Readymade Garment Industry in India Essay Example for Free

Readymade Garment Industry in India Essay

History of the Byzantine Era and Significance Today Essay -- World His

Like John of Damascus, Theodore the Studite was an important literary figure and one of the principal people involved with the writing of the Canons. Theodore the Studite lived from 759-826 CE, and served as the abbot of the monastery of Studius in Constantinople from 798 CE until his death. Like John, Theodore was a defender of icons and believed that Iconoclasm was heresy. Theodore's arguments against Iconoclasm can be found in his three formal tracts and in his letter that opposed Iconoclasm based on the human side of Christ's nature, and on Theodore's belief that symbolism was necessary in religious worship. Though Theodore did admit that God could not, and should not be depicted in art, he still believed that the denial of the legitimacy of Icons of Christ meant the denial of the Incarnation. He argued that it was false to hold the belief, as the Iconoclasts did, that the symbol was the same as the essence it symbolized. Had this been true, he believed that the defende rs of images would have agreed that the legitimate icon of Christ was the sacred elements of prayer and conscious. Along with his writings and stances against the Iconoclasm, Theodore also created two important funeral orations, one for his mother Theoctista, whom he painted as a pious yet practical Byzantine lady, and another for his uncle Plato, abbot of the Saccudion monastery, whose rules had provided Theodore with a pattern that would aid him in his own monastic reforms. These works, by Theodore, provide arguments from the Iconoclasm periods, and also, from his personal history that give scholars a view into that period of the Byzantine history. Another influential scholar was Maximus the Confessor. In his early years, he studied philosophy, g... ...s F.X. The Western Humanities Volume I: Beginnings Through the Renaissance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2010. Newman, Garfield. Echoes from the Past World History to the 16th Century. Whitby, Ont: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 2001. Nicol, Donald MacGillivray, Teall, John L. â€Å"Byzantine Empire.† Britannica Online Encyclopaedia Academic Edition. Accessed January 27, 2014. Retrieved From http://0-www.britannica.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire â€Å"St Maximus the Confessor.† Orthodox Church of America. Last Modified January 21, 2014. Accessed February 20, 2014. Retrieved From http://oca.org/saints/lives/2014/01/21/100249-st-maximus-the-confessor â€Å"Who is Saint Maximus?† St. Maximus the Confessor Orthodox Mission. Accessed February 20, 2014. Retrieved From http://www.stmaximus.org/who_is_st_maximus.html

Prison makes bad people worse Essay

In the year 2002, there were just over 68,000 persons in prison in England and Wales, 6,000 in Scotland and 1,200 in Northern Ireland. In the case of England and Wales, this is a few thousand more than in 1999, but at this time the plateau stood in marked comparison to the trend up to 1997-8 and it was by no means certain that this could be maintained, (Morgan, 2002). These findings serve to highlight the progressive increase in rising prison numbers in the UK the causes of which are continually in debate and beg the question; what happens when there is no more room left in our prisons? For the purpose of this essay, this author assumes that the statement â€Å"prison makes bad people worse† infers that an offender, who serves a custodial sentence, is more likely to re-offend upon release. Before evaluating this statement and reaching a conclusion, this author will introduce a brief history of the prison system in an attempt to offer an understanding of how imprisonment has become the most severe penalty imposed on offenders in the UK today. Prisons all over the world have existed for many years for the purpose of confining those in society who have committed a crime serious enough to warrant such a sentence. The purpose of prison is now not only to inflict a punishment but also to attempt to rehabilitate offenders contrasting with the early days of imprisonment where little rehabilitative work was done. A custodial sentence is now the most severe penalty that an offender can be sentenced to in the UK following the abolition of the death penalty in 1965. Imprisonment is intended to punish offenders through restricting freedom and liberty as well as unfavourable living conditions in the name of ‘less eligibility’, (Morgan, 2002). This in no way is intended to suggest that conditions in prisons are inhumane although reports exist from previous investigations that would suggest otherwise. Punishment for offenders was served in a very different manner prior to the nineteenth century. Punishments at this time in the main consisted of physical punishment which would often involve torture, public humiliation and even execution. After decades of this type of punishment being administered, the torture and public humiliation elements ceased. The infliction of physical pain was replaced by the principle that the loss of rights and wealth would serve as an adequate deterrent for further offending. Although this altered form of punishment apparently focused on the mind of the individual, it could still be argued that custodial sentences still impose an element of physical torture indirectly by food rationing, sexual deprivation and solitary confinement. These aspects of punishments are still relevant within the penal system today, (Flynn, 1998). Many different explanations exist for why this change from physical punishment to imprisonment came about, one of which argues that the reason for the shift was due to humanitarianism and reform which would offer a more humane and civilised alternative to the methods of previous years, (Wilson, Ellis, Mikulski, & Nash, 2003). An opposing argument suggested that this was not the case and that the defining of a new age and more effective punishment by focusing on the reform of offenders into the ‘disciplined subject’ were the main reasons for this shift in operation, (Foucault, 1977). Despite this argument, one of the most influential factors associated with how prisons operate in the UK today is the concept of human rights. The 1998 Human Rights Act governs these rights. Along with this, the Prisons Inspectorate introduced guidelines on what factors should constitute a healthy custodial environment based on international human rights principles. Arising from the World Health Organisation’s influence, four tests are used to identify whether a healthy custodial environment is present. Firstly, prisoners must be held in safety. Secondly, they must be treated with respect and dignity as human beings. Thirdly, they must be able to engage in purposeful activity, and lastly, prisoners must be prepared for resettlement into the community prior to release, (Owers, 2003). Because of the unpleasantness of imprisonment it is necessary for this type of punishment to be justified. Prison can be very unpleasant for many offenders as their liberty is severely reduced, their contact with family and friends is minimised, and it can infer many social disadvantages that may lead to offenders becoming socially excluded upon their release from custody. In order to justify imprisonment as a viable punishment, numerous theories or arguments have been introduced in an attempt to support this sentencing option. One argument that attempts to justify imprisonment is the concept of Reductionism. This argument suggests that custodial sentences reduce the number of crimes committed. Those in agreement with this theory also argue that the number of crimes committed will be less if someone is punished in this manner, than there would be if no punishment were imposed at all, (Cavadino & Dignan, 1997). This theory also suggests that society as a whole, has a greater influence than the individual and therefore an offender would be powerless to justify not going to prison if he/she had committed a crime that endangered public safety, (Abercrombie, Hill, & Turner, 1988). However, it could be argued that this theory suggests that crimes are only committed by those who are in prison ignoring the concept that there are many in society committing crimes that have never been caught. Deterrence is another theory used to justify imprisonment as an appropriate punishment by arguing that people will not offend because they are too fearful of the consequences should they be caught as the punishment is seen as too severe. There are two elements to this theory, firstly there is individual deterrence which suggests that an offender will not re-offend because the punishment they received last time was so severe that it has deterred them from doing it again. Secondly, there is general deterrence which argues that a punishment imposed on one offender for a crime will deter others from offending, as they know exactly what the consequences are. At first glance, deterrence theory appears to hold validity, but in reality research findings have indicated that sentencing offenders to custodial sentences has a more influential effect. Once an offender has been in prison they may find themselves labelled by the rest of society and categorised into a stereotype with unfavourable connotations. This may hinder their attempts to live lawful lives for example; problems getting a job and even psychological effects, which may become apparent in their behaviour, (Cavadino & Dignan, 1997). This evidence could be used to support the argument that prison does make people worse. Rehabilitation theory suggests that some forms of punishment can actually reduce the likelihood of re-offending and alter an offender’s behaviour and attitude. Together the prison service and the probation service are heavily involved with rehabilitation as well as the treatment and training of offenders, (Wilson et al, 2003). As a main aim of the prison service to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders, the provision of accredited programmes such as PASRO (Prisons Addressing Substance Related Offending) and ETS (Enhanced Thinking Skills) attempt to address prisoners’ offending behaviour whilst in prison. However, a report by the Social Exclusion Unit found that the prison experience causes such damage to an offenders’ rehabilitation that it outweighs the effectiveness of the programmes, (Solomon, 2003). Another criticism of the penal system is that many offenders are sentenced to such short periods of custody that they are unable to gain access to any rehabilitative interventions. This evidence could also suggest that prison can make bad people worse. The theory of incapacitation implies more emphasis on public protection rather than the behaviour of offenders which coincidently is another main remit of the probation service. Quite simply, this theory argues that if an offender is in custody they are unable to commit crime and therefore ensuring public safety for the duration of the sentence giving piece of mind to members of society, (Ainsworth, 2000). It could be argued that this theory fails to recognise that crime often occurs within prisons including violence, bullying and drug offences. Another criticism of this theory is that as mentioned earlier, the public will only be protected in this manner for the duration of a sentence. Lastly, retribution theory holds that punishment is imposed on an offender to redress the balance between offenders and their victims in making sure that the offender suffers for their crime. Ainsworth (2000), recognises that seeing an offender incarcerated may make the victims feel that justice has been done. However, this is often not the case as many offenders receive sentences that the victim may feel does not reflect the harm that has been caused to them as a result of the offence. Now that some of the justifications for imprisonment have been discussed, it is now possible to explore conformity within prisons which may assist in reaching a conclusion on whether the statement â€Å"prison makes bad people worse† can be justified. Conformity, a theory closely linked with labelling theory, suggests that an individual may conform to social rules or may even assume a social role because it is recognised as the norm in their environment. Heavily influenced by the levels of power, social roles exist predominantly in the prison environment especially between prison officers and offenders. One study that attempted to explore power dynamics and how easy it is to assume a role was conducted in August 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo and was named the Stanford Prison Experiment. Twenty-five male volunteers took part in the experiment and were taken to a mock prison where each person was assigned a role of either prisoner or guard. The guards had the authority to dictate 24 hour a day rules to the prisoners the results of which were shocking and are still referred to today. A number of prisoners had to be released due to mental health illnesses arising from the trauma of the situation. The experiment, which was intended to last for two weeks, was terminated after six days due to the pathological reactions of the prisoners who ironically had been selected for their normality. The findings were that the environment transformed the participants and after a few days, the role dominated the person, (Alexander, 2001). This experiment highlighted social power as the being the major factor in the participant’s behaviour as all the guards at some point displayed abuse, authoritarian attitudes, and appeared to enjoy being in control. Zimbardo argued that this abnormal behaviour is a product of transactions within an environment that supports this behaviour. The labels placed upon the participants became valid in this environment and pathological behaviour was the outcome, (Wilson et al, 2003). This experiment still has implications for the prison system today in that Zimbardo argued that the current prison system is guaranteed to cause severe pathological reactions within prisoners causing a debasement of their humanity, low self esteem and making it difficult to integrate into society outside of prison, (Wilson et al, 2003). This would suggest that labelling and conformity theories are a case for prison making bad people worse. Whilst in prison an offender may assume a role that could be continued upon their release. Zimbardos’ experiment provides an adequate basis for discussing the sociological theory of a prison subculture sometimes referred to as the inmate code. The prison society exists apart from the rest of society and therefore it is understandable that norms and values are very different between the two. Sykes (1958) found that the inmate code is something that may give a prisoner an identity and help them to cope with the effects of imprisonment. The code is thought to include certain rules such as not fraternising with staff, acquiring a position in the inmate ‘pecking order’, and giving the impression of toughness in emotion and physical appearance. Clemmer (1940) argued this to be part of the prisonisation process which arguably reinforces criminal behaviour as prisoners become used to opposing authority which is likely to continue in the outside world, (Cited in Morgan, 2002). Therefore, attempts at rehabilitation may be hindered by this and could be used to argue that prison makes bad people worse. So what statistical evidence is there to support the statement â€Å"prisons make bad people worse†? Reports into the subject have found that prisons have a poor record in reducing re-offending and that 59% of offenders are reconvicted within two years of release. For male youths under the age of twenty-one, the reconviction rate is 74% over the same period of time. Research findings from the Social Exclusion Unit have indicated that re-offending by ex-prisoners costs society approximately ? 11 billion each year and that they are responsible for one in five recorded crimes, (Solomon, 2003). This evidence would appear to suggest that people who have served custodial sentences have been made worse by the experience and that imprisonment is not an effective punishment. Contributing to this argument is the theory that these statistics are only obtained from recorded crime suggesting that the figures may in reality be significantly higher as many crimes are not recorded. In conclusion it would appear that there is much evidence to support the claim that prison makes bad people worse such as the statistical evidence revealing reconviction rates. On the other hand, there are also arguments for prison as an effective punishment such as the justifications for imprisonment including rehabilitation and deterrence theories. It would appear that prison does indeed have an influence on some prisoners re-offending but it would be difficult to assume that this is the case for all offenders who have served a custodial sentence. This would suggest that for some offenders prison is effective and for others it is not. Having said this, it is important to recognise that prison does ensure public safety from offenders who pose danger to society, but only for the period they are in custody unless they emerge from prison rehabilitated. For those offenders who could be dealt with in another manner, community penalties offer the versatility in sentencing options necessary to provide effective punishment without contributing to the growing problem of increasing prison numbers. It is therefore vital that the most appropriate punishment is imposed individually taking the crime and the offenders’ circumstances into account when sentencing.

Paper on Bronfenbrenners Theory (on Journal Article) - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 514 Downloads: 7 Date added: 2017/09/11 Category Advertising Essay Did you like this example? The Bronfenbrenner’s Theory is defined as describing the nested social and cultural contexts that shape development. Every person develops within a mircosystem, inside a mesosystem, embedded in a exosystem, all of which are part of the macrosystem of the culture (according to the textbook). I found a journal article in Journal of Instructional Psychology explaining the Ecological Model and the importance of teachers to understand the different relationships that impact development. The journal article describes the Bronfenbrenner’s model and how it works in a school. The Mircosystem is the innermost level and refers to the immediate interactions and influences of a person’s surroundings. In the classroom it means that mentors, administrators, and peers play active role in both interaction and influence of a child. It also includes family which is another main source of relationship in the mircosystem. Children can pick up behaviors from these sources but can also distribute their own behavior onto others. The relationships are bidirectional and reciprocal. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Paper on Bronfenbrenners Theory (on Journal Article)" essay for you Create order The Mesosystem is all interactions and influences within the mircosystem. It is support within a larger environment. An example of this would be teacher meetings with parents which could influence the parents and then the parents could influence the child. The Exosystem is the social settings that do not involve the candidate (child) but affect their experiences in immediate settings either formal or informal in a social network. The article pointed out how work can be significance in affecting one’s personal relationship with family. A example could be a parent who works long hours may have less time to be involved in their child’s education. It can come from other factors such as teacher/administration relationships, school board, community resources for health, employment, recreation, or religion. The Macrosystem is the outermost level of the mircosystem and refers to the values, laws, and customs of a particular cultural. It is the larger society. The priority that the Macrosytem gives will affect the support given. The article states that Bronfenbrenner emphasized that change at the Marcosystem is important because it affects all other environmental levels, revising established values and programs in ways more favorable to development and the well being of the candidate. The article said interaction at any level of the Mircosystem can enhance development. The article was similar to what we learned in the textbook reading. It explained the stages in the same way but put more emphasis from a educational standpoint. I learned that at any interaction at any level can enhance development and the Macrosystem affects all other environmental levels. I agree with the article that each environmental level plays role and the interaction is needed in order to develop. I feel Brofenbrenner’s model is correct on how much social context and influences plays part in how we develop. Article info: AUTHOR:Laura D. Tissington TITLE:A Bronfenbrenner Ecological Perspective on the Transition to Teaching for Alternative Certification SOURCE:Journal of Instructional Psychology 35 no1 106-10 Mr 2008 https://vnweb. hwwilsonweb. com. ezproxy. roanestate. edu/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe. jhtml? _DARGS=/hww/results/results_common. jhtml. 43