In order to determine whether the death penalty is to be considered cruel and unusual punishment, it is necessary to first define each word in order to get full understanding of the issue being assessed. According to the Merriam-Webster collegiate dictionary, cruel is defined as: “disposed to inflict pain or suffering devoid of humane feelings.
” Unusual is defined as: “not usual, uncommon, or rare.” Punishment is defined as: “suffering pain or loss that serves as retribution.” Should capital punishment be viewed as retribution used to cause pain or suffering without humane feelings, and is it uncommon?The message that is sent out by killing a murderer is ‘If you kill, we kill.’ Punishment by death is the ultimate punishment and one that cannot be taken back.
A jury is instructed to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but with a punishment as final as death, any doubt should be reason enough for a person to live. Forcing a jury to decide whether a person should live or die is wrong. If the jury decides the person should die, then they have just committed the same crime they just sentenced someone to die for, murder.The jury then has to live with the fact that they killed someone.
Just this stress put on the jury is enough to call the death penalty inhumane, not to mention the years the inmate will have to sit on death row knowing that at any time, it could be their turn to be strapped in to die. As far as the death penalty being unusual, since the U. S. is the only western democracy to still use the death penalty, it would be safe to say this punishment is uncommon.
The death penalty should not be carried out in any case. Some look at it as an eye for an eye, but as Mahatma Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.” As we head into the next millennium, it is time we modernize our punishments of criminals just as we have modernized every other aspect of our lives.
Genetic Engineering For Future Medicine
Dr. Bernard D. Davis, professor of bacterial physiology at Harvard medical school in Cambridge, stated “that after twenty years of expanding experience with biotechnology with no detectable harm to humans or to the environment, this concern has turned into a good idea” qtd.
In Bender and Leon 23. Genetic engineering is defined as the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in living organisms. Although under heavy scrutiny, genetic engineering will someday be used to cure genetic diseases, breed enhanced plants and animals, and produce low-cost medicines.Many diseases, including cancers, are caused by defective genes that scientists are unable to cure.
Treatments that replace missing enzymes require repeated injections, and organ transplants have a high risk of rejection by the body’s immune system. With cancer causing 500,000 deaths in the United States each year alone, it is clear that new treatments are necessary. The introduction of a promising method is gene therapy-a type of treatment in which the doctor introduces a helpful gene into a patience’s cell to produce an essential protein that the patient lacks.For instance, the first gene-therapy trial was performed in September 1990 by a group of doctors on a four-year-old-girl who suffered from a rare form of cancer ¹.
Using genetically modified cells for a period of time, these brave doctors gave a second chance of life to a terminally ill girl. The use of gene therapy is controversial. Some people are concerned that it may permanently alter the basic material of human beings if genes from other species are used, however, by doing so an opportunity arises to provide a spark of faith to a four-year-old girl.Just think, waking up to a bright sunny day, treating yourself to a flavorful omelet made with cholesterol free eggs, enjoying sausages with less 99% less fat, and a glass of milk with added calcium and vitamins all without losing an ounce of taste.
If genetic engineering was to be used on the farm, this would become a reality. Although genetic engineering farm animals are insufficient and needs improvement, dairy cattle can be genetically modified to increase the content of the milk protein, thus producing healthier milk to drink and in larger quantities.Also high on this list is to make cows, sheep, goats, and pigs leaner and more resistant to illnesses. By providing health attention at a young stage, farmers can reduce the costs of vaccinations, hormones, and drugs dramatically.
The most heavily attacked of the G. E. foods is the vegetable group. Criticized for interfering with nature dramatically, these fruits and vegetables are said to be unhealthy and unregulated by certain advocate groups.
But here is a scenario, humans like to help humans, so wouldn’t it be morally wrong knowing that there are children starving in other countries and there is something you can do about it? “In 1998, the United States had about 55 million acres of genetically engineered corn, soybean, and cotton” 8:80. With this in mind, we know why this was one of the greatest surplus times in America ². The most important of the three main arguments is the gains related to genetically modified medicines and vaccines.Now, harmless bacteria have been genetically engineered with human genes to produce abundant quantities of various protein medicines such as insulin to control diabetes, growth factor, and hemoglobin to prevent anemia.
In other words, people who have diabetes could lead a normal dietary life and be less watchful of blood pressure and sugar. To obtain higher quantity and lower production costs, certain bacteria have been genetically modified to increase the antibacterial-producing genes.By doing so, such medicine can reach more people to more places to provide a more stable life. Although with all of its benefits, G.
E. is heavily rejected by organizations who find it scientifically and morally incorrect. Bernard Gert, professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy Ph. D.
, Cornell University, stated that “God was the creator of earth and human existence and it shouldn’t be altered. ” qtd. In Bender and Leon 32. Under the name of science, biochemists are said to be altering something that is greater than science itself.
Interrupting the regular procedure of plants and animals, concerns arise about “super bacteria,” which is bacteria that grows stronger because the weaker kind die off leaving a select few, and if not killed grow more resilient. For example, pesticide used on fruits and vegetables on farms get sprayed with insect repellent, if a few breeds of species survive the insecticide, they become more resistant. With this in mind, scientists are trying to genetically engineer special formulas that won’t allow superior bacteria to form.Another concern arises with people trying to alter a “God-given” condition in the name of science.
What right as people do we have to interject the life process? By genetically altering the humans ability to catch a cold, this person is deprived of having the immune system work itself back to normal thus, interfering with the life cycle. A different way people try to intervene in the genetic modification is when medicine is introduced and taken by humans without an exact knowledge of its side-effects. Although this is a valid argument, all medicine is tested on lab animals and then introduced to people.Scientists’ effort to play the all-mighty role is most prevalent in their attempt to genetically alter and ultimately clone the perfect animals in order to provide more milk, and leaner meat to be consumed.
This attempt to do so enables more criticism because the animal rights groups get involved and they bring about issues of safety and well-being of the animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals PETA launched a campaign to help put a stop on testing conducted unauthorized by certain groups of scientists.Even though it wasn’t done properly, all scientists have a moral obligation to do good and that is expressed at all times. Within the next quarter century, genetic engineering is said to be so effectively used that it will be able to catch up to the population growth and provide enough food for all 3rd world countries.
Also, G. E. is on a solid pace in providing cancer patience with different therapies to increase the probability of recovery. With economic and moral support, further enhanced research, improvement on existing genetic engineering and a bright future, the potential for modifying genes is brighter than it has ever been.
All in all, genetic engineering is clearly creating an entirely new and unprecedented uses of living things. This technology holds great potential to strengthen the health, food resources, and economies of all people. Although many hurdles still exist, it seems reasonable to suggest only creative ability and motivation limit the ground that can be covered. G.
E. has a distinct beginning but no clear end. Cell by cell, tissue by tissue, organ by organ, we might soon be able to provide all necessary entities for the needy that being grains of rice in Africa, or a liver in the United States.
Globalisation Must Be Stopped
As we progress into the future, the reality of globalisation comes nearer especially in the aspect of economics. It is said to benefit everyone including the wealthy but, is that necessarily true? If economic globalisation occurs then cultural, political and technological globalisation will follow.
What religion would we all have to be in? What political system do we have to be under? What about those people who are uneducated or not very educated, with little knowledge of technology?If everything were to become globalised there would be no individualism, no identity and no nationalism. There would be no you! Globalisation must be stopped. I am sure that you know that globalisation can be defined in many terms. Many see it as a primarily economic aspect, “as the growing of national economies to form a single economy”.
Economics for the Real World: 2, Cronk, T. Kirkwood, L. Searle, I. Swiericzuk.
page 406 However, it can also be pointed out to be a rapid increase in cross-border social, cultural and technological exchange.Globalisation also has been defined by critics of globalisation, present it as a worldwide drive toward a globalised economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and barking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or nation governments. Globalisation is an undeniably capitalist process. Basically globalisation is the rapid increase in cross-border economic, social, technological exchange under condition of capitalism.
http://www. globalisationguide. org/. The “G8” organisation must be stopped! G8 is an organisation involving the eight of the worlds most flourishing economic countries.
These include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States and the European Union. These countries are trying to create economic globalisation. This is typical of the most powerful countries to do so, what about countries like Australia? What does globalisation mean to Australia? Australian corporations participate in the oppression of workers and peasants in poor countries in Asia. Australian mining and forestry companies are involved in extracting wealth from countries such as Papua New Guinea, Irian Jaya and Indonesia, sometimes relying on military support to suppress local opposition.
The Australian support for trade liberalisation, particularly in agriculture, has been used to open up markets in poor countries where Australia’s commodity exports put local subsistence farmers out of work. Australia has opened its own markets to goods made in countries that allow child labour, or forbid the formation of free trade unions. The Australian government has opposed efforts to include environmental and labour protection clauses in World Trade Organisation agreements. Australia should support reform of the WTO to make it more equitable for poor nations of the world.
Australia places few restrictions on the operations of transnational organisations, which take wealth from the country, and are not managed in the interests of Australia. Australia has a strong vested interest in further trade liberalisation, particularly in agriculture. Australia has made common cause with developing countries such as Brazil and Argentina to press for agricultural liberalisation, as this would have the benefit of opening American and particularly European markets. Globalisation definitely won’t benefit us.
There are global inequalities, critics would say that its getting worse and others would oppose, as they would say it “benefits all”. According to http://www. globalisationguide. org/ the gap between the rich and the poor nations of the world is dramatically increasing.
Stated by a web site http://www. globalisationguide. org/ over the past ten years, the number of people earning $1 a day or less has remained static at 1. 2 billion while the number earning less than $2 a day has increased from 2.
55 billion to 2. 8 billion people.The rising of inequality is the inevitably result of market forces. Given free reign, market forces give the rich the power to add further to their wealth.
Hence, large corporations invest in poor countries only because they can make greater profits from low wage levels or because they can access to their natural resources. Does this “benefit all”? Globalisation implies that national economies lose some of their independence and separate identities as they become merged into one global economy. Is this beneficial?This process of globalisation occur through a number of channels in addition to international trade. The channels include the globalisation of markets, the globalisation of production, capital mobility and technological transfers.
This can be called a ‘cat and mouse’ effect on businesses, where large companies would be able to take over smaller companies, if globalisation takes place. The free market does nothing to address re-distribution of wealth. It assumes that wealth will ‘trickle down’ to the poor. WRONG!The former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, once said, “It is our job to glory in inequality and see that talents and abilities are given vent and expression for the benefit of us all.
” Unfortunately, this is not the only disadvantage that could happen if globalisation takes place. Environmentalist groups, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace argue that globalisation harms the environment. In general they blame global corporations for global warming, the depletion of natural resources, the production of harmful chemicals and the destruction of organic agriculture.They have particular criticisms of global investment, which they argue takes advantage of the lack of regulation in poorer developing countries.
Hence, global companies may locate polluting industries in poor countries, log tropical forests, or develop mines with inadequate controls. Globalisation is destructive. Organisations like Greenpeace correctly oppose the global trade in toxic chemicals, nuclear materials and other products of which they do not approve, such as genetically modified foods, or endangered wildlife, including fish.They oppose the existing rules of the World Trade Organisation, which do not allow countries to ban imports of goods just because their production may have damaged the environment in the country of origin.
How does globalisation affect culture? Is it ‘Americanisation’? A report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNESCO, showed that the world trade in goods with cultural content almost tripled between 1980 and 1991: from 67 billion dollars to 200 billion dollars.At the core of the entertainment industry – film, music and television – there is a growing dominance of US products. World Trade Organisation rules do not allow countries to block imports on cultural grounds. It is argued that one of the consequences of globalisation will be the end of cultural diversity, and the triumph of a uni-polar culture serving the needs of transnational corporations.
Hence the world drinks Coca-Cola, watches American movies and eats American junk food.American culture is seen to be dominated by monetary relationships and commercial values replacing traditional social relationships and family values. The people for globalisation say. “It does not make sense to talk of a world of 6 billion people becoming a monoculture and the spread of globalisation will undoubtedly bring changes to the countries it reaches.
” http://www. globalisationguide. org/. As Australians, do we want to lose our own unique culture? There are no possible alternatives to globalisation.
Going global is going global! Globalisation must be stopped, and it means exactly what it says.