Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Outline the key theoretical claims of restorative justice and critically evaluate its advantages and disadvantages as applied to contemporary punishment practices in the UK. The WritePass Journal

Outline the key theoretical claims of restorative justice and critically evaluate its advantages and disadvantages as applied to contemporary punishment practices in the UK. Abstract Outline the key theoretical claims of restorative justice and critically evaluate its advantages and disadvantages as applied to contemporary punishment practices in the UK. ). Further, over the last three decades, within the context of the rise of neo-liberal populism, that has seen decline of the rehabilitative ideal, restorative justice practices have the potential to mitigate the worst excesses of punitive punishments (Garland, 2001). However, the theoretical underpinnings of restorative justice, as this paper will show, has been attacked in various ways, due, in part, to its propensity to either be seen as undermining the impartiality of the criminal justice system, or as yet another form of what Foucault (1975) describes as ‘governmentality’. From this perspective, restorative justice is seen as an informal process that results in a net-widening of state control (Garland, 2001, Pavlich, 2013). This, in turn, has generated a significant ideological debate over the future of criminal justice (Johnstone Van Ness, 2007). Proponents of restorative justice, however, argue that within the prevailing punitive regime, the increase in custodial sentences has generated a penal crisis that may be mitigated by the use of restorative approaches (Cavadino Dignan, 2006). Restorative justice may therefore be seen as a significant and pragmatic means of lowering the rate of recidivism and bringing about a more humane and equitable justice (Sim, 2008, Cornwell, 2009). The Demise of the Rehabilitative Ideal Since the eighteenth century, idea’s surrounding state punishment have led to a mixture of approaches that prevail today (Stohr et al, 2012). Clarkson, 2005, suggests that these theories in turn have generated continual discourse surrounding the moral justifications for punishment, which are; retributivism, deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation. Sim (2009), citing Foucault, argues that although the prevailing literature on the history of the criminal justice system has placed an emphasis on the shifts and discontinuities in the apparatus of punishment, such as the move from retributive punishment toward a more progressive rehabilitative approach, since the mid 1970s punishment has been underpinned and legitimated by a political and populist hostility to offenders (ibid, Garland 2001, Cornwell, 2009). Garland (2001) argues that the last three decades has seen a shift away from the assumptions and ideologies that shaped crime control for most of the twentieth century. To day’s practices of policing and penal sanctions, Garland argues, pursue new objectives in a move away from the penal welfarism (rehabilitation) that shaped the 1890s†1970s approach of policy makers, academics and practitioners. Cornwell (2009) argues that although the rehabilitative model of punishment was seen as a progressive approach in the middle years of the last century, when it was widely accepted that the provision of ‘treatment and training’ would change the patterns of offending behaviour, the ideology failed to work out in practice (Garland, 2001). In turn, there became a disenchantment with the rehabilitative approach, and the ‘Nothing Works’ scenario became an accepted belief, given the reality of prison custody (Martinson, 1974). Muncie (2005) claims that the 1970s neo-liberal shift in political ideology saw the rehabilitative welfare model based on meeting individual needs, regress back towards a ‘justice model’ (ret ributive), that is more concerned with the offence than the offender. From the 1990s, Muncie argues, ‘justice’ has moved away from due process and rights to an authoritarian form of crime control. The Prison Crisis Cornwell (2009) claims that the effect of the ‘justice model’ on the prison population cannot be overstated (Sim, 2008). In England and Wales in 1990 the average daily prison population stood at around 46,000, by 1998 this figure increased to over 65,000, by 2009 the number rose to 82,586 (ibid). Further, the findings in the 2007 Commission on Prison’s suggest that a ‘crisis’ now defines the UK penal system (The Howard League, 2007). Despite a 42,000 decline in reported crime since 1995, the Commission argue, the prison population has soared to a high of 84,000 in 2008, more than doubling since 1992. Cornwell (2009) claims that at present the costs of keeping an offender in prison stands at around  £40,000 per year, where the estimated cost of building new prisons to accommodate the rise of the prison population will take huge resources of public money. Prison has therefore become the defining tool of the punishment process, where the United Kingdom (UK) now imprisons more of its population than any other country in Western Europe (ibid: p.6). A History of Restorative Justice In response to the prison crisis, experimentation in the 1990s began to see various forms of restorative justice models in order to mitigate retributive punishment and as a means of re-introducing a greater emphasis on the rehabilitation ideal (Muncie, 2005). The arguments for restorative forms of justice, Cornwell (2009) claims, are not just about cost and sustainability on national resources, but more significantly, the notion of the type of unjust society the United Kingdom (UK) is likely to become unless this surge in punitive sanctions is not abated (ibid, Sim, 2009). Cornwell (2009) suggests that the main strength of the restorative justice model is that it is ‘practitioner led’, deriving from the practical experience of correctional officials and academics who have a comprehensive understanding of the penal system. From a ‘Nothing Works’ (Martinson, 1974) to a ‘What Works’ experience, the emphasis of restorative justice has been to identi fy a more humane, equitable and practical means of justice that goes beyond the needs of the offender (rehabilitative goal) toward addressing the victims and their communities (Cornwell, 2009). Restorative Justice † Theory and Practice Howard Zehr (2002), envisioned restorative justice as addressing the victim’s needs or harm that holds offenders accountable to put right the harm that involves the victims, offenders and their communities (Zehr, 2002). The first focus is on holding the offender accountable for harm, the second is the requirement that in order to reintegrate into society, offenders must do something significant to repair the harm. Third, there should be a process through which victims, offenders and communities have a legitimate stake in the outcomes of justice (Cornwell, 2009.p:45). In this way, Zehr (2002) redefines or redirects the harm of crime away from its definition of a violation of the state, toward a violation of one person by another. At the same time, the focus of establishing blame or guilt shifts toward a focus on problem solving and obligations. As a result, communities and not the state become the central facilitators in repairing and restoring harm (ibid). Although restorative justice has received wide recognition across many western countries together with the endorsement of the Council of Europe in 1999, progress toward the implementation of restorative justice principles into mainstream criminal justice practices is slow (Cornwell, 2009). Further, restorative justice, both in theory and practice continues to generate a substantial and contentious debate (Morris, 2002). Restorative Justice † A Critique Acorn (2005) argues that ‘justice’ has traditionally symbolised the scales of impartiality on the one hand, and the sword of power, on the other. Justice is thereby possible when a neutral judge calculates a fair balance of accounts to make decisions that are backed by state power. Restorative justice, by its practice of informal dispute resolutions, can be seen as a call to a return of a ‘privatised’ form of justice (ibid, Strang Braithwaite, 2002). This criticism is qualified by the propensity of restorative justice advocates (Braithwaite, 1989) that critique punitive justice responses and thereby view the power of the state as harmful. This in turn, at least theoretically, erodes state power and state created crime categories, thereby threatening to create a ‘privatised’ justice process (Strang Braithwaite, 2002). Within this process, Strang Braithwaite (2002) argue, restorative justice cannot be seen to ‘legitimately’ deal wi th crimes. Acorn (2004) suggests that unlike the prevailing criminal justice system, the desire to punish (retribution) is replaced by a version of justice that is centred on specifically nuanced concepts of harm, obligation, need, re-integration and forgiveness. Such values guide Family Group Conferences, Community Mediation, Victim-Offender Commissions and various forms of tribunals (Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)) (MacLaughlin et al, 2003). Family Group Conferences is a prominent practice in restorative justice, that includes community members (paid or unpaid) to ‘hear’ disputes and help parties to resolve conflicts. However, rather than a diversion from the criminal justice system, such conferences involve offenders already convicted (Acorn, 2004). Garland (2001) views this arrangement a form of ‘net-widening’, where informal justice becomes part of the social landscape that encompasses a widening and ever expanding form of crime control (ibid). A lthough restorative justice advocates argue that informal justice creates domains of freedom that empower victims, offenders and communities, opponents claim that restorative justice represents another pernicious way in which community mediation expands state control, while claiming to do precisely the opposite (Acorn, 2004, Garland, 2001, Pavlich, 2013). Restorative justice proponents are clear in their critique of the criminal justice system that is seen to not represent victims or their communities, where state officials, such as the police, lawyers and judges, are impartial, and thereby have no direct understanding of those affected by criminal offenses (Pavlich, 2013). Here, Pavlich refers to Foucault’s concept of ‘governmentality’, where the state subtly arranges the background settings to produce subjects who think and act in ways that do not require direct coercion, in what Foucault terms the ‘conduct of conduct’ (Pavlich, 2013, Foucault, 197 5). In this way, Foucault argues, self governed subjects are produced when they buy into the logic and formulated identities of a given governmentality (Foucault, 1975). Garland and Sparks (2000) claim that restorative justice, as a form of govermentality has, in part, come about by the increased attention, over the last twenty-five years, toward the rights of the ‘victim’. Here, Garland (2001) argues that the last two decades has seen the rise of a distinctly populist current in penal politics that no longer relies on the evidence of the experts and professional elites. Whereas a few decades ago public opinion functioned as an occasional restraint on policy initiatives, it now operates as a privileged source. Within this context, Garland argues, victims have attained an unprecedented array of ‘rights’ within the criminal justice system, ranging from; ‘the right to make victim impact statements’, the right to be consulted in prosecutions, sentencing and parole together with notifications of offenders post release movements and the right to receive compensation. Further, the right to receive service provision ent ails the use of Victim Support agencies who help people address their feelings and offer practical help and assistance, mitigating the negative impact of crime (Reeves and Mulley, 2000). Wright (2000) suggests that while such developments may be seen as a triumph for victim support movements, these reforms do not fundamentally alter the structural position of victims. This, Wright explains, is because the punitive structural system remains intact whereby the victim’s interests will necessarily remain secondary to the wider public interest, represented by the crown (Wright, 2000). It can be argued that while critics may be seen as correct in their perception of restorative justice as a form of governmentality or net-widening by the state, the attack may be seen as premature, given the early stages of its development (Cornwell, 2009). Cornwell argues that critics have not given restorative justice enough time to develop and potentially emerge as a stand alone resolution to the problem of crime and its repercussions for the victims, offenders and their communities (ibid). Restorative justice programmes are still at an embryonic stage, where they are attracting critique, mainly due to their attachment to the Criminal Justice System (Cornwell, 2009, Morris, 2002, Ministry of Justice, 2012). Cornwell (2009) also addresses the argument that the restorative approach places too much emphasis on the status it affords to the victims of crime. In reality, Cornwell suggests, that status is very much based on political rhetoric rather than actual reform. The publication of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that anticipated an advance in restorative and reparative measures into the criminal justice system, in reality bought in a much more punitive provision. Restorative measures under the Act are initiated on the basis of a ‘mix and match’ arrangement for ‘custody plus minus’. Here, (Garrielides, 2003) points out that restorative justice has therefore become somewhat removed from its underlying theory (Garrielides, 2003). Put simply, the restorative approach has been cherry picked to support other punitive initiatives, leaving its central tenets at the margins of the criminal justice system (Cornwell, 2009). Restorative Justice – Does it Work? Since the 1990s a number of restorative justice trial schemes began to take place, in order to measure success in terms of re-offending and victim satisfaction. According to a Ministry of Justice Report (Shapland et al, 2008), measuring the success of restorative justice against criminal justice control groups, it was found that offenders who took part in restorative justice schemes committed statistically significantly fewer offences (in terms of reconvictions) in the subsequent two years than offenders in the control group. Further, although restorative justice has been generally reported to be more successful within youth justice, this research showed no demographic differences, for example; in age, ethnicity, gender or offence type. The report also showed that eighty-five percent of victims were happy with the process (ibid). These results are reflected in various case studies. Published by the Restorative Justice Council (2013) the following gives an example of the positive impa ct that restorative justice can have on the victim, the offender and communities: Arrested in February last year, Jason Reed was sentenced to five years in prison after admitting to more than fifty other burglaries.   During the criminal justice process, Jason expressed his wish to start afresh and make amends, so he was referred to the post-conviction restorative justice unit. After a full assessment to ensure his case was suitable for restorative justice measures, three conferences took place between Jason and five of his victims. The victims had different motivations for taking part and they were able to express their upset and anger directly to the offender. Jason agreed to pay back an agreed amount of compensation and the victims showed some acceptance and forgiveness (Restorative Justice Council, 2013). Conclusion Overall, this paper has argued that restorative justice may be seen as an attempt to address the disillusion within the criminal justice system in the 1970s that had conceded that ‘Nothing Works’. The demise of the rehabilitative ideal (Garland, 2001), against the backdrop of political shifts toward a neo-liberal ideology, bought about a more punitive, retributive stance toward punishment and offending (Sim, 2008). As a result, the rise in prison populations has bought about a penal crisis. In response, new initiatives in restorative justice began to develop, emerging as a more equitable, humane form of punishment (Cornwell, 2009). The advantages of the restorative approach cannot be overstated, as this paper shows, rather than the state focusing on the offender (as is the case with the prevailing criminal justice system), restorative justice seeks to address the needs of the victim and community participation (Zehr, 2002). In practical terms, there appears to be some su ccess in terms of re-offending and victim satisfaction (Ministry of Justice, 2008). Despite the criticisms (Garland, 2001), it can be argued that restorative justice demonstrates an opportunity and potential to mitigate the worst excesses of the criminal justice system and bring about a more equitable and humane approach (Cornwell, 2009). Word count: 2654 Bibliography Acorn, A (2004) Compulsory Compassion: A Critique of Restorative Justice. Vol 14, No.6 (June 2004) pp. 446-448. University of British Columbia Press Bottoms, A, Gelsthorpe, S Rex, S (2013) Community Penalties: Change Challenges. London: Wilan Publishing Cavadino, M Dignan, J (2006) Penal Systems: A Comparative Approach. London: Sage Publications Clarkson, M (2005) Understanding Criminal Law. London: Sweet Maxwell Cornwell, D (2009) The Penal Crisis and the Clapham Omnibus: Questions and Answers in Restorative Justice. Hampshire: Waterside Press Dupont-Morales, M, Hooper, M, Schmidt, J (2000) Handbook of Criminal Justice Administration. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc. Garland, D (2001) Culture of Control: Crime Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxon: Oxford University Press Garland, D Sparks, R (2000) Criminology Social Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Garrielides, T (2003) Restorative Justice Theory and Practice: Mind the Gap! Available[online]from: euforum.org/readingroom/Newsletter/Vol04Issue03.pdf The Howard League for Prison Reform (2007) Do Better, Do Less: The report of the Commission on English Prisons Today. The Howard League. Available [online] from: howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/online_publications/Do_Better_Do_Less_res.pdf Accessed on 26th February 2014-02-27 Johnstone, G (2011) Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates: Second Edition. Oxon: Wilan Publishing Marshall, T (1996) The Evolution of Restorative Justice in Britain. European Journal on Criminal Police and Research (4) 21-43 McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmaland, L (2003) Restorative Justice: Critical Issues. London: The Open University Ministry of Justice (2012) Restorative Justice Action Plan for the Criminal Justice System. November 2012 Available [online] from: restorative_justice_action_plan.pdf Morris, A (2002) Critiquing the Critics: A Brief Response to Critics of Restorative Justice. British Journal of Criminology (2002) 42 (3): 596-615 Muncie, J (2005) The Globalization of Crime Control: the Case of Youth and Juvenile Justice: Neo-Liberalism, Policy Convergence International Conventions. Theoretical Criminology 9 (1) pp: 35-64 Raynor, P, Robinson, G (2009) Rehabilitation, Crime and Justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan Restorative Justice Council (2013) Case Studies Available [online] from: http:www.restorativejustice.org.uk/?p=resourceskeyword=178 Accessed on: 27th February 2014 Reeves, H Mulley,K (2000) The New Status of Victims in the UK: Threats and Opportunities, cit in: Crawford, A and Goodey, J (eds) Integrating a Victim Perspective Within Criminal Justice Debates. Aldershot: Ashgate Press Robinson, G Crow, I (2009) Offender Rehabilitation: Theory, Research Practice. London: Sage Publications Shapland, J, Atkinson, A, Atkinson, H, Dignan, J, Edwards, L, Hibbert, J, Howes, M, Johnstone, J, Robinson, G and Sorsby, A (2008) Does Restorative Justice Effect Reconviction. The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice 2008. Available [online] from: restorativejustice.org.uk/resource/ministry_of_justice_evaluation_does_restorative_justice_affect_reconviction_the_fourth_report_from_the_evaluation_of_three_schemes/ Accessed on 26th February 2014 Sim, J (2009) Punishment and Prisons: Power and the Carceral State.London: Sage Publications Limited Stohr, M, Walsh, A, Hemmens, C (2012) Corrections, a text/reader, Second Edition. London: Sage Publications. Strickland, R.A (2004) Studies in Crime Punishment. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc Sumner, C (2008) The Blackwell Companion to Criminology. London: John Wiley Sons Wright, M (2000) Restorative justice and Mediation. Paper presented at the conference Probation Methods in Criminal Policy: Current State and Perspectives at Popowo, Poland, 20-21 October. Available [online] from: restorativejustice.org/10fulltext/wrightmartin2000restorative/view Accessed on: 28th February 2014 Zehr, H (2002) Little Book of Restorative Justice. New Zealand: The Little Books of Justice and Peace Building

Sunday, February 23, 2020

No Child Left Behind and the Effects on Children with Special Needs Research Proposal

No Child Left Behind and the Effects on Children with Special Needs - Research Proposal Example No Child Left Behind makes it compulsory that the schools across the United should track the improvement and progress of all children with special education needs and students whose first language is not English. The Act advocates the schools to devise strategies so that such students attain similar score as their peers by the year 2014 (Harper, 2005). No Child Left behind Act advocates space and provisions for students with special education needs because not all children who are limited in English proficiency and have some kind of learning disability have the capability to take tests that are similar to those of other students in their standard. The allowances comprise of one-on-one testing periods, expanded test sessions, test booklets with large fonts, helping students to structure their answers and sign language translators (George & Margaret, 2007). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has advantages for the students with special needs or learning disabilities but it als o includes certain barriers that might prevent these students from exercising all of the opportunities stated in the law (Cortiella, 2010). In the lieu of this paper we will be discussing the impact of NCLB on such students and assess its usefulness for children that require extra attention due to any kind of learning disability. This stipulation in the act helps the school administration; lawmakers, parents and the Education Department assess the improvement in the progress of students who are usually left behind in better academic attainment. NCLB with all its apparent advantages has initiated heated debates over the efficacy of standardized tests for the two groups that are the normal students and the students with special needs, and... This essay stresses that according to the review of literature on the topic, it has been highlighted that the NCLB Act has immensely affected students with special needs. The motivation that is provided for the low-performing students has decreased the level of expectations instead of increasing it. This is so because of the fact that the reaction of the law when the school fails to make adequate progress is not just providing extra help for students but also punishing the school. This report makes a conclusion that NCLB aims at reducing racial and class discrepancies in academic performance through establishing common expectation for all students. The Act also requires that the schools to pay consideration to academic performance of the underprivileged students; students with special requirements, students from low income groups as well as students of different ethnicities. Conventional systems that were employed by the states considered only the mean school performance. This allowed the schools to be rated highly even in cases where there ware broad achievement discrepancies between underprivileged and privileged students. Extensive research in this area of acceleration shows that it is an effective and low cost educational intervention for students with high abilities. 18 types of accelerations have been identified. Dual credit programs, ability grouping, Advanced Placement, and International Baccalaureate are some other posted suggestions for meeting the n eeds of the gifted students.

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Social influencing factors Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Social influencing factors - Essay Example The element of social grouping is known to encompass small groups, economic status and social roles. A few of such kinds of groups are deemed to pose a direct form of manipulation or control over a particular individual. For instance, reference groups are considered to act as direct as well as indirect kinds of assessment or orientation in developing an individual’s beliefs or approaches which in turn deliberately influences the purchase decisions considered by those people (Te’eni-Harari, 2010; Armstrong & et. al., 2005). Reference Groups From a theoretical perspective, groups are found to exert influence on various individuals and are generally regarded as reference groups. Individuals are known to make use of pertinent groups for the purpose of a specification either as an indication or an orientation in opposition to which the individual is evaluated. The degree of manipulation with regard to the reference groups posed on the behaviour of the individuals is known to be frequently made apparent in relation to the kinds of products as well as brands bought by individuals. Consumer behaviour is considered to be the reflection of the sum of consumer’s decisions concerning purchase, utilisation and disposition of products or services over time. The pattern of purchasing behaviour denotes more than just the method of how an individual decides upon consuming tangible products. It also includes other aspects such as obtaining ideas or opinions from friends concerning the use of services (Arnould & et. al., 2004). It is in this regard that referents who are known to possess higher extent of authority, for instance those with assumed proficiency, are expected to often act as influences on the basis of information sources for hesitant or ignorant consumers (Eszter, 2008). Conversely, the utilitarian form of influence is supposed to get replicated in the requirement for psychological associations in terms of the specified reference group. It has be en further mentioned in this regard that the utilitarian related influence tend to stand for the idea with regard to normative influences. For instance, teachers, peers and parents are considered to be the normative referents offering prospective consumers approaches, customs and values with the help of a direct form of interaction (Childers & Rao, 1992). The behavioural pattern of the consumers is known to relate to the process of understanding the purchase related decision-making by the consumers (Kotler, 2003). With regard to the above mentioned context it can be understood that the aspect of the buying related pattern of the consumers is also explained to be the familiarity of the groups, individuals or organisations along with the procedures that are implemented for the purpose of choosing, protecting, utilising and disposing of the selected services, ideas, products and experiences in order to satisfy the requirements as well as the influences of the mentioned procedures posed to the society overall as well as the consumers. Thus, it can be conclusively identified from the stated explanation that a particular behaviour is triggered for a specific individual or with respect to a definite group owing to which it can be discerned that social aspect is amongst the factors that tend to greatly affect the purchase

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Police officers Essay Example for Free

Police officers Essay Have you ever been in a situation where you find yourself stuck between facing consequences for things you haven’t done and giving in to someone who seems to be on a power trip and is taking advantage of their superiority over you? Whether it be a manager taking advantage of his power in the work place or a police man or woman doing unnecessary and over the top things to you. Abuse of power seems to be a common thing in some police officers every day life and this is not okay. It is very apparent what a police officers job is and that is to protect and serve the community and make sure that real criminals are being served justice, however; some may come across police officers that use the fact that they have badges and weapons to their advantage in order to basically become a bully instead of a hero. Of course not all police officers are corrupt, most are actually doing their job and are concerned with the safety of all people and not just their own but those few that are corrupt need to be stopped and be punished for their police brutality and/or abuse of power. So the question is, are police men and women being evaluated thoroughly enough so as not to hire corrupt officers? Are police officers being punished and or brought to justice because of their wrong doings? In this paper I will bring some cases of police brutality and or abuse of police powers to your attention as well as if and how police are being punished because of their illegal or down right cruel behavior. Becoming a police officer is far from an easy task as it should be, but why is it that after so much questioning and tests of integrity and moral values citizens are becoming more and more victimized by police officers? In my opinion police officers are not being as extensively tested for a corrupt mind set as we are led to believe they are. Possible police officers are asked questions on a polygraph test that mostly tie in with the questions asked in the application process so as to get details and obviously the truth out of anything remotely suspicious on the application. These questions mostly having to do with drug use or theft and anything that may prove an officer to be dishonest about questions already asked prior to the polygraph. These questions however rarely have to do with how officers view a citizens race, religion, gender, levels of class, etc. For example, a police officer is not asked in a polygraph test if he does not like Muslim people or if he is disgusted by gay individuals.

Monday, January 20, 2020

A Look at Intellectual Property Piracy In Taiwan :: Intellectual Property Piracy Taiwan Essays

A Look at Intellectual Property Piracy In Taiwan Intro: Current Piracy Situation In Asia, Intellectual property piracy is rampant. Much attention has been directed at this issue and progress has been made in almost all Asian countries. Among them, Taiwan has been singled out as one of the worst offenders in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) violation.[1] The following statistics shows that the piracy rate in Taiwan is not very high compared to Korea and China. (More recent data is unavailable when I checked BSA.) Table 1. Piracy rates --------------------------------------------------------- Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Korea 75% 76% 70% 67% 64% U.S. 31% 26% 27% 27% 25% Japan 66% 55% 41% 32% 31% Taiwan 72% 70% 66% 63% 50% China 97% 96% 96% 96% 95% Total World 49% 46% 43% 40% 38% --------------------------------------------------------- Source: Business Software Alliance (BSA) --------------------------------------------------------- Why is Piracy so Rampant Why, then, is Taiwan considered a major offender for the last three years and counting? First, Taiwan has a monopoly on CD manufacturing and is renowned for its hardware manufacturing. Spend some time researching about blank CDs and you will find that most of them are manufactured in Taiwan.

Sunday, January 12, 2020

Of Mice and Men Characters Essay

At the beginning both George & Lennie met at the rench near the river,close to the hill sides. The relationship between George & Lennie is that they are close friends.Acctualy George had promised Lennie’s Aunt Clara that he will take care of Lennie, as she laid on the bed of death. â€Å"Some body’d shoot you for a coyote if you was by yourself. No you stay with me, your Aunt Clara wouldn’t like it if you were Running off by your self, even if she’s dead.† Although Lennei is mch stronger,taller & muscular than Goerge, he still seems to depend on George. He forgets everything, he can’t cook, he’s got immature adult hood behaviour, he can’t deal with day-to-day life. Where as George happens to be the leader. He cooks for him, takes care of him, & there relationship between them seems to be like father & son. H e does at times get angry & frustrated with him due to his behaviour or the attitude toward him having to forget everything. George & Lennie both carry a dream along themselves, which the want to fulfil, of having a place of there own, â€Å"With us it ain’t like that new got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us. We don’t have to sit in no bar-room, blowin’in our jack jack jus because we got no place else to go. If them other guys get in jail then can rot for all anyone gives a damn. But not us.† However Lennie always seem to have a frustrated attitude, â€Å"But not us ! An’ why because †¦because I got you to look after me, & you got me to look after you, & that’s why.† â€Å"Some day where gonna get the jack together & where gonna have a little house & a couple of cows & some pigs.† In this case Lennie had kept control of the money, as he told every thing to Lennie to do, & that this money would help them in buying a place of there own. As the third person helps them so that he could also move out without the others knowing about it. As they had prepared there dream to come true, but as always Lennie had spoilt everything due to his immature attitude. At this stage of agreement with old man, Curley’s wife walks in asking for trouble as usual, well that’s what George thought. After there conversation over there secrete, Lennie fell a sleep on the bunk dreaming, mean while Curley walks in asking George & the bold man if they had seen his wife. During this they end up in a slight argument. As Curley gets furious at the telling of the people, telling him to keep his damn wife a home. On the other hand as Lennie is dreaming, he was smiling & delighted at the memory of ranch. At this stage Curley glaed at him, as he slipped his eyes off the past & lighted on Lennie, as he had become the centre of attraction. At this stage he stepeed towards lennie, as he was half asleep, & replied unknowingly & confusingly â€Å"Huh†?Due to him being so deniable Curley exploded with range. † Come on you big bastard-get up on your feet. No big son-of-a-bitch, is gonna laugh at me. I’ll show ya who’s yella?† Curley’s anger made Lennie look helplessly at George, & at this stage Lennie gets up & tries to retreat Curley, but Curley was balanced & poised . Right now he slashed a thump at Lennie withhis left, & then hit him under his nose. During the pain Lennie felt he cried for George’s help. But unfotanly the beating was at limited for Lennie & was in anger,despite having George stood on his feet yelling above all, to Lennie, telling him to get him (revenge). â€Å"Get him Lennie† Although Lennie was much stronger & muscular than Curley, â€Å"Don’t let him do it† Pain was getting to Lennie & the others in the room. At this stage Lennie covered his face with his huge pones (hand) & felt the beat ness of terror within himself, as then beating, as he again cried for George’s help & the others to make him stop. Then again Curley had attacked him in the stomach & blow of his wind. The scene now was painful & thew feeling of careless struk every one, especially Slim as he stud to his feet to betray Curley. â€Å"The dirty little rat; he cried, I’ll get’ un my self† But George atn this stage grabbed Slim by holding out his hand,asking him to wait, as knew Lennie would get Curley back. He new it was at limited for Lennie & the support of them in the room defiantly want revenge from Curley. † Wait a minute† (George said to him) † Get him Lnnie† The single voice of George Struck Lennie, as he took his hand away ftrom his face & looked around for George. At this point Curley took the advantage of him having to take his hand off his face & slashed him again in his eyes. Lennie’s face was covered with blood & George was again yelling/persuading Lennie to hit him. Again Curley’s fist was snagging when Lennie reached for it fist & seconds layer Curley was flopping all over the place like a fish would. Curley’s closed fist was now lost in Lennie’s big hand, revealing his anger in agony, as this time George ran down the room yelling at him to let go of him, but Lennie did not let go, & slapped him across the face repeatingly, but still he didn’t let go. However Curley was slushing as he fell white in his face & started to shrink,as he became weak.Howeever at last he did let go, as he crouched against the wall. â€Å"you told me to, George† At this stage Slim regarded Lennie with terror, as he statedy then they better get Curley to the doctor, as soon as possible, as they thought that he could be worse than what it look, but he also mentioned to Curley & the other surrounded strictly that his hand got stuck in the machine, if any one hade to ask then Lennies name should nit be mentioned strickly or trouble would occur. ( George said)†Slim, we get canned now? We need the stake. Will Curley’s old man cane us now? (Slim said to Curley)†you got your senses in hand enough to listen? â€Å"I think you got your han’ caught in a machine.† â€Å"If you don’t tell nobody what happened, we aren’t going to. But you jus tell an’try to get this canned & we’ll tell ever’body,an the will you get the laugh.† After this obviously George & Lennie had to stay well clear from cur ley’s wife, especially Lennie in eve at the time,& was specially warned from George, that she’ll cause trouble & that Lennie was in the bad books ofCurley & was better to stay out of his way. The old man was talking to creok ojn his bunk as Lennie arrived, & both Lennie & the old man started telling there story of them 3, haqving there place of there own,with Lennie’s rabbits & other animals/habitats. Again Creok offered to put fowar some money, but as George walked in the room & having a suspicious shocking look on his face as he saw Lennie sitting there. The old man mentioned the thought offered by Creok, but the shock & discomfort of privacy shrook him as he apologised to them all but this place was supposed to be a secrete & a place of there own & no one was to know in case of trouble. During the conversation Curley’s wife had walked in the room & interruptedly every one was shocked to her there especially if she had geard everything then trouble was to come, also her distance close to us would let her know what accually had happened to Curley that night. However later on in the argument with her & the others in the room she accually found out that it was Lennie who hert his hand & not the silly excuse of the machine.As Curley’s wife tried to get on Lennie,George tried to hold Lennie away from her, & tried to get Curley’s wife out of the room as Curley & his old man walked in the room,& suddenly intruptted the argument.

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Evaluation Of The Seaboard Foods Load Out Certification...

Load Out Training Welcome to the Process portion of the Seaboard Foods Load Out Certification Program. Today you will be learning the proper techniques for load out, staging, and the transport of market hogs. When the crew arrives at the finisher barn two things are important: staying aware of what is going on and clear communication. Before guiding the chute to the stoop, know all of the proper hand signals. Uniform communication reduces risk for injury or mistakes It is important that the edge of the chute lines up with the stoop to prevent a gap. When removing the chute from the hitch, it is important not to quickly let go of the chute and allow it to fall. Using your body weight allows it to slowly drop. Before unhitching the†¦show more content†¦Notify your supervisor immediately if there are any signs of unusually colored feed. NOTIFY SUPERVISOR IMMEDIATELY! It is beneficial to equalize the temperature between the outside and inside. By adjusting the curtains it prevents animals from balking due to the drastic change in temperature once they approach the threshold. Remember: it is the Crew Leader’s responsibility to make sure that the barn’s curtains are returned to the automatic setting before leaving the barn. Before moving any animals, make sure that all things on this check list have been completed. Before beginning to back the trailer to the load out chute, make sure that all crew members and people are clear of the path between trailer and chute. Proper hand signals and paying attention are key to backing the market trailer to the chute. Stop the market driver about four feet from the chute so you can raise and secure the trailer’s roll gate. Secure the roll gate’s rope to the tie off on the trailer, and continue the back up process. Allow a few inches between the trailer and chute so the chute sits down into the trailer’s opening once you have lowered the chute down. Secure the chute extensions on both sides to the market trailer. The doors of the chute must extend into the inside of the trailer. Spread bags of wood chips evenly on the chute and both decks of the market trailer. It blends the surfaces of the chute and trailer together so the hog doesn’t recognize the transition.