The use of capital punishment within the legal system is one of the highly contested issues in the United States and the world. The death penalty occurs when a person or individual gets punished by being put to death. Proponents of the death penalty argue that it helps in eliminating felons who are members of criminal groups. However, their argument is flawed since they fail to consider the numerous wrongful convictions made in the courts. The government sanctions capital punishment to serve justice for offenses considered capital felonies, such as treason, murder, and terrorism. However, other forms of punishment can be applied through rehabilitation in jail to avoid instances where families are left to mourn for their relatives. For capital punishments, forms of execution include death by hanging, electrocution, lethal injections, shooting, and even gassing. However, executing offenders does not prevent crime, is inhumane, and promotes violence over rehabilitation. Capital punishment is also associated with discrimination and violates the right to life. Therefore, the death penalty is not effective as it does not promote the human right to live and the choice to rehabilitate.
Executing offenders is not an effective approach because it takes away a person’s life and human dignity. The right to life is among the fundamental rights of human beings across the globe (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 2). Through the death penalty, persons sentenced to death do not get a chance to live as expected. The law is supposed to respect every individual’s right, including those condemned to death penalties. It is the duty of those enforcing the law to protect each person’s life, regardless of who they are and what the person has done. (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 2). The death penalty takes away citizens’ dignity and lives since the government decides when they will die. Notably, the government should be a body that facilitates the promotion of human life and dignity and not the one that sanctions the killing of human beings (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 4). Further, it carries no affirmative value, and it proves expensive. Through this realization, there has been a constant decrease in the number of death penalties in the United States. Therefore, this form of punishment is ineffective since it violates the right to life and human dignity.
In most countries, the death penalty fails to consider the crimes that women commit and the circumstances under which they were committed. Available statistics about the women sentenced for murder show that they committed the crime as a way of self-defense from abusive relatives and spouses (Lourtau and Hickey 11). For example, in China, over half of the women sentenced to death murdered a response to gender-based violence (Lourtau and Hickey 11). In most nations, the law does not consider that these women were killing their abusers, who the law had failed to apprehend. Discrimination has a direct link with death penalties, thus rendering the punishment ineffective. Factors that perpetuate discrimination may include deficient defense counsel and, in some cases, race (Steiker and Steiker 243). The lack of economic independence and supportive institutions to facilitate divorce does not exist in some nations, especially where there is a prevalence in marriages between young girls and older spouses. Women in the Middle East and Asia are also more likely to face the death penalty for drug-related crimes.
Additionally, over 40 women in Iran were hanged due to engaging in drug crimes between 2001 and 2017 (Lourtau and Hickey 12). On the other hand, men were more likely to get life sentences for similar or worse crimes. In Thailand, most women facing capital punishment are in prison due to drug crimes (Lourtau and Hickey 12). However, the Middle East and Asia’s justice systems ignore the gender and economic inequalities that push women to engage in such crimes. Research also shows that female victims of abuse are likely to indulge in smuggling and selling drugs as a way to boost their self-esteem (Lourtau and Hickey 12). In that case, research gaps in the criminal and social system have caused many women worldwide to die for crimes that they committed due to circumstances and inequalities within the social structure.
Capital punishment does not give individuals a chance to rehabilitate. Most people serving their time in jail have the chance to reflect on their crimes and become better people deeply. Apart from putting criminals away to serve justice, the prison system is also there to rehabilitate criminals and give them a chance to be better citizens. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence to prove that the death penalty prevents crime or lowers deterrence rates. Although remorse does not work for everyone to help them change, the death penalty gives no chances for those sentenced to change or try to become better (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 2). Therefore, justice cannot be served using a punishment that seeks to take away the lives of the same people in correctional facilities. Abolishing capital punishment is one way to prove that correctional facilities are functional. It also helps save people who may be convicted for drug smuggling, which requires rehabilitation. Hence, the death penalty is ineffective since it fails to recognize the significance of correctional centers in rehabilitating offenders.
Sentencing offenders found guilty of the crimes to death does not reduce murder cases, terrorism acts, and treason charges substantially. Serial killers and terrorists continue with their criminal activities, get caught, and are sentenced to death in some cases. In countries such as Canada where the death penalty is banned, the rate of murder seems to be lower than when the death penalty was active (Amnesty International). Also, there have been cases where innocent convicts face execution through the death penalty (Tortorice 532). Capital punishment, when implemented to punish a person, cannot be appealed since death is final. There should be no mistakes where innocents face the death penalty’s execution to be deemed effective and fair for those committing capital offenses (Tortorice 532). In this respect, life imprisonment sentences can replace death since, in imprisonment, there is no chance to make a terrible mistake right. For instance, many innocent people in the US have been subjected to the death sentence for crimes they have not committed. Records show that 155 people have been freed from death row since 1976, while one out of ten was executed (Sethuraju et al. 4). Death penalties are highly subjective, especially when innocent persons are involved, as they pose a significant violation of human rights.
The American criminal justice face accusations of racial injustice due to the skewed number of incarcerated offenders based on ethnicity. More so, racial disparity in capital punishment has existed since colonial times (Steiker and Steiker 243). In essence, racial discrimination is linked to the number of deaths through execution, which renders the punishment ineffective. Notably, African Americans have experienced heightened disparate treatment in capital crimes under neutral capital statutes. Further, following the Civil War, the black community experienced a lengthy era of lynching with minimal legal protection. This exposed many individuals to the death penalty, mostly since the Supreme Court avoids race issues in such legal proceedings (Steiker and Steiker 244). Other factors that perpetuate discrimination may include deficient defense counsel afforded to offenders from the African American community. This is because most are inexperienced in cases involving capital felonies, further increasing the chances of being sentenced to death. Moreover, most offenders on death row can barely afford quality and experienced defense counsels. Based on these findings, capital punishment fails to achieve its purpose of deterring crime and becomes a channel for promoting systemic discrimination against vulnerable groups.
Proponents of the death penalty base their arguments on retribution law, deterrence, and incapacitating capital offenders’ costs. Retribution stands as a primary reason for supporting capital punishment. One of the support claims of retribution is that punishment should cause equal harm to the offender as the damage caused by the criminal act. Another perspective indicates that the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for murder convicts since the crime involved a deliberate killing of the victim (Sethuraju et al. 4). This approach depicts anger-directed retribution to the pain caused to those affected by the murder. However, morality governs human actions noting that it is wrong to kill someone despite their actions. Further, this argument is grounded on the fact that innocent people might be executed due to the death penalty’s blunt nature. Moreover, research on capital punishment’s effects shows that it does not contribute significantly to deterrence (Sethuraju et al. 4). Besides, the brutalization effect elicited by the death penalty might lead to increased homicides and violent crimes. In that case, the death penalty does not provide a solution to current crimes and may serve as a way of satisfying other people’s retributive anger.
Capital punishment has long been thought to lower incarceration costs as more offenders are imprisoned in the US, leading to overcrowding. However, research has shown that in states where the death penalty is practiced, the process has become more expensive than life imprisonment. The costs of the death penalty arise from the prolonged legal process and expensive living conditions. Notably, the complexity of issuing a death sentence on an offender increases the costs from prosecution to the final hearing. Statistics show that the average time spent in death penalty cases was 74 and 190 months in 1984 and 2012 (McFarland 54). This indicates that inmates serve almost double sentences because of the extended stays during the prosecution process. Furthermore, death row offenders are expensive to maintain during incarceration because they require high security, which raises the costs of supervision and living conditions (McFarland 56). More so, the number of executions has significantly reduced over the years due to the death penalty’s controversial nature. Therefore, allowing such persons to serve life imprisonment can reduce prolonged legal proceedings costs due to the complex legal system.
In most cases involving terrorism, capital punishment when executed does more wrong than good for citizens. Many governments enforce death penalties in the name of national security. However, many terrorists commit crimes and persecutions without fear of death, as most of them are willing to die for their terrorist beliefs (Bibi et al. 43). This means that killing such individuals propels their religious beliefs, such as becoming martyrs to those idolizing them. The Islamic fighters continue to ravage peaceful countries on the argument of holy war, which only increases when imprisoned offenders are killed. The followers praise the ‘martyrs’ causing more destruction than good and affecting not only victims but also every other citizen in the affected countries (Bibi et al. 43). Also, some civilians get death sentences due to condemnation from confessions extracted by employing torture. However, despite the terrorist attacks, the death penalty is inhumane. Capital punishments are executed in different approaches where some such electrocution is painful. How the ‘martyr’ is executed might solicit an emotional response from other followers, leading to increased acts of terrorism. Therefore, in terror-related cases, the death sentence is not practical since the terrorists are committed to the suicide mission.
The death penalty can reduce homicides as studies have shown that abolition of capital punishment has led to increased unlawful killings. Studies show that publicizing executions decreases the number of homicides (Muramatsu et al. 432). This is because capital punishment functions as a temporary deterrent factor for homicides. In that case, people are dissuaded from committing a crime if capital punishment is implemented swiftly. However, the increasing complexity of criminal justice systems across the world hampers the probability of executing offenders without lengthy court proceedings. Furthermore, studies in the UK have shown that the number of unlawful killings has increased since capital punishment was abolished in 1964 (Chen 7). Although public opinion tends to show that the death penalty is not effective, the significance of receiving a death sentence might hinder people from committing crimes. In cases where an individual premeditates to commit murder, the person may be discouraged by the thought of being issued the death penalty. On the other hand, the death penalty may not certainly prevent future capital crimes from being committed by other people. As death remains irreversible, there is an assurance of a crime not repeated by an individual already executed.
In conclusion, the death penalty has proven ineffective since it affects the dignity of human life, inhibits rehabilitation, and adversely affects the distribution of justice. Besides, executing people does not show a positive response towards crime deterrence. Justice should be fair, observing the rights of the condemned. Taking another person’s life will always have consequences, which in this case, outweigh the benefits associated with the death penalty. In a world where people cry for social justice, there has to be a readiness to take full responsibility for taking a life, especially where the life taken is that of an innocent individual. The death penalty has been proved ineffective in most cases where discrimination is apparent, especially in the US despite being a democracy. The criminal justice system also fails to recognize the circumstances in which a homicide occurred, leading to women’s wrongful convictions on violent marriages. They are also devalued, and the events under which they save themselves from abusive spouses are always ignored. Maintaining the death penalty negates the promoting quality of life and the development of justice across the world.
Works Cited
Amnesty International. “The Death Penalty, Answered.” Amnesty International, 2020, Web.
Bibi, Sughra, Qian Hongdao, Najeeb Ullah, and Muhammad Bilawal Khaskheli. “Excessive Use of Death Penalty as Stoppage Tool for Terrorism: Wrongful Death Executions In Pakistan.” JL Pol’y & Globalization, vol. 81, 2019, pp. 42-52. IISTE.
Chen, Daniel L. “The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty? Evidence From British Commutations During World War I.” Evidence from British Commutations During World War I, 2017, pp. 1-140. SSRN.
Lourtau, Delphine, and Sharon Pia Hickey. Judged For More Than Her Crime: A Global Overview of Women Facing the Death Penalty. Cornell Law School, 2018.
Mbah, Ruth Endam, Tanisha Pruitt, and Divine Forcha Wasum. “Cruel Choice: The Ethics and Morality of the Death Penalty.” Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 9, no. 24, 2019, pp. 14-22. IISTE.
McFarland, Torin. “The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis.” Susquehanna University Political Review vol. 7, no. 1, 2016, 46-87. SAGE Journals.
Muramatsu, Kanji, David T. Johnson, and Koiti Yano. “The Death Penalty and Homicide Deterrence in Japan.” Punishment & Society vol. 20 no. 4, 2018, pp. 432-457. SAGE Journals.
Nagelsen, Susan, and Charles Huckelbury. “The Death Penalty and Human Dignity: An Existential Fallacy.” Laws, vol. 5, no. 25, 2016, pp. 1-5. MDPI.
Sethuraju, Raj, Jason Sole, and Brian E. Oliver. “Understanding Death Penalty Support and Opposition among Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Students.” SAGE Open, vol. 6, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-15. SAGE Journals.
Steiker, Carol S., and Jordan M. Steiker. “The American Death Penalty and the (in) Visibility of Race.” The University of Chicago Law Review, 2015, pp. 243-294.
Tortorice, Marla D. “Costs Versus Benefits: The Fiscal Realities of the Death Penalty in Pennsylvania.” U. Pitt. L. Rev. vol. 78, 2016, pp. 519-555. ULS.
“The Notebook” Film By Nick Cassavetes
The Notebook is a 2004 American romantic movie directed by Nick Cassavetes. The film is based on the biographical novel of the same name by Nicholas Sparks, which was published in 1996 and became a bestseller in the first week of its release. The actors performing the roles of the main characters are Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. The movie tells the love story of young people who fell in love in the 20th century. Although the film’s plot develops in the 40s, its action begins and ends at present.
Summary of the Film
In the 40s, a young girl Allie Hamilton comes to Seabrook, North Carolina, to spend the summer with her family. There she meets a young man Noah Calhoun. She comes from a wealthy family, and he is an ordinary factory worker; however, a real feeling flares up. The outbreak of the Second World War and the will of chance separate the lovers. After the end of the war, they reunite; consequently, Allie returns to Noah, they get married, and she gives birth to three children.
Decades later, another part of the story shows an older man paying regular visits to a woman in a nursing home, reading aloud to her a story from a notebook. Although her memory has faded, she becomes fascinated by the story of Allie and Noah. Duke, the older man who turns out to be Noah Calhoun, takes care of Allie, whose current diagnosis is Alzheimer’s. Upon learning about the disease, Allie decides to write down her life and love in a notebook. Dementia begins to progress, and Duke reads these notes aloud to her. Day after day, she drifts away from reality, but he keeps reading. In rare moments of enlightenment, she manages to revive in her mind a time, when they swore to each other in eternal love. In general, doctors say that this is impossible, but Allie does it thanks to Duke, albeit for a few minutes.
Alzheimer’s Disease and Its Impact on Family Members
The memory phenomenon is fascinating; as people get older, especially entering the last stage of life, awareness of the past becomes everything, being practically all that they have left for older adults. Therefore, for people with Alzheimer’s disease, it concerns their loss of the ability to hold moments in mind and losing one of the most valuable elements of life. The early stage often goes unnoticed; both relatives of the patient and specialists incorrectly attribute the symptoms of the disease to old age, considering them a normal part of the aging process (Blieszner & Shifflett, 1990). Since the early onset of the disease occurs gradually, it might become complex to detect when the disease has begun to develop.
Due to this disease’s unique nature, it leads to severe physical, moral, and economic stress on all family members of the patient. The loved ones of a person with dementia often feel desperate, fearful, angry, and powerless due to the onset of disease symptoms (Blieszner & Shifflett, 1990). Concerning the later stages, the difficulties that close relatives of the sick person face gradually increase. The spouse or close relative usually takes responsibility for the patient’s primary care, thereby taking on a heavy burden since it requires physical activity, financial costs, affects the social side of life, and is psychologically stressful (Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2001). The caregivers experience moral challenges as they see the deterioration of the condition of the person they love.
Moreover, there is a high level of somatic diseases and mental disorders among those caring for a patient. If they live under the same roof with the patient, if he or she is a spouse, if the patient becomes depressed, misbehaves, hallucinates, suffers from sleep disorders, and is unable to move frequently – all these factors, according to studies, are associated with increased the number of psychosocial problems (Blieszner & Shifflett, 1990). Caregivers’ psychological health can be enhanced with cognitive behavioral therapy and training in coping strategies, both individually and in groups. The caregiver also has to spend an average of 47 hours per week with the patient, often at the expense of working hours, and the costs of care are high (Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2001). An essential step in adjusting family members and those around the person with Alzheimer’s to their condition is to develop skills to communicate with them, showing respect and sensitivity without embarrassing them. Both patients and relatives generally prefer home care; it is possible to postpone or avoid more professional and expensive care.
The Message of the Film
Neither Alzheimer’s nor dementia is well understood, so there is no medical treatment for them. A person with this disease cannot remember to take the keys to an apartment; he or she forgets the way home. These people do not recollect their friends’ names and faces; at later stages, they might stop recognizing children and consider strangers to be relatives. A person may not remember current events, forgets what happened yesterday, but retains the old past well in the Alzheimer’s early stages. Besides, the patient becomes increasingly dependent on his or her caregivers.
It is crucial to remember that although there is a change to personality, the personality itself remains. In this case, the care of relatives, close people becomes essential. The movie’s message emphasizes the fact that only love, compassion, and patience could bring some decisive moments for a person experiencing Alzheimer’s and the people surrounding them. The suffering person is in a state where time has stopped, and life continues; they are scared and need support. Very often, people do not understand their relatives with dementia, labeling them as “others.” Most frequently, this is due to the inability to communicate appropriately.
The movie shows how love and relationships can help a person with Alzheimer’s disease and reveals caregiving’s problem to loved people, suffering, and starting losing memory. Relatives of patients are mostly left alone with the disease issues; many of them would benefit from a psychologist’s help. In the film, there is a scene, when in between reading the story, the children of Allie and Noah visit them and ask the latter to return home, to which he replies that he will never leave their mother (Cassavetes, 2004). Caring for a relative with dementia on an ongoing basis is an emotional and financial burden on a family. People solve caregiving problems in different ways, but experts assure that there is nothing better than a family home and the presence of close family members.
In cases where medicine is powerless, the patient’s relatives can keep in touch with the person, taking into account this or her biography, understanding how the past affects the current state, and the development of the disease. It is useful to organize a space and a favorable atmosphere for the patient, such as equipping the room with his or her favorite furniture, arranging old photographs, turn on the music of youth and, most importantly, continue to love and express these feelings.
References
Blieszner, R., & Shifflett, P. A. (1990). The effects of Alzheimer’s disease on close relationships between patients and caregivers. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 39(1), 57-62.
Cassavetes, N. (2004). The Notebook [Film]. Gran Via.
Gallagher-Thompson, D., Dal Canto, P. G., Jacob, T., & Thompson, L. W. (2001). A comparison of marital interaction patterns between couples in which the husband does or does not have Alzheimer’s disease. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56(3), 140-150.
Automated Hospital Dispensing Systems
Introduction
Both the Pyxis and Omnicell are products that are used to automate operations in a hospital. The handling of and management of medication has undergone a lot of transformations that are geared towards reducing costs and making medical services to be more effective and efficient. The use of automated system has also been utilized to reduce time in the process of dispensing medication to patients and it has also improved the accuracy hence lowering the risk of patients getting wrong prescriptions (Hübner and Elmhorst 207).
Comparison and contrast of Pyxis and Omnicell
Pyxis system is an automated dispensing system that performs the functions of supporting a decentralized management of medication. It assists in ensuring that accurate medication is dispensed to the relevant patients. The system has feature that prevent loading of inappropriate medication. Pyxis automated system automates the distribution of supplies and medication for pharmacies in hospitals; it does this by providing an ergonomically proficient, retrieval system and vertical storage which is intended to assist in maximizing productivity at the work place leading to reduction in operation cost. Pyxis is designed to be used in the preparation stage of the management process of medication. It also offers bar code labeling and storage for equally bulk and unit dose medication.
The functionality of Omnicell automated system is not very much different from that of Pyxis. The system just performs the same functions as the Pyxis except that they are manufactured by different companies and have some few varied features that vary their preferences by different users and or customers. However, there is increasing improvement in the way the system works; this is most probably to in crease its efficiency and also to gain competitive advantage over the existing and potential competitors (Durgin and Hanan 388).
Pros of Pyxis and Omnicell
Both systems share some many of advantages in terms of their performances. First, both machines use finger prints to allow users to access and use them. This has the advantage of allowing the ease of information tracking process besides enhancing transfer of information on medication. Second, the systems help in saving time for nurses and pharmacists hence providing extra time dedicated for clinical care to patients. Third, the systems support timely administration of drugs to patients; fourth, they are able to control the type of medication their users are allowed to access, fifth, they help ensure accuracy in the process of administering medication to patients hence ensuring the drug safety of the patients.
Cons of Pyxis and Omnicells
Many users of Pyxis have argued that the faxing software that is supported by the system is too expensive to acquire and run. Besides, at certain point in time, it is possible that the medication cart drawers will start gluing together which makes the system to be costly in terms of maintenance. The system is not able to pull items for automated dispensing cabinet; this makes it limited in terms of its usage. It is also difficult and inconveniencing to retrieve report data and other detailed reports that can be utilized as soon as it may be required.
With Omnicell automated system, some users have reported some sort of frequent jamming and breaking of its sliding doors. This gives the notion that the system is not built to last long making it very expensive to maintain once it starts breaking down. Another disadvantage that is also shared with the Pyxis is that in the event the user forgets his or her password then such a user cannot gain access to the system.
It is important to note that since the two systems have almost similar technology and functionality, they share certain disadvantages. One of these is the fact that their users require to be computer literate and must be knowledgeable in the operations of the systems. Besides, whenever they break down they cannot be repaired or attended to by the ordinary staff members of a hospital, but require the services of well trained technicians who are hired or employed at high costs. Again, both systems are also not designed with visually impaired users in mind. It becomes a bit more difficult for users who are visually impaired to operate the systems efficiently and effectively. Most importantly, in case of power blackout, both systems cannot be used. This implies that using them requires acquisition of power backups to maintain their work; this increases the running costs of hospitals.
Conclusion
It is important to note that both Pyxis and Omnicell automated systems are products manufactured by different manufacturers but perform the same functions (Durgin and Hanan 388). However, the users’ preferences are determined by systems technological structures and the deal between the system providers and the users. The major advantages they have are that they make running and managing medication system in hospitals to be more effective and efficient and they also assist in reducing the risk the patients are exposed to when it comes to the administration of drugs. The two systems share disadvantages; one of them is that it is impossible to access and use the system once a user losses his or her password. Otherwise, the use of the systems has contributed a lot to the management of medication.
Works Cited
Durgin, Jane and Hanan, Zachary. Thomson Delmar learning’s pharmacy practice for technicians. New York: Cengage Learning, 2004.
Hübner, Ursula. and Elmhorst, Marc. “EBusiness in Healthcare: From EProcurement to Supply Chain Management.” Health Informatics. United States: Springer, 2007.
Essay Voice-over