s largest market, North America. The soda pop planets shifted in their orbits last year when Pepsi-Cola was displaced as America’s eternal No. 2 carbonated soft drink, Coca-Cola was at No. 1; the new No. 2 is Diet Coke. That reordering is especially distressing to investors because there is scarcely a more beautiful business in the world than producing branded soft drink concentrate. â ¦ PERSONALITY FACTORS- Irate investors have been calling for Pepsi to sell off its snack food business or for Nooyi to step down, or at least announce a likely successor. She did none of that at the presentation. Instead, by outlining a plan that will take two years to pay off, she showed that she has the board’s support. But if that plan doesn’t show clear signs of working before year-end, the board’s support could evaporate. That’s why the next several months are make-or-break for her.

The Importance of Accountability

Accountability is the act of accepting ownership over action and their contribution to the organization. Leadership and staff can influence large and small group and empower them to meet the objectives for the organization. The purpose of this paper discusses accountability in health care industry, and employee accountability. How accountability applies to ethical consideration in leadership and management, check-and-balance process, and accountability affect working culture. Why is accountability important in the health care industry?Concerning accountability, there are three levels to consider first, organizational accountability second, management accountability last, worker accountability. They share information to keep those who need to know. They set goals for themselves and people, and their team, and they explain how those goals measured. They monitor the goals and provide feedback. They consider potential outcome of their action, and decision. They take responsibility for th eir action as well as those people under them. They learn from their mistake, and help others learn from their.Health care industry set specific mandates and requirements for financial reporting, which sets deadline for compliance and rules and requirement (Turk, 2012). The integrity in the accounting standard applies to government and business practices (Turk, 2012). Organizations need to take responsibility for their action. The key component is to continue monitoring goals and objective. The accountability begins at the top and encompasses each level of the organization. How is an employee’s accountability measured in the health care industry?Employee accountability is the same as manager accountability, and the expectations should held accountable for meeting or not meeting these expectation. The biggest problem is communicating that why everyone understands the expectation of the company. The goals for the individual are used to measure success. The expectation includes attitude, work ethic, and skills, work habits this has to be understood so that the supervisor and employee have the same understanding (Turk, 2012). When expectation of the employee is met, the organization rewards him.If they are not met the organization resolve the problem, or consequence come behind the mistake. Leadership need to have feedback sessions with their employee to let him know positive and negative outcome, and recognize him in front of his peers. The goals are to admit their mistake and learn from them. How does accountability apply to ethnical consideration in leadership and management? The United States health care system faces challenges in providing quality health care to diverse population (Napoles-Springer, 2005).The effort to identify the culturally health care from the perspective of ethnically and diverse in detail to define cultural competence level of medical encounter are lacking the skills, and knowledge to identify the different cultural values and pra ctices (Napoles-Springer, 2005). The measure could used to access how cultural competence of provider is associated with patient outcomes (Napoles-Springer, 2005). The cultural competence measure the quality of health care associated with patient outcome.The ethnical responsibility carries certain degree of respect, cooperation, share knowledge, and teamwork. The problems arise with staff members and department, but building rapport with the department can improve the work experience, and the experience of patient treated through the health care industry. The employer ethnical responsibly are to orientation and training on new and existing equipment, empowered employees to be more productive, and happy with his job.There should be a chain of command where staff member could resolve issues What does check-and-balances process look like in a successful organization? The check-and-balance process support employee ensures a transparent working environment, and keep ethical employee from manipulate and intimidate by others. The proper check-and-balance prevents individuals ignoring ethical guidelines, and deters bad behavior. An organization structuring a set of check-and-balance needs where problems develop and how they can fix it.The process start with leaderships they must become aware and involved in the organization. The organization should have tight control and failure to follow policy and procedure will be deal with. Leadership must act ethically and insisting that the staff do the same. Leadership must be on guard for that area where ethical lapse occurs and provide the check-and-balance to prevent them. How does accountability affect an organization’s working culture?Health care industry shares the fundamental commitment to enhance the quality of care for those needing health care service, and create effective health care delivery system (American College of Healthcare Executive, 2010). The goal is to create a workplace that attracts and keeps the best employee with the opportunity for personal and professional development, which includes education, specialty training, and access to career goal. Mutual respect and care create a work environment, which everyone believes valued and appreciated, and looking forward to go to work every day.Communication is critical for a company set up regular meeting invite feedback. Encourage employee to contribute innovative and quality ideas. Coordinate and monitoring activity keep focus on goals and action. Provide accurate information to employee, and ensure that the action is consistent with the company objective and goals, and established deadline when task must be complete, and review task ongoing and in progress (American College of Healthcare Executive, 2010) How can you maintain a positive working culture and avoid a working culture of blame?A positive workplace lead to increased in productivity, better employee morale, and the ability to keep skilled worker (McFarlin, 2012). First a clear vision or mission for the organization this defines the foundation of the organization. Second, hired positive employee an individual with friendly smile, upbeat personality, handles conflict, and interact with others. Third, establish an open-door-policy be accessible to the staff, have one-on-one meeting listen to feedback both positive and negative.Fourth, communicate with the staff keep them inform on what is going on with the organization be honest with the staff about upcoming changes in the organization. Last recognized the staff accomplishment, and establish reward system for excellent performance, and thank an employee for a job well done. Encourage staff member to recruit potential employee. The employee will have a better feel of which he want to work with, and the goal is to promote a positive work environment (McFarlin, 2012). ConclusionIn conclusion this paper discusses accountability in health care industry, employee’s accountability, the ethical consider ation in leadership, and management. The checks-and-balances process and the accountability work culture. Accountability must begin at the top and run through the organization. Accountability in health care industry must have good communication; defined goals at each level, monitoring feedback, consequences are part of the process. The responsibility of the organization holds staff accountability for the outcome of health care.