Safety of Larry Essay Example for Free

Safety of Larry Essay Morton resolves to leave the potentially violent playground because he reasons that the other man is very unreasonable and that engaging this man in any further dialogue would yield nothing beneficial. The father also seeks to ensure the safety of Larry his son far from the haughty taunts of the troublesome Joe. After the second reading. What does the narrator know about the wifes thoughts and feelings that is important to understanding the ending? The story’s narrator is aware that the wife senses a debilitating feeling of defeat and inadequacy whenever she faces a situation whereby unreasonable behavior triumphs over sensible behavior. These sentiments make the wife to be unsatisfied with Morton’s act of submissively leaving the troublesome father and child. The wife thus thinks that her husband is inefficient in agitating for his rights. She thus repeats the derisive ‘You and who else? ’ statement that the arrogant man utters in the park. What do you think this incident means to the wife? To the wife, injustice is depicted as trampling over justice according to the events that transpire at the park. Moreover, her husband demonstrates that he is weak and defenseless through is action of choosing to ignore the other man’s taunts. What other things do you notice? After analyzing the actions of the various characters, I have noted that Morton is a sensible and refined man who would not get involved in a physical confrontation just for the sake of it. Rather, he depicts a mature personality that allows him to have adequate patience to put up with the unreasonable mean’s behavior. What questions do you still have? I am not sure whether Morton really avoids being involved in a physical tussle with the other man just because of the silliness of such an action or because he fears being physically hurt by the obviously bigger man. Conversely, the wife’s actions are not clear as to whether she treasures violence or harbors violent tendencies.

The Architecture Studio :: Personal Narrative Writing

The Architecture Studio All my life I had dreamed of this day. I had spent countless hours playing â€Å"architecture firm† and designing various buildings on my â€Å"Home Design 2000† program. Today was the commencement of the fall 2003 semester at State University’s College of Architecture, Planning, and Design (or CAPD for short). I stood in studio #323, affectionately known to architecture majors as the â€Å"Loft Studio.† I felt lucky to get the studio with the coolest layout and the most space, for it was well known that other classes were sure to envy this room. With the best view because of the huge picture window that spanned almost two stories, (the lower level along with the height from the loft) we were able to see the towering evergreen trees just outside the building, and had a great view of the sky (much to our dismay, we often saw the sunrise and sunset and the sunrise again all in the same day). As I lounged in my chair, feeling completely awkward but trying to look like I fit in, my eyes scanned the room full of eager faces that I would soon consider my classmates, and hopefully, friends. Right now though, each of them intimidated me. I couldn’t help but think they had all spend their entire lives preparing for the year, when all I had were dreams and ambition. Katrina Lewis was our professor, and each of us had heard rumors of how picky she was (â€Å"anal retentive† were the exact words, I believe). There were horror stories of her always giving the class busywork, and expecting total perfection, despite our lack of knowledge or experience. I pictured in my head a short spinster who wore horn-rimmed glasses and nothing but black pantsuits, but my eyes widened with surprise as she walked in the room. A tall, thin frame accompanied by short, stylish blonde hair took the place of my gray-haired visions. She couldn’t have been more than 30 years old, and she wore cute plastic-rimmed sunglasses (which, by the way, she wore every day of class†¦and never took them off). She called us over to the area where she taught, and we all grabbed chairs, being careful not to pop anybody’s bubble. She proceeded to lecture the entire three hours of class, while each of use struggled to keep our eyes open. I knew by the end of class that the rumors were true, and this would not be an easy first semester.

Should Juvenile Criminals Be Tried as Adults?

February 1, 2013 English 1250 Argument Essay Should Juveniles be tried as Adults? Juveniles are children who fall under the age of eighteen and have committed a crime. Since they are so young it plays a part in the decision of whether they will placed in a trail that an adult will be placed under or not. The age of the person who commits the crime is the reason why juvenile delinquency punishments are less harsh at times then if an adult would’ve committed the same crime. I feel that if a crime is harsh enough than a juvenile should be tried as an adult.Anyone who commits a crime and breaks the law should be held accountable no matter what the age is. We should all be responsible for our own actions. Many people wonder if trying a juvenile in the same way as an adult will turn out to be a better solution to stop crime. I believe if a child is made responsible for his or her actions she will think twice the next time before he or she reacts. People who commit crimes and then go unpunished for what they did are more than likely to commit another crime or duplicate the first crime they committed.If children think they can get away with their actions they will continue to do the same things over and over again. As a criminal justice major I think everyone should pay a price if they decide to break the law. There should be no special treatment no matter what age the defendant is. A crime is a crime no matter where you go or who you are. I know understand that some children who commit crimes a fairly young and people feel like they don’t have the mental ability to understand what they did because they are so young. Children are taught right from wrong from infancy.We guide our children their whole lives until adulthood. Children are more than capable of understanding right from wrong. The problem is we as parents defend our children because we don’t feel like they’re capable of understanding, when the truth is we are merely just handicappi ng our children. As parents don’t underestimate what your child is capable of. These kids need to know there are consequences for their actions. By us not punishing our children we are just letting them know its ok for them to continue in an unruly matter. We are also teaching them it’s ok and there will be no consequences.Parents need to prepare their children for the real world. I stand strong when I say it is the parent’s responsibility to teach their children, I couldn’t agree more. However, what happens when the parents have done all they can? You can bring your child up to the best of your ability and he or she may still go astray. This is why we can’t shield them from the light. Let them know for every action there’s a reaction. Educate on what could possibly happen if they commit a crime. By shielding these kids from reality we make it harder on them when they have to enter into society on their own.It’s imperative that as a p arent we do our jobs but this still doesn’t mean that that they will follow in our footsteps. People say a child can’t remember what he or she did. I totally disagree. I believe that if a child commits a crime and he has to suffer dire consequences will remember if the consequence is as harsh as the crime. I don’t think that kids are too young to remember what they did. I think that’s just an excuse. As we keep making excuses for these children they are tearing society apart with their violence.It shouldn’t matter the age if you commit an adult crime you should you pay just as an adult would. Get these kids off the streets so the kids who are trying to do something to better themselves can stand a chance. It’s ridiculous how kids get away with so much. Everyday it’s getting worse and the majority of crimes that are being committed are from juveniles but yet we continue to want to slap them on the wrist with something easy like a curfe w. That’s crazy! The law is the law and kids are no exception. They are no different from anybody else.If they choose to act in an adult manner then they should be treated as such. The law is not made to be broken. This is why we have rules and laws, they are to be followed and if they are broken then whoever has acted in this situation should pay. Now, in some cases I believe that you can be cut a break. Of course I believe in second chances but not just getting off simply because you’re a child. You should pay for your actions no matter the age. The law is not made to flex around your age. It’s simply made for the type of crime you commit. If you are old enough to act in a rationale matter then take the consequences.Just because a kid commits a crime doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been committed. It definitely doesn’t mean that the victim’s family didn’t suffer either. What about the victim’s family they suffer as well. I know that violent crimes receive the harshest punishment for adults but the same guidelines should be carried out for the juveniles as well. Trying them as adults will make them understand the consequences of their actions and second guess committing any future crimes. This may lower the crime rate in society and make us feel a lot safer in our own homes.This could stand as an example and others will learn from their mistakes. A lot of the times kids are following in another peers footsteps or just simply trying to fit in. no matter what the reason or situation is if a crime is committed then you should suffer the consequence. I think the juvenile should be subject to more severe sentencing, including the life sentence. If you take a life than yours should be shouldn’t be spared. I don’t believe that you should give a child the death sentence but they can definitely spend a life sentence in jail.What good will it do having them out on the streets to commit more crimes . I don’t think you should have the benefit of seeing daylight when you have chosen to take a life. You should suffer just as they are. You have no right to take the life of someone so why shouldn’t you pay for what you did. A lot of kids commit crimes simply because they know the punishment will be easy. Children have gotten away with so much these days they aren’t scared of the law anymore. Kids know when they get in trouble they will be detained for a few months or perhaps just a night.Maybe they will be on house arrest where they can still do what they want they just have to do it at their house. The juvenile system is too easy on kids these days. We have almost lost the battle when it comes to teens and crimes. This is why we need to try them harsher as adults so they will get the message we are trying to put out. You have to punish by crime and not age it’s the only way these kids will learn. In order for society to do better we have to be better at what we do. To allow one person one punishment and another person an alternative for the exact same crime is not fair and highly ridiculous.It destroys the structure of our society. Juveniles who commit murder should be tried in the same matter as an adult. We also need to keep in mind that kids will be more willing to that they know they won’t have consequences for. Let’s not forget the victims or the victim’s family members who suffer. They deserve justice as well. They have suffered a great lost. As a parent we never want to see our children go astray or perhaps follow the wrong footsteps but they choose to take on that responsibility when they decide to disobey.When they commit a crime they have to be punished and yes if the crime is harsh it should be as an adult. You make your bed hard you lay in it. Just as you make people suffer from your actions you should suffer from them as well. Children are old enough to know right from wrong. They can comprehend t hat it is against the law to commit a violent act against another person. I feel very strongly that in the United States juveniles with violent felonies should definitely be tried and treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

Consequences Of The Iraq War - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2412 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2019/05/17 Category History Essay Level High school Topics: Iraq War Essay War Essay Did you like this example? The Iraq war began on March 20th, 2003 and extended until December 18th, 2011. President George W. Bush had imposed a deadline for Saddam Hussein to either leave Iraq or go to war. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Consequences Of The Iraq War" essay for you Create order Not long after the Americans invaded, Hussein went into hiding and his regime was overturned (History). This was a huge success for the U.S., as Hussein was considered a substantial threat to the Middle East and was suspected of possessing weapons of mass destruction. As well as the overthrowing of Hussein, President Bush also used the lack of democracy in Iraq as a justification for the war. He thought that by overthrowing Hussein he could use Iraq to set an example to other countries by scattering ideals of pro-Western democracy (Perle). While in the end the main goal of ending Husseins dictatorship hold over Iraq may have been met, the invasion of Iraq was not justified. No matter what type of view one takes, every sensible theory points to the war in Iraq being unjust. Starting with the obvious, from a pacifist point of view, wars and violence in general are morally wrong. Considering how Iraq was in no way an immediate threat to the United States, a pacifist who already thinks conflict should be settled by peaceful means, would disagree with how it was handled. The main normative principle that would argue against the justification of the Iraq war would be the just war theory. According to the Just War Theory, there are six main criteria a war must meet in order to be considered just: Just cause, proportionate cause, right intention, right authority, reasonable chance of success, and last resort (Carter). This could also be tied to a consequentialist view, as the proportionality is just the weights of costs of the war in comparison to benefits. During war, many lives are lost and the effects of war can torment countries for years after they end, forever changing the lives of their citizens. Because of this the idea of turning to war cannot be something taken lightly and must hit every requirement of the just war theory. The first part of the just war theory states that the war must be just and initiated due to the correct reasons. The effects of war can be so destructive it can leave countries in ruin for years to come. By initiating war with the correct reasons, the chances of a meaningless war that leaves permanent damage is lessened. In terms of the Iraq War, this one is more of a grey area. At the time Iraq was under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, a man who in 1988 sent poison gas to the Northern Kurdish village of Halabja, causing a massacre of around 5,000 of his own citizens he suspected of being disloyal (MacFarquhar). President Bush gave Hussein 90 minutes to decide to either leave Iraq or face war with the United States. Bush also suspected Iraq was hiding unconventional weapons of mass destruction that could become a threat to the States. However, CIA director George Tenet later claimed Bush was lying by testifying We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009 (Matthews). This did not stop President Bush from passing the Iraq Resolution in October of 2002, a declaration that allowed the United States to use any means necessary against Iraq. The resolution would be justified if Hussein did have these weapons, but with most evidence pointing against Iraq and Hussein being an immediate threat against the United States, the cause for the war seems to be for the profit of the U.S. By removing Saddam Hussein from power, the U.S. hoped to use Iraq as an example and push them towards democracy in the Middle East. However, this would only be possible with long-term commitment from the United States, and as will be shown later in this essay, that is not what happened. Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq for more than 30 years and in that time it is estimated around 500,000 Iraqi people perished under his regime, many due to the war with Iran (Burns). This justifies the second part of the just war theory, the last resort. If the situation isnt one of last resort, one can argue there were other means to an end besides violence in destruction. In this case, it was thought that the only way to save the innocent civilians was to kill the aggressors; in this case, Saddam Hussein. In examples of other wars, such as World War II in the case of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one can argue the bombings were unjust, as Japan was willing to negotiate, but instead of taking that opportunity the United States instead dropped two bombs on these Japanese cities. This caused long term effects of radiation poisoning in civilians that many historians claim could have easily been prevented. However, unlike Japan, Hussein was unwilling to end his regime, claiming he wa s destined by God to rule Iraq forever (Burns). The Bush administrations primary reasonings for the Iraq War may have been suspicious, but the situation surrounding Iraq and the treatment of civilians would justify it as a last resort. For a war to be just under just war theory, there must also be an announcement of intention. Without such an announcement, there is no chance for a peaceful solution to be sought out or for bloodshed to be avoided. The Iraq war meets this criteria since, as stated before, Bush did give Hussein an ultimatum: resign from power or be prepared for war. In his speech given from the Cross Hall in the White House, he declared Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. The message was heard in Iraq through a translated radio broadcast and included messages for both Iraqi citizen and militia. Bush stated that if things were to turn to war, the war would be against the Hussein regime and during the war the U.S. would work to send food and medicine to civilians and help rebuild Iraq. In regards to the military, he warned the war was an uphill battle and encouraged them to listen to Un ited States instructions on acts such as allowing entry of coalition forces in order to avoid attack. The fifth criteria suggested by the just war theory is the weight of costs vs benefits, also known as the proportionality. If a war has more predicted costs than benefits, a consequentialist as well as a just war theorists would argue it was overall unjust. A consequentialist believes the entirety of determining if a war is just or not relies on what the consequences are and if the positives outweigh the negatives. For example, if a war ends with hundreds of thousands of casualties, many of them civilians, and the only good that comes from the war is a minor conflict between the two countries is solved, the war was unjust. Therefore, it can be argued the Iraq war did not meet this criteria and was unjust in both a just war theorist and consequentialist point of view. Looking at the positives that came out of the Iraq war, there were very few and most benefits came as a double edged sword. A good example of this double edged sword, would be the banding of ISIS after the fall of Hussein. After the war, Iraqs destroyed political system led to an insurgency and a civil war which gave rise to groups such as ISIS (Helfont and Brill). Husseins reign may have ended, but without assistance the U.S. had promised in rebuilding Iraq, the country fell to chaos. Saddam Hussein may have ruled Iraq with an iron fist, but his extreme measures against those who opposed his rule and his intolerance for extremist groups made it difficult for groups such as ISIS to rise up. A common misconception links Hussein to extremist group Al Qaeda, but a 2006 report of Phase II by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that there was a lack of solid evidence connecting Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (Weisman). Better the devil you know than the devil you dont is a common saying that can apply to Iraq in the time around the war. While Hussein was a terrifying and destructive dictator, once he was overthrown and extremist groups took over, the citizens of Iraq were faced with new instability they were unprepared for. Further consequences of the Iraq war were the suggested over 250,000 deaths that resulted from invasion and societal collapse (Matthews). The Bush administration promised to help build Iraq and create democracy, a feat that would take years of commitment, and they failed to do so. This effort would be such a long running one, as Iraq was not in a state that was ready for Western democracy. Iraq has a historical divide between the Sunni and Shia Muslims and as the Shia are a majority, attempts at democracy would lead to an unequal distribution of power and lead to deposition (Byman and Pollack). To sum it up, the Iraq war cost the United States an estimated $5.6 trillion dollars and left Iraq with a political and societal collapse (Savell). A main theme continuing through the Iraq war was President Bushs suspicious and somewhat unclear intentions for starting the war. If the war was just, another requirement would be the intentions must have been right and motivated by the justification. While the justness of his reasonings may have been more of an unclear grey area, Bushs intentions were not motivated by the justification. As was previously stated, one of President Bushs primary justifications for the war were the supposed evidence that Iraq was hiding weapons that were an immediate threat to the U.S.; a claim proven to be false. Due to this fact, it can be argued that Bushs intentions were indeed not motivated by the justification he proposed. So much of Bushs motivation for the Iraq war was held by Saddam Husseins weapons and their power over the Middle East and the United States that knowing it has been disproved that Iraq possessed such weapons toppels his argument. In any war, side constraints are necessary for the just conduct criteria to be met. These constraints whether following guidelines set by Murphy or those by Anscombe, are to prevent unnecessary deaths, especially among civilians. According to Murphy, The Duty not to Kill states that no matter what the situation it is always morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being (Roojen). These constraints are required in times of war, because there must be limits to what violent acts can be committed. There must be some set of boundaries set aside, many in the form of laws, to prevent the slaughter of innocents. If these constraints were not created, there would be nothing holding forces from any side back from committing immoral acts against even the most defenseless of citizens. When applied to the Iraq war, the largest disregard to Murphys constraint would be the war crimes committed on November 19th, 2005, by a unit of Marines in the town of Haditha. In retaliation of the death of a comrade, these United States forces killed 24 innocent Iraqi civilians, including children and women. A report was issued by the U.S. military denying the crime and stating the civilians died in accidental crossfire, but investigations of the bullets showed they were only fired from two rifles (Baghdad). Direct attacks against civilians are deemed unlawful and a breach of the Geneva Conventions: international laws created to establish humane treatment of people during war times. A violation of these protocols is a primary offense of both Murphys principle and the just war theory just conduct criteria. Subsequently, while due to differences in political opinion and all the happenings that still remain unclear there is no way to objectively declare a war to be just or unjust, in terms of pacifism, just war theory, and even consequentialism, the invasion of Iraq cannot be vindicated. Even with so much apprehensiveness surrounding many aspects of what really happened during the war and theories encompassing President Bushs rationality for it, too many constraints of both moral and legal value were broken. One may take into account how outcomes cannot always be foreseen, but the great majority of these could have been predicted and taken into account. Even to this day, the effects of this war can be seen and it can be used as an example of how consequences like these stick around for years to come. Citations War in Iraq Begins. History.com, AE Television Networks, 24 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/war-in-iraq-begins. Perle, Richard. The Middle East, Democracy, and Dominoes. PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 9 Oct. 2003, www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/dominoes.html. Moseley, Alexander. Just War Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/. Carter, Joe. A Brief Introduction to the Just War Tradition: Jus Ad Bellum. ERLC, The Ethics Religious Liberty Commission, 17 Aug. 2017, erlc.com/resource-library/articles/a-brief-introduction-to-the-just-war-tradition-jus-ad-bellum. Pan, Esther. IRAQ: Justifying the War. Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 2 Feb. 2005, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/iraq-justifying-war. MacFARQUHAR, NEIL. Saddam Hussein, Defiant Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence and Fear, Dies. The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Dec. 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/world/middleeast/30saddam.html. Matthews, Dylan. No, Really, George W. Bush Lied about WMDs. Vox, Vox, 9 July 2016, www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12123022/george-w-bush-lies-iraq-war. BURNS, JOHN F. The World; How Many People Has Hussein Killed? The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Jan. 2003, www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/weekinreview/the-world-how-many-people-has-hussein-killed.html. Full Text: Bushs Speech. The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 18 Mar. 2003, www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq. Helfont, Samuel, and Michael Brill. Saddams ISIS? Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 14 Jan. 2016, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2016-01-12/saddams-isis. Weisman, Jonathan (2006-09-10). Saddam had no links to al-Qaeda. The Age. Byman, Daniel L., and Kenneth M Pollack. Democracy in Iraq? Brookings, Brookings, 28 July 2016, www.brookings.edu/articles/democracy-in-iraq/. Savell, Stephanie. 15 Years After the Iraq Invasion, What Are the Costs? Foreign Policy In Focus, 21 Mar. 2018, fpif.org/15-years-after-the-iraq-invasion-what-are-the-costs/. Roojen, Mark van. Murphy Handout. 2018, pp. 1â€Å"2. Baghdad, Oliver Poole in. Worst War Crime Committed by US in Iraq. The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 27 May 2006, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1519608/Worst-war-crime-committed-by-US-in-Iraq.html.