Journal Entries (1) Example

Essays on Journal Entries (1) Personal Statement Journal Entries Task: Outlines I. Individual differences and organizational behavior II. Personality characteristics in organizations III. Interpersonal processes and behavior IV. Communication Journal Entries Individual processes and organizational behavior (Nelson Quick, 2010). While working as a teacher’s assistant to special needs young adults, my challenge is to work with people who have a multitude of individual characteristics. The more I understand those characters, the more my work becomes easier. Emotional steadiness and assertiveness are the qualities, which can pilot top performance. I learn about the behaviors of persons with special needs to know them better and how best to assist them in getting ready for their lives. Throughout my occupation experience, I have observed many characteristics and their influences to the individuals. Some of the important characteristics that I need to observe while assisting the young adults with special needs are the locus of control and self-esteem. â€Å"Locus of control† is a common tendency about inner self against outside circumstances meaning that it has a strong control on an individual’s life. Those persons with inner â€Å"locus of control† perform highly and can be good managers of their lives. In my profession, it is vital to assess my control. Self-esteem is a person’s wide-ranging sense of self-worth. People with higher self-esteem have optimistic feelings concerning themselves and they recognize themselves to have strengths and limitations, and believe their strengths are more vital than their limitations. Persons with lower self-esteem perceive themselves unenthusiastically and are affected by other people’s perceptions about them. People’s self-esteem influences their feelings, and has vital insinuations for behavior in their work. Persons in organizations with higher self-esteem perform greatly and are always contented with their work and lives. Various circumstances inf luence self-esteem. A person’s achievements tend to escalate self-esteem while failure lowers it. Given that high self-esteem is a helpful characteristic, I always motivate my students to escalate their self-esteem by giving them appropriate challenges and chances for success. Interpersonal processes and behavior (Nelson Quick, 2010). Interpersonal communication is vital in sustaining human relationships in an institution. Interpersonal communication, especially between a teacher and learners, is a critical base for effectual performance in an institution. In organizations, language and power are entwined in the contact that occurs between supervisors and workers. This is mainly important when leaders are articulating idea and successes from the employees. Studies illustrate that, leaders in a variety of jobs and institutions are most helpful in work units that engage in habitual communication within units, while those leaders with the highest promotions rates engaged in networking activities with superiors. Oral communication and cooperative behaviors are important contextual performance tendencies that have positive effects on the psychosocial quality of the work environment. Some communication factors are used to distinguish a good teacher or manager. These skills include being expressive speakers and empathetic listeners. Communicative supervisors express their opinion in meetings. They are usually confident presenting their views. Supervisors who are not communicative may make the workforce wonder what their supervisors’ opinions are about issues. Expressive supervisors let the workers acknowledge their position and what they think or believe. Empathetic listeners use the thoughtful listening skills like being patient and reactive to problems. As an assistant of the special needs adults, I respond and engage with the concerns of my students. I can hear the reflections and emotions of the message from people and the contents of such processes. As such, better supervisors are ready to listen to ideas and criticisms. Reference Nelson, D. Quick, C. (2010). Organizational Behavior: Science, the Real World, and You. New York: NY. Cengage Learning.

Legal Punishments Free Essays

The two broadest types of rationales for punishment are retributive and utilitarian. Retributive rationale aims at punishing the criminal for the crime committed against the victim. This approach seems a little dubious since it calls for ‘an-eye-for-an-eye’ attitude towards the criminal. We will write a custom essay sample on Legal Punishments or any similar topic only for you Order Now Utilitarian perspective calls for solutions that hurt the smallest number of people or benefit the greatest number. Thus, the punishment according to the utilitarian perspective should be modelled in such a way as to benefit the victim and others mostly and to reduce crime rate at present and in the future. For instance, if the criminal is put in prison, he or she will not be able to commit crimes for the time spent in captivity. Deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation are the most popular utilitarian rationales for penalties imposed upon criminals. Deterrence means that punishment is imposed upon the criminal in order to discourage this person and others seeing this example from perpetrating crimes in the future. Incapacitation means depriving criminal of the ability to commit offences as through capital punishment or incarceration. Rehabilitation aims at reforming the criminal, empowering the person to return to normal social life. 2. Support three-strike laws through a retributive rationale and then through a utilitarian rationale. The retributive rationale, in my view, does not work very well for three-strike laws that allow life sentences for repeat offenders. If the person committing a repeat crime has already done time for this crime, there is no reason to impose an enhanced punishment for the new offence. Three-strike legislation was caused by â€Å"the problem of a significant percentage of crimes committed by people who previously have committed crimes† (Harary 2003). The laws aim to incapacitate these criminals by taking them off the street and to deter other repeat offences   through the threat of the life sentence. Rehabilitation is not the reason since criminals are not supposed to get back to society. References Harary, C.J.   (2003, April 4). Incarceration as a Modality of Punishment. Jewish Law. Retrieved on October 7, 2005 from http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/ch_incarceration.html. Hoff, S.B. (n.d.). Review of: Pojman, L. Reiman, S. (1998). The Death Penalty: For And Against. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1998. Law and Politics Book Review, 9(9), 384-386. How to cite Legal Punishments, Essay examples

Greek Mythology (1019 words) Essay Example For Students

Greek Mythology (1019 words) Essay Greek MythologyGreek Mythology, beliefs and ritual observances of the ancient Greeks, who became the first Western civilization about 2000 BC. It consists mainly of a body of diverse stories and legends about a variety of gods. Greek mythology had become fully developed by about the 700s BC. Three classic collections of myths-Theogony by the poet Hesiod and the Iliad and the Odyssey by the poet Homer-appeared at about that time. Greek mythology has several distinguishing characteristics. The Greek gods resembled humans in form and showed human feelings. Unlike ancient religions such as Hinduism or Judaism, Greek mythology did not involve special revelations or spiritual teachings. It also varied widely in practice and belief, with no formal structure, such as a church government, and no written code, such as a sacred book. Principal Gods The Greeks believed that the gods chose Mount Olympus, in a region of Greece called Thessaly, as their home. On Olympus, the gods formed a society that ranked them in terms of authority and powers. However, the gods could roam freely, and individual gods became associated with three main domains-the sky or heaven, the sea, and earth. The 12 chief gods, usually called the Olympians, were Zeus, Hera, Hephaestus, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Hestia, Hermes, Demeter, and Poseidon. Zeus was the head of the gods, and the spiritual father of gods and people. His wife, Hera, was the queen of heaven and the guardian of marriage. Other gods associated with heaven were Hephaestus, god of fire and metalworkers; Athena, goddess of wisdom and war; and Apollo, god of light, poetry, and music. Artemis, goddess of wildlife and the moon; Ares, god of war; and Aphrodite, goddess of love, were other gods of heaven. They were joined by Hestia, goddess of the hearth; and Hermes, messenger of the gods and ruler of science and invention. Poseidon was the ruler of the sea who, with his wife Amphitrite, led a group of less important sea gods, such as the Nereids and Tritons. Demeter, the goddess of agriculture, was associated with the earth. Hades, an important god but not generally considered an Olympian, ruled the underworld, where he lived with his wife, Persephone. The underworld was a dark and mournful place located at the center of the earth. It was populated by the souls of people who had died. Dionysus, god of wine and pleasure, was among the most popular gods. The Greeks devoted many festivals to this earthly god, and in some regions he became as important as Zeus. He often was accompanied by a host of fanciful gods, including satyrs, centaurs, and nymphs. Satyrs were creatures with the legs of a goat and the upper body of a monkey or human. Centaurs had the head and torso of a man and the body of a horse. The beautiful and charming nymphs haunted woods and forests. Worship and Beliefs Greek mythology emphasized the weakness of humans in contrast to the great and terrifying powers of nature. The Greeks believed that their gods, who were immortal, controlled all aspects of nature. So the Greeks acknowledged that their lives were completely dependent on the good will of the gods. In general, the relations between people and gods were considered friendly. But the gods delivered severe punishment to mortals who showed unacceptable behavior, such as indulgent pride, extreme ambition, or even excessive prosperity. The mythology was interwoven with every aspect of Greek life. Each city devoted itself to a particular god or group of gods, for whom the citizens often built temples of worship. They regularly honored the gods in festivals, which high officials supervised. At festivals and other official gatherings, poets recited or sang great legends and stories. Many Greeks learned about the gods through the words of poets. .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 , .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 .postImageUrl , .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 , .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096:hover , .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096:visited , .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096:active { border:0!important; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096:active , .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096 .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .udb8b5b374ad90d4a29865bebe3afc096:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Cleopatra - Queen of Egypt EssayGreeks also learned about the gods by word of mouth at home, where worship was common. Different parts of the home were dedicated to certain gods, and people offered prayers to those gods at regular times. An altar of Zeus, for example, might be placed in the courtyard, while Hestia was ritually honored at the hearth. Although the Greeks had no official church organization, they universally honored certain holy places. Delphi, for example, was a holy site dedicated to Apollo. A temple built at Delphi contained an oracle, or prophet, whom brave travelers questioned about the future. A group of priests represented each of the holy sites. These priests, who also might be community officials, interpreted the words of the gods but did not possess any special knowledge or power. In addition to prayers, the Greeks often offered sacrifices to the gods, usually of a domestic animal such as a goat. Origins Greek mythology probably developed from the primitive religions of the people of Crete, an island in the Aegean Sea where the regions first civilization arose about 3000 BC. These people believed that all natural objects had spirits, and that certain objects, or fetishes, had special magical powers. Over time, these beliefs developed into a set of legends involving natural objects, animals, and gods with a human form. Some of these legends survived as part of classical Greek mythology. The ancient Greeks themselves offered some explanations for the development of their mythology. In Sacred History, Euhemerus, a mythographer from the 300s BC, recorded the widespread belief that myths were distortions of history and the gods were heroes who had been glorified over time. The philosopher Prodicus of Ceos taught during the 400s BC that the gods were personifications of natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, winds, and water. Herodotus, a Greek historian who lived during the 400s BC, believed that many Greek rituals were inherited from the Egyptians. As Greek civilization developed, particularly during the Hellenistic period, which began about 323 BC, the mythology also changed. New philosophies and the influence of neighboring civilizations caused a gradual modification of Greek beliefs. However, the essential characteristics of the Greek gods and their legends remain unchanged. See Also Aegean Civilization. BibliographyGreek Mythology, Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mythology

Significance of travel in Bashos Narrow Road Through the Backcountry free essay sample

Waldo Ralph Emerson said Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not. In Bashos Narrow Road through the Backcountry, exactly this sentiment is realized in the literary capture of North Japans natural beauties on his journey for poetic enlightenment and motivation. This work is the story of the journey that Basho began near the end of his life in order to attain inspiration for writing poetry, specifically in haiku-type forms. Bashos chosen path mirrored that of Saigyo, a well respected monk and poet, which ran through the locations of residence and inspiration of various other notable Japanese poets and writers. The travel tale has long been held in high public regard and is widely known as one of the most iconic pieces of Japanese literature. Basho had a fascination with nature and a rare bond with his surroundings, but by pursuing the trail first blazed by Japanese poets of old, Saigyo in particular, Basho hoped to perfect his art and find inspiration by connecting to the locations of those poets inspiration from long before, and had a much greater impact than one could have predicted. We will write a custom essay sample on Significance of travel in Bashos Narrow Road Through the Backcountry or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page One of the early encounters with a place formerly associated with a past figure that Basho describes poetically is the arrival to the Sunlit Mountain, Nikko. Basho explains that the mountain was named Nikko by Master Kukai, a monk who started a temple on this mountain. Basho also explains the significance of the mountains name and tells of how he feels Kukai has in a way predicted and blessed their trip. Observing the mountain exemplifies what Basho is trying to accomplish on this journey as he quickly scribbles down a self-admittedly simple and quick verse. Though simple, this is exactly what Basho is looking for: an opportunity to observe what inspired the poets of old, which gives him the motivation to write. The works of Kukai had given him the basis for which to write upon. The haiku reads yes, how brilliant! /green leaves, young leaves/luminous within and without Kukai having named the mountain as the Sunlit Mountain, Basho would have never had the inspiration to write about the luminosity of the scene. Though no direct credit to Kukai or the mountain is mentioned in the poem, there is a direct link to both. At Unganji, Basho is inspired to write about the hut of his former Zen meditation teacher, Butcho. A slightly melancholy haiku is written about the vacant, decrepit hut. This is a deep and emotional example of the inspiration that Basho sought. Evident in his haiku is the sadness from the lost connection to his Zen master alongside the majesty of the place which he is writing about, which combine for a beautiful piece of poetry. By no other force than by physically being at the site of the hut could a poem like that have been composed. Travel not only allows Basho to connect with the site which he is describing, but alsoin a more ethereal waywith his mentors and those who preceded him. Most renown of these predecessor poets is Saigyo, whom Basho modeled his path after. Along the way, various of Saigyos poetic inspirations and sites are mentioned and seen by Basho. Basho is particularly excited by one of these moving sites; the willow tree. In the eyes of Basho, Saigyo has been immortalized in this tree and thus, standing in the shadow of the willows leaves and branches is like standing in the shadow of one of the great muses. This is a particularly rewarding experience for him, as Saigyo is his guide and truest predecessor. This is reflected in the excitement of his writing about the experience of standing in his shadow. Various other times throughout Bashos text, Saigyos writings are referenced to help describe scenes about which Saigyo did not specifically write, which speaks to Bashos keeping of Saigyos writings and path in his mind throughout his journey. A connection which is undeniably deeper than that with any other poet is made with Saigyo because of this. Various other poets and their inspirations are mentioned throughout The Narrow Road Through the Backcountry: the Shirakawa checkpoint written about by Kanemori and Noin, and depicted in paintings by Kiyosuke and others, the twin pines in Takekuma, written about by Noin, the sites of old poetic inspiration which Kaemon tours Basho and Sora through, and a plethora of others. All of these sites possess their own feeling and give Basho unique motivations. Some of the places provide morose poetic inspiration, for which Basho is commonly known, while others cause the poet to drift away from his common tone and write in a much more upbeat manner; a testament to the true power of the natural beauty of Japan and impact of historical poets on Basho. This variety calls to the different inspirations which Basho was seeking. Instead of maintaining a stagnant style, as many of the less-travelled poets would have, Bashos journey allows him to not only write about sights that he would have never otherwise experienced, but it also allows him to connect with other writing styles that he ordinarily may not have explored, causing a stark development of his own writing style. A common thread in all of Bashos inspirational writers, as pointed out by Haruo Shirane in the essay Double Voices and Bashos Haikai in Kerkhams Matsuo Bashos Poetic Spaces: Exploring Haikai Intersections, is that all of these writers are considered to be reclusive poets. Though the Genji (the famous lovers), Ariwara no Narihira and Ono no Komachi were all well recognized and loved for their classical images in Japan, Basho aligned more with these less-renown, reclusive poets (Kerkham 111). This points to his history in Zen meditation and his monk-like lifestyle. Bashos journey connects several of the residences of the recluse poets that he idealized before and allows him to unite the poetic forms and pasts of these poets into his own. By giving credit to these poetic predecessors in his works, Basho also changed the way that the ancients were perceived in Japan; causing the known poetic standards to shift from the classic writers of old to the reclusive writers Basho modeled (111). This shows the impact of not only the poets on Basho, but his effect on their legacies and the subsequent shift in future Japanese literature as a result. One of the major differences between Basho and the poets he follows is that Basho does not have the religious concerns of actually being a Buddhist monk, which allows him to write more freely. The religious poets had to be concerned with the Buddhist principles of renouncing the phenomenal world in which we live, while that often times met with the conflict of their love for the splendor of nature; this is particularly true of Saigyo (67-68). In a way, then, Basho was able to take up the task that the priest poets likely would have enjoyed taking on, in being able to truly describe the full impact of nature. By the culmination of the text, Basho provides haikus with a much different and generally upbeat tone, which speaks to his spiritual and intellectual enlightenment and overall shift in writing attitude and style. This enlightenment has been primarily generated by the writings of past poets and their inspirations, as evidenced by his poetry, which nearly always honors the writings and poets who wrote there before him, at some level. Bashos questing for inspiration had much larger implications than just his self-development into a recognized poet, as it caused a dramatic change in the perception of classic Japanese literature and had a monumental impact on the future of Japanese texts. A path once blazed in the spirit of exploration and inspiration is again used by Basho in the same means, but to a drastically different ends, largely due to the ability of the ancients to inspire and help him develop his art into a form that led to wide acceptance and yielded recognition for those ancients.

Interim Report of the Factors Influencing the Success of Community Tourism in South Africa Essays

Interim Report of the Factors Influencing the Success of Community Tourism in South Africa Essays Interim Report of the Factors Influencing the Success of Community Tourism in South Africa Essay Interim Report of the Factors Influencing the Success of Community Tourism in South Africa Essay Submitted to: ACTS South Africa PO Box 13911 Mowbray South Africa 7705 South Africa 30 November 2009 Submitted by: FinnGroup Ltd Group 3 Helin Henrietta 09163185 Makinen Outi 07083938 Raudaskoski Heli 09163176 Tuominen Katja-Mirjami 07084112 Introduction In this consultancy report we will discuss about the concepts of community tourism and pro-poor tourism and their sustainability both in general and in the context of South Africa. The first section of the report introduces sustainable tourism development and its current trends. The next section discusses community tourism and pro-poor tourism; their connection to sustainable tourism development. After the general theory, the report moves on to discuss these issues in the context of tourism in South Africa. It will consider the tourism policy framework and practises to date. We will critically analyse the positive and negative aspects of tourism development in local communities as well as in general level in South Africa. After the main body of the report we will make carefully considered recommendations for future policy making and practises of sustainable tourism development in the destination. c. The meaning of sustainable tourism development: a critical analysis of current trends (Raudaskoski Heli) The concept of sustainable tourism development has become a widely accepted practice in tourism industry worldwide within the last decade (Sharpley, 2000). As tourism industry continues to grow, the importance of integrating sustainable approach with tourism development becomes extremely necessary (UNEP WHO, 2005). Especially the growth of mass tourism has led to many problems including environmental, social and cultural dimensions (Mowforth Munt, 2009). The importance of sustainable travel and tourism was recognized in tourism-related literature in the early 1990’s (Cohen, 2002). Many of the world’s tourists are seeking to visit well-preserved historical and cultural attractions in destinations that are located in authentic, clean and fragile environments (UNEP WHO, 2005). In order to secure the industry’s future, the tenets of sustainability should be included in the tourism development; tourism policymaking and practice. (Cohen, 2002) In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Tourism Organization defined that the aims of sustainable tourism development are to minimize the negative impacts that tourism has on the destinations’ local environments as well as to increase the benefits of the industry growth in the communities (UNEP WHO, 2005). . A critical overview of community tourism and pro-poor tourism as sustainable approaches to tourism development in the developing world (Makinen Outi) Community tourism gives a possibility to local people to get involved in tourism business by offering tours and activities in the destination and develop the sustainable tourism. (Mann, 2000) The requisite is that the community is surrounded by the physical environment and it reflects to local economic activities and lifestyles. S ingh et al, 2003) Locals are benefiting from the tourism in many ways such as being part of the decision-making, ownership and receiving profits from any tourism ventures. According to United Nations, â€Å"the most sustainable form of tourism will be achieved when local people take control of their lives and determine to live according to their traditions on their own terms. † (2001, pp. 11) Policy and regulations, funding, planning and education are the key components in achieving the sustainability in community tourism according to Choi Sirakaya’s research results in 2005. Richard and Hall assert that there is no sustainable tourism development without community sustainability. Communities need to support themselves on the basis of available resources such as the environment globally and locally. (2000) Pro-poor tourism gives poor people a possibility to actively participate in tourism. (Ashley, et al. , 2001) The degree of control is significant element of sustainability and the debate is how local communities should be involved in the sustainable development of tourism in their area. If sustainable tourism development is successful, it may help pro-poor tourism to reduce the poverty in different levels. (Mowforth Munt, 2003) To achieve the sustainable tourism in poor regions tourism development needs to be well planned and managed and the overall environmental quality needs to be maintained and improved. Poverty reduction impacts should be taken into consideration when assessing sustainability. (WTO, 2002) e. Community tourism and pro-poor tourism in South Africa: a critical review of practice to date (Helin Henrietta) In 1996 the government of South Africa published the White Paper on the Development and Promotion of Tourism which set frameworks for South Africa’s new tourism policy. (Richards Wilson, 2007) The White Paper identifies that community-based tourism has a lot of potential on developing South Africa’s economy and implies many examples of community participation possibilities. It also recognises the difficulties of community tourism, for example a lack of awareness, lack of information or training and lack of access to finance. Hughes Vaughan, 2001) Over the last decade there have been major changes in tourism development and actions in community tourism and pro-poor tourism have become more common. The government and the private sector have created many strategies to improve country’s tourism opportunities. (Spenceley, 2003) One of the most noticeable changes in South Africa has been the founding of a community tourism body. (Hughes Vaughan, 2001) In order to ex plore pro-poor tourism in South Africa, five private sector tourism companies’ performance in economic, social and environmental sustainability was reviewed during 2001-2002. These five companies have used several pro-poor strategies including employment opportunities, business opportunities and material donations. (Spenceley Seif, 2003) There are also a number of critical issues affecting the viability of pro-poor tourism strategies: even though partnerships with private sector can be beneficial for host communities, it means that local communities cannot be in control of tourism in the area. (Singh, et al. , 2003) In some cases the benefits of these partnerships are really low at a household level. Spenceley, 2003) The positive impacts of small tourism enterprises in relation to the amount of people are not felt by many and poor people and pro-poor tourism products are in remote areas with poor infrastructure. (Spenceley Seif, 2003) f. A critical overview of provision and trends in South African tourism since 1994, including a review of the policy framework (Tuominen Katja-Mirjami) South African policies are based on the legal and political context fo llowing the country’s first democratic elections in 1994. Spenceley Seif, 2003) South Africa has aimed to build a post-apartheid heritage since 1994 through establishment of local museums and new heritage trails; (Hughes, 2006) alleviation of poverty within disadvantaged areas and sustainable economic development are the cornerstones of new policies in the post-apartheid South Africa. (Spenceley Seif, 2003) The White Paper of 1996 recognised tourism as an important tool for economic development emphasising community based tourism initiatives; however what constitutes â€Å"community based tourism† is not clearly defined. Hughes Vaughan, 2001) Catering, accommodation, services and attractions are considered suitable sectors for community-based tourism initiatives; in urban areas historic and political sites will also have an important role. (Hughes Vaughan, 2001) Apartheid-period policies still overshadow the tourism industry; although as a tourism destination South Africa is very attractive, many tourists feel the impact of the past policies and are unwilling to visit. (Government of South Africa, 1996) Since 1994 South Africa has seen a vast increase in the number of international tourists and domestic visitors. Hughes, 2006) The private sector consists of large-scale sites such as the Apartheid Museum and Voortrekker Monument and â€Å"small-scale recreations of ‘tradition’†, cultural villages and township tours. (Hughes, 2006:279) The tours and cultural villages are the main forms of community tourism in South Africa; as private initiatives they are largely geared towards the foreign visitor market. (Hughes, 2006) Provisional statement Terms sustainability, sustainable development, tourism development, sustainable tourism, pro-poor tourism and community tourism and the policy framework are discussed more detailed in the final report. After going through different sources of sustainable tourism development, community and pro-poor tourism in general and in the case of South Africa we have identified few preliminary recommendations to be made in the destination. As discussed earlier in the report, there have been difficulties in defining many terms related to sustainable tourism development. There should be clear definitions and understandings between different stakeholders in order to make South African tourism truly sustainable. With effective planning, communities could benefit more from tourism. Local communities should have more control over tourism development instead of the private sector. In one hand, the local communities need support of the private sector but on the other hand the private sector should not interfere too much, as it makes the local communities feel that they are not in control of tourism in their communities. It is important to include the locals into tourism business. Another problem in South Africa is that some of the pro-poor tourism products are located in remote areas; therefore there is a need for better infrastructure and access to these areas. Bibliography Ashley et al (2001) Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies: Making Tourism work for the Poor, Nottingham: The Russell Press Choi, H. C. Sirakaya, E. (2006) Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism, Tourism Management 27, 1274-1289 Cohen, E (2002) Authenticity, Equity and Sustainability in Tourism, Journal of sustainable tourism 10 (4), 267-276 Government of South Africa, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (1996) â€Å"The Development and Promotion of Tourism in South Africa†, South African Government Information, info. gov. a/whitepapers/1996/tourism. htm#1. 1 [Accessed 19/10/09] Hughes, H. (2006) â€Å"Rainbow, renaissance, tribes and townships: Tourism and heritage in South Africa Since 1994† in Buhlungu, S. , Daniel, J. Southall, R. (Eds) State of the nation, Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council, pp. 266-287 Hughes, H. Vaughan, A. (2001) Community Tourism in the New South Africa: A Presentation to Tourism Studies, University of Derby Mann, M. (2000), the Community Tourism Guide, London: Earthscan Singh, S. et al (2003), Tourism in Destination Communities, Oxon Cambridge USA: Cabi Publishing Mowforth, M Munt, I. (2003) Tourism and Sustainability: Development, globalization and new tourism in the Third World, second edition, London: Routledge Mowforth, M. Munt, I. (2009) Tourism and Sustainability: Development, globalization and new tourism in the Third World, third edition. London: Routledge Richard, G. Hall, D. (2000) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development, London: Routledge Richards, G. Wilson, J. (2007) Tourism, creativity and development London: Routledge Schianetz, K. ; Kavanagh, L. Lockington, D. 2007) Concepts and Tools for Comprehensive Sustainability Assessments for Tourism Destinations: A Comparative Review, Journal of sustainable tourism 15 (4), 369-389 Sharpley, R. (2000) Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the theoretical device, Journal of sustainable tourism 8 (1), 1- 19 Spenceley, A. (2003) â€Å"Tourism, local livelihoods and the private sector in South Africa: case studies on the growing role of the private sector in natural resources Management†, Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Research Paper 8, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies Spenceley, A. Seif, J. (2003) â€Å"PPT working paper no. 11: Strategies, impacts and costs of pro-poor tourism approaches in South Africa†, Pro-poor Tourism, propoortourism. org. uk/11_South_Africa. pdf [Accessed 19/10/09 United Nations Environment Programme World Tourism Organization (2005) Making Tourism More Suitable: a guide for Policy Makers United Nations (2001) Managing Sustainable Tourism Development, New York: United Nations, p 11 World Tourism Organisation, (2002) Tourism and the Poverty Alleviation, WTO

5 Publishing Lessons I Learned Working With a Professional Marketer

5 Publishing Lessons I Learned Working With a Professional Marketer 5 Publishing Lessons I Learned Working With a Professional Marketer As a life-long fan of classic science fiction as well as emerging new voices from the genre, Fabrice Stephan's underlying passion is the exploration of technology through fiction, which he shares in his latest novel, Human Starpilots. In this post, he talks about the five biggest lessons he learned about publishing by working with a professional marketer.For indie authors, it’s a no-brainer that publishing is a challenge. Where you work as a teacher, in business, or any other trade, selling books is a brand new world.Anyone who’s already been through the process will tell you that writing is only half the work, while editing, publishing, and marketing makes the other half. Some publishing books might give you a â€Å"fool proof† recipe for success. And on some account, they are right: publishing a book on Amazon or other platforms is easy and fast. But once your book is up there, you’re lost in a crowd of other writers who have little to no sales. There mi ght not be a cost in publishing your book on Amazon, but, in this case there’s no gain, either.This was the point I had reached when I turned to Reedsy to find a professional marketer. I had published two nonfiction books and was in the process of publishing my new science fiction novel. The first two had been downloaded about 200 times, but hadn’t received any reviews or ratings - nice but limited progress that I had achieved using both Kindle Countdown Deals and price promotions via different websites. I wanted to give my third novel more of a chance to reach people.So I turned to Reedsy with a clear request in mind: I wanted professional help with launching my book. And I also wanted to learn more about the trade of book marketing in general. I found marketer Mark Leslie Lefebvre, who met my needs exactly and who went above and beyond my expectations in regards to showing me the ropes.Let’s take a tour of some of the lessons I learned along the way. Is working with a professional marketer worth it for indie authors? Join the discussion here. Lesson 1: Patience is a virtueWhen it comes to promoting your book, what you need to do is engage in consistent, small-scale promotional efforts that earn you as much money as they cost - and then to increase your investments as you make progress.In this way, promoting your book is a game of patience - and requires you to set lots of long-term groundwork before you start earning profits. Those profits might not come with your first book. With the second book you publish, you will build on your author brand. With the third, you’ll have more to offer potential readers. With the fourth,   fifth, sixth, etc - you will continue to build upon (and reap rewards from) your promotional efforts.So be patient, and stick it out for the long haul.Lesson 2: Reviews are keyOf course, the more the merrier when it comes to finding readers. However, when you’re just getting started in your publishing career, you do also want to be strategic about who you’re marketing to so th at you can attract the right kind of readers: in other words, readers who enjoy your genre, who are already looking to read a book like yours, and who will, therefore, be more likely to leave a positive review.For example, someone who reads mostly militaristic sci fi might not be interested in pure adventure sci fi without any space battles. If you advertise to them and they’re let down by your book, you’re more likely to receive a negative review.That’s where refining your target market plays a big role, and Mark helped me do that in spades - as you’ll see in the next three points.Lesson 3: Your cover needs to provide key informationI don’t think I need to tell other indie authors how important a good cover is. What Mark stressed with me is that you don’t only want your cover to attract the attention of readers, but the right readers: the kind of readers who will enjoy your book and leave reviews. Therefore, your cover should immediately g ive readers an idea of your book’s genre and it’s story. Lesson 4: Get your author bio rightMark also helped me work on my author bio to make it more personal, professional, and informative.Before... I have been trained as an engineer and I work, by day, in computer science since 1996. I have already published technical books on computer science. Fan of science fiction, both of the great classics and of the new voices, this is my first full-fledged novel. I was born in the USA, I lived in France, Denmark and Australia and I have settled now in Macon, France, close to Burgundy with my wife and my two kids.After... Fabrice Stephan is an engineer and is the author of multiple technical books on computer science. As a life-long fan of classic science fiction as well as emerging new voices from the genre, his underlying passion is the exploration of technology through fiction, which he shares in his novel Human Starpilots.Partially inspired by the classic Robert Heinlein novel Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, Stephan’s debut novel Human Star pilots explores a future world, where, desperate to escape ecological disaster on earth, humankind’s fate relies on the investment in a unique and limited group of only six pilots capable of surviving the training of managing hyperspace jumps learned from a borrowed Alien technology.And, if the risks and challenges these brave pilots faces wasn’t enough, contact and collaboration with the Alien Federation begins to reveal even more surprises.When he is not exploring other worlds through science fiction, or computer technology through his work, Fabrice Stephan has traversed much of the globe. Born in the USA, he has lived in France, Denmark and Australia before settling in Macon, near the border of Burgundy, with his wife and two kids.Lesson 5: Your blurb should target your audienceMark and I also reworked my blurb to make it more efficient and direct, and to ensure it spoke to my target readers.Before... In 2130, Earth ecology is failing fast. Its inhabitants are dying and the governments are hard pressed to contain the disaster. So when an Alien Federation suddenly contacts Earth and offers assistance, everyone jumps on it. There are further surprises: those aliens prove, once their DNA analysed, to be distant cousin from us. The Federation will provide to Earth advanced technology and support against the climate change with a single condition: To trade among stars, they need pilots capable of managing hyperspace jumps and only rare humans have what it takes to survive the training and become one. To receive support, Earth has to find and provide starpilots to take its share of the load. After a careful selection, six are chosen to fly to the far away planet Adheek. There, they will try to learn their new trade. If they fail, Earth will collapse. If they succeed, it may have a chance. But no one has prepared them to what they will face to gain that chance.This debut novel was inspired by the classic â€Å"Have space suit, will travel† fro m R Heinlein and by the science-fiction work from LE Modesitt. It is a tale of adventure in a far land, of going beyond one’s own limits.After... Only augmented pilots can cross space. But at what cost? In 2130, Earth’s ecology is failing fast. Its inhabitants are dying and the governments are hard pressed to contain the disaster. An Alien Federation contacts Earth and offers assistance. We accept their offer to trade among the stars and receive their support. In exchange, they aliens, who prove to be distant cousins, need pilots capable of managing hyperspace jumps and only rare humans have the right genes and capacities to withstand them. After a careful selection, six are chosen to fly to the far away planet Adheek. There, they will compete with students from other planets to try and learn their new trade. If they fail, Earth will collapse. If they succeed, it may have a chance. But no one has prepared them to what they will face next. If you want to recapture that sense of wonder from reading Robert Heinlein’s â€Å"Have space suit, will travel† and the tale of adventure and going beyond one’s own limit from L.E. Modesitt Jr, then you won’t want to miss this thought provoking novel. The 5 major lessons I learned working a professional marketer. #indieauthor In the end, working with Mark totally changed my perspective on selling books. Time, consistency, targeting, focus, and forbearance - these are all elements you need. And only a professional can help you settle in the rhythm you need to survive the publishing world.

The Role of the United Nations in Conflict Management During the Cold Research Proposal

The Role of the United Nations in Conflict Management During the Cold War Era - Research Proposal Example As the war progressed, it became reorganized and other countries joined resulting in a military that was made up of seventy million personnel who were drawn from different warring countries. Stevenson (2004) noted that this war was referred to as the first deadliest war in history and it resulted in the death of 9 million people. The second major World War to have occurred in the World’s history is the Second World War that took place between the periods of 1939 to 1945, and it involved two opposing alliances namely the Axis and the Allies, which comprised of over thirty different countries. This Second World War ended with the highest number of fatalities who were placed in the range of fifty to eighty-five million people and it was caused by more or less the same factors that also caused the Second World War. McMahon wrote that after the Second World War, there was great tension primarily between the Soviet Union and the United States, which lasted between the periods of 1947 to 1991. This war was characterized by high levels of tension between the two conflicting sides and there was also mutual suspicion among the two enemies. According to Friedman, the United States, and the Soviet Union, which at that time were regarded as the World’s superpowers were engaged in the Cold War mainly because of economic and political difference between the two countries, as the US was pro-democracy while the Soviet Union was pro-communism. This present research study will focus on the Cold War, which is referred to as â€Å"cold† because of the fact that there were no incidences of large-scale fighting. In particular, this research study will seek to investigate the role that the United Nations played in managing the conflict that was associated with the Cold War considering that it was simply formed after the Second World War on 24th October 1945 to foster international co-operation.

In what ways does Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut and the ones who walk Coursework

In what ways does Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut and the ones who walk away from the omelasLeGuin does dystopian works - Coursework Example Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. and The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula Le Guin are two examples of dystopian works. In both these stories, the authors give descriptions of futuristic societies that are majorly characterized by the concepts of perfection and equality. In Harrison Bergeron for instance, the author describes a futuristic society of 2081 in which the government has put controls in place to enhance equality in the society. In this society, no one is supposed to have an advantage over the other. Similarly, in The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, the story describes the peace, happiness and abundance enjoyed by the people of the city of Omelas, and the cots the society has to pay to enjoy these fortunes. In both stories, elements of dystopian societies are evident. In the story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, the concept of a dystopian society is well brought out by the author’s description of the child that lives in a room with one door and no window. According to the author, the child has been neglected, and as a result, he may have become an imbecile due to poor nutrition and neglect. The people of Omela know that this child is suffering in the tiny room, and even some of them have come to see the child. However, they know that the child has to be there because all the things they enjoy- happiness, friendships, health of their children, good harvest- all depend on the child’s suffering. This is what is usually told to children whenever they get to the age of understanding. This is a clear illustration of a dystopian society in which propaganda is used to manipulate the people. In dystopian society, propaganda is used to control the citizens, just is the case in Omela. In addition, the author shows that even those who sympa thize with the child are afraid to do anything or leave the city. This is also an illustration of

The Marketing Strategies In The Toyota Company Essay Example for Free

The Marketing Strategies In The Toyota Company Essay Toyota Company for the past many years have been known for its quality products and reliability. But the very creativity of Toyota in its businesses and projects which touches every aspect of life was hardly seen by the people. It is when the company tried to create an image for themselves showcasing their eco-friendly activities like participation in motor sports and also practiced corporate philanthropic acts. Toyota managed to develop great principles and philosophies which helped in the manufacturing of the various exclusive models of the Toyota Production System. Toyota’s success of the tools and the technologies is due to the following 4 P’s model which they follow very rigidly. Philosophy à   The company philosophy states that they have to drive the market by satisfying the stakeholders of the company who are customers, society at large, community and its associates. Process à   Following the right kind of process will yield better results in the short term and long term improvement process. People and Partners à   More skilled and confident people who have the zeal to learn and grow in the company help and value the organization success. Problem Solving à   Organizational learning and experiences take place only if there is a control mechanism for solving the problems and the issues. Continuous improvement is still a better option which has been opted for. Toyota designs its strategies based on the concept of breaking down the jobs to develop specific work assignments which would be provided to the respective audience who will have the effectiveness in performing the task. Training processes needs to be sharpened by Toyota to meet up to its expectations. Toyota believes in developing the people by its rigorous and continuous problem solving mechanism which is in place. Toyota since 2003 has been considered as the world’s second carmaker lagging behind GMC. With the attractive designs in its technology, Toyota has been regarded as the best among the auto consumers across the globe. It has made the reputation and brand not only for its attractive designs in the vehicles but because of its affordable prices, branding process and the marketing techniques that have been followed. It has been successful in being different from other automakers because of the differential pricing mechanism. The segmentation and the targeting measures have been streamlined in way that each customer’s needs and wants have been effectively satisfied. Toyota uses a strong definition to describe its business entity by marketing its business line as being fuel efficient, environmentally friendly and having better quality products and also it marketed as being a funny and entertaining in terms of its promotional campaigns. Although Toyota gained enough revenue because of this unique selling proposition, still the masses considered it as only a fun company. Hence it decided to start up a new brand named Lexus targeting the luxury car market which it thought of marketing as a separate company with no relation to Toyota. This project was successful because of it better customer support services and a strong distribution network. Despite all the innovativeness shown, Toyota faced a crunch and a problem in their Demographic segmentation with reference to the age factor. It targeted an average age to be 47 as compared to the industry average to be 45 and hence choose to design a marketing campaign for the youth segment to influence them in buying Toyota products. Thus it started manufacturing and designing sports utility and youthful models to target the younger youth segment. To make this youth project a success it promoted its products on youth oriented media like MTV, sports channels; highlighting its brand philosophy on the websites in a flamboyant and a loud manner and by sponsoring various live programs. They were so practical and disciplined in their marketing tactics that they followed the concept of no negotiation in their prices and also providing no pressure on the customers to force their buying there by encouraging vehicle customization for its customers to enforce their purchase decision. The success of Toyota is regarded for its ability to identify the newer growth opportunities thereby achieving greater market development and product development thus capturing them in a timely phased manner. It also concentrated on downsizing wherever required so as to minimize on the resources which did not produce results. The unique characteristics of Toyota’s marketing strategies is that it has kept aside the traditional marketing tactics like surveys or focus groups or case studies but has adopted techniques like participating in parties, clubs, art galleries :thus helping in creating a balanced rapport with the youth. Toyota felt that the marketers shouldn’t use marketing gimmicks to attract the customers but to devise strategies which convey the messages in a straightforward, authentic and undemanding manner. Publicizing their product range in music CDs was another plus point for the company. Websites were the point of grievance handling and a focal point for providing feedback and suggestions in an interactive manner. Toyota thus has created a niche for themselves because of its economies of scale, global brand name and highly equipped and skilled engineers, all of which have been contributed in the best manner to showcase the company positively. References: Cina, M. (2002). â€Å"Toyota Uses Unique Marketing Strategy For Scion.† Retrieved on April 4, 2008, from Popular Mechanics Web site: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1270196.html Liker, J. Et al (2005). â€Å"The Toyota Way Fieldbook† 1st Ed, New York: McGraw Hill. Wittens, S. Et al (2006). â€Å"Toyota: Developing Strategies for Growth† Retrieved on April 4, 2008, from Life in Motion Web site: http://lifeinmotion.wordpress.com/2006/12/23/%E2%80%9Ctoyota-developing-strategies-for-growth%E2%80%9D/

A Sociological and Psychological Assessment of Crime and Deviance Essay

A Sociological and Psychological Assessment of Crime and Deviance   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The sociology of deviance is the sociological study of deviant behavior, or the recognized violation of cultural norms. Cultural Norms are society's propensity towards certain ideals; their aversion from others; and their standard, ritualistic practices. Essentially the 'norm' is a summation of typical activities and beliefs of group of people. There are various Sociological deviance theories, including Structuralist: why do some people break the rules? , Marxists: who makes the rules, and who benefits from their enforcement?, and Interactionist: How did this person become processed (labeled) as a deviant?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Sociology asserts that deviance is problematic, yet essential and intrinsic to any conception of Social Order. It is problematic because it disrupts but is essential because it defines the confines of our shared reality. It is intrinsic to a conception of order in that defining what is real and expected, defining what is acceptable, and defining who we are always is done in opposition to what is unreal, unexpected, or unacceptable. Sociologically, deviance can be construed as a label used to maintain the power, control, and position of a dominant group.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Deviance is a negotiated order. Deviance violates some groups assumptions about reality (social order). It violates expectations. The definition of deviance defines the threat and allows for containment and control of the threat. The definition of deviance preserves, protects, and defines group interests and in doing so maintains a sense of normalcy. Deviance can consequently be seen as a product of Social Interaction; the result of setting boundaries and limitations, rules and laws, acceptable and unacceptable. "In sum, by deviance I mean one thing and one thing only: behavior or characteristics that some people in a society find offensive or reprehensible and that generates--or would generate if discovered--in these people disapproval, punishment, condemnation of, or hostility toward, the actor or possessor....What we have to know is, deviant to whom?" (Goode, 1994, page 29)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Psychological theories of crime and deviance really only describe the difference between supposedly ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ human characteristics. What constitutes crime or deviance is a value judgment made by humans. The behav... ...ldren that it is okay if they want to be different, or feel that they are because everyone is unique and should not be ashamed of that. The harsher acts of deviance are still looked extremely upon as horrid, and will hopefully never change. What causes a person to act a certain way is, the least to say a controversial topic. It may be from inherited traits, learned from society and family, or even a combination of both. In this case, an exact answer will probably never be known. Sources Cited 1. Becker, Howard S. Overview of Labeling Theories. http://home.ici.net/~ ddemelo/crime/labeling.html. 2. Berg, Irwin A. and Bass, Bernard M. (1961). Conformity and Deviation. New York: Harper and Brothers. 3. Deviance: Behavior that Violates Norms. Http://www.elco.pa.us./ Academics/Social_Studies/Care/ITTP_2/Chap.8.html. 4. Four Categories of Family Functions that Seem to Promote Delinquent Behavior. http://www.mpcc.cc.ne.us/aseffles/delcrslides/ch.09/tsld012. Htm. 5. Lemert, Edwin M. (1972). Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 6. Pfuhl, Erdwin H. Jr. (1980). The Deviance Process. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.

Broken Heart Poem by John Donne

The broken heart is a love poem . In this poem John Donne has a broken heart and he embodies his suffering in a various dramatic ways. As he wants to show us that the grief in love is much more than any other kinds of griefs in life. In the title of the poem John Donne depicts his heart as somethig material such as a broken mirror or glass. So he pointes out that when someone's heart is broken , it makes his life miserable and can not be able to fall in love any more.He also describes how his beloved shattered his heart into a million of pecies. Firstly the broken heart poem is consists of 4 stanzas in ab ab cc dd rhyme. the title of the poem revealed to what extent love kills our soul. The poet takes to his audience and readers as he begins his poem with a strong statement that anyone who disagrees with his argument about love is (stark mad) indicating that we may fall in love quickly but we can not recover from it easily. He adding that he himself suffered from love.When John says (I have had the plague) he do not mean the diseases itself but he means the suffering in love and the effects of broken heart is similar to the plague. Even the one who fall in love for just t an hour,would suffers (decays). He also uses (a flash of powder) to declear the burning of love. In the second stanza John personificates love in cruel imagery as adestroyer,killer or wild fish. Moreover he compares the griefs and suffering in love with other kinds of griefs. rom his point of view ;even other griefs are not selfish as the grief in love moreover other griefs and sadness come to by nature but we go to love by our own will , Johne Donne personificates love by calling it (he) and he also embodies it as agun or cannonball which may kill a whole town or army of soldiers by one shot( by chain'd shot , whole ranks do die) or as wild fish who swallows smaller fish without ant mercy(a tyrant pike) consequently the speaker showed that love has no mercy. In the third stanza the speaker ta lkes about his beloved;the woman who broke his heart.He depicts his miserable love story as he walking into aroom carring his heart and suddenly he sees his beloved ,offering his heart for her but what a disappointment!! She refuses his love, breaking his heart by her rejection. John embodies his heart like a mirror or glass which broke into a lot of sharp pieces. we now deduce that his love is a one- sided love. In the final stanza he tells his audience the negative effect of love on his heart which makes him enable to live his normal live again. His heart's wound never gone, besides keeping it in his breast.He may recollect the pieces of his heart but his heart will never be fixed again( those pieces still,though they not be unite). He concludes his poem by saying that his broken heart can like,wish and admire but he never fall in love again. The tone of the poem is sad and melancholy. In this poem John uses avarious of imagery such as a visual images as in (I saw /a flash of powd er/draws/pieces/ abroken glasses/a hundred lesser faces), auditory images as in(says /swear/ laugh ),gustatory images as in (swallows/chaws). He uses alliteration such as (says /decays ) (say /day) (show /know).We all know that one of John Donne ‘s quality in poet ; his hyperbole as he exaggerates in his feelings and this is declear in his title (broken heart)and his description for his suffering (broken glasses / hundred lesser faces),he also depicts love in the image of destructive tool (the chain'd shot,whole ranks do die) or in awild fish (tyrant pike). As well he uses figure of speech ;metaphore as in (broken heart /trifle is a heart /plague/flash of powder/the tyrant pike) and simile as in (by him as by chain'd shot). To sum up we could deduce some of 17th century –love features and to what extent they hyperbole in their feelings .

Against and for Capital Punishment

SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MORALLY REQUIRED? ACTS, OMISSIONS, AND LIFELIFE TRADEOFFS Cass R. Sunstein* and Adrian Vermeule** Many people believe that the death penalty should be abolished even if, as recent evidence seems to suggest, it has a significant deterrent effect. But if such an effect can be established, capital punishment requires a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment.The familiar problems with capital punishment— potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew—do not require abolition because the realm of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form. Moral objections to the death penalty frequently depend on a sharp distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is misleading in this context because government is a special kind of moral agent.The widespr ead failure to appreciate the life-life tradeoffs potentially involved in capital punishment may depend in part on cognitive processes that fail to treat â€Å"statistical lives† with the seriousness that they deserve. The objection to the act/omission distinction, as applied to government, has implications for many questions in civil and criminal law. INTRODUCTION†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 704 I. EVIDENCE †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 10 II. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: MORAL FOUNDATIONS AND FOUR OBJECTIONS †¦ 716 A. Morality and Death†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢ € ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 717 B. Acts and Omissions †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 719 1. Is the act/omission distinction coherent with respect to government?†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 720 * Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence, the University of Chicago Law School, Department of PoliticalScience, and the College. ** Bernard D. Meltzer Professor of Law, the University of Chicago. The authors thank Larry Alexander, Ron Allen, Richard Berk, Steven Calabresi, Jeffrey Fagan, Robert Hahn, Dan Kahan, Andy Koppelman, Richard Lempert, Steven Levitt, James Liebman, Daniel Markel, Frank Michelman, Tom Miles, Eric Posner, Richard Posner, Joanna Shepherd, William Stuntz, James Sullivan, and Eugene Volokh for helpful suggestions, and Blake Roberts for excellent research assistance and valuable comments.Thanks too to participants in a work-in-progress lunch at the University of Chicago Law School and a constitutional theory workshop at Northwestern University Law School. 703 SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM 704 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:703 2. Is the act/omission distinction morally relevant to capital punishment? †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 724 C. The Arbitrary and Discriminatory Realm of Homicide†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 728 D. Preferable Alternatives and the Principle of Strict Scrutiny†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 32 E. Slipper y Slopes †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 734 F. Deontology and Consequentialism Again†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 737 III. COGNITION AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 740 A. Salience †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 741 B. Acts, Omissions, and Brains†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 741 C. A Famous Argument that Might Be Taken as a Counterargument †¦.. 743 IV.IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE PROBLEMS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 744 A. Threshold Effects (? ) and Regional Variation †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 745 B. International Variation †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 745 C. Offenders and Offenses †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 746 D. Life-Life Tradeoffs and Beyond†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 747 CONCLUSION †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 48 INTRODUCTION Many people believe that capital punishment is morally impermissible. In their view, executions are inherently cruel and barbaric. 1 Often they add that capital punishment is not, and cannot be, imposed in a way that adheres to the rule of law. 2 They contend that, as administered, capital punishment ensures the execution of (some) innocent people and also that it reflects arbitrariness, in the form of random or invidious infliction of the ultimate penalty. 3 Defenders of capital punishment can be separated into two different camps.Some are retributivists. 4 Following Immanuel Kant,5 they claim that for the most heinous forms of wrongdoing, the penalty of death is morally justified or perhaps even required. Other defenders of capital punishment are consequentialists and often also welfarists. 6 They contend that the deterrent 1. See, e. g. , Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 309, 371 (1972) (Marshall, J. , concurring). 2. See Stephen B. Bright, Why the United States Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment, in DEBATING THE DEATH PENALTY: SHOULD AMERICA HAVE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? 52 (Hugo Adam Bedau & Paul G. Cassell eds. , 2004) [hereinafter DEBATING THE DEATH PENALTY]. 3. See, e. g. , James S. Liebman et al. , A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995 (Columbia Law Sch. , Pub. Law Research Paper No. 15, 2000) (on file with authors). 4. See, e. g. , Luis P. Pojman, Why the Death Penalty Is Morally Permissible, in DEBATING THE DEATH PENALTY, supra note 2, at 51, 55-58. 5. See IMMANUEL KANT, THE PHILOSOPHY OF LAW: AN EXPOSITION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF JURISPRUDENCE AS THE SCIENCE OF RIGHT 198 (W.Hastrie trans. , 1887) (1797). 6. Arguments along these lines can be found in Pojman, supra note 4, at 58-73. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM December 2005] IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MORALLY REQUIRED? 705 effect of capital punishment is significant and that it justifies the infliction of the ultimate penalty. Consequentialist defenses of capital punishment, however, tend to assume that capital punishment is (merely) morally permissible, as opposed to being morally obligatory.Our goal here is to suggest that the debate over capital punishment is rooted in an unquestioned assumption and that the failure to question that assumption is a serious moral error. The assumption is that for governments, acts are morally different from omissions. We want to raise the possibility that an indefensible form of the act/omission distinction is crucial to some of the most prominent objections to capital punishment—and that defenders of capital punishment, apparently making the same distinction, have failed to notice that according to the logic of their theory, capital punishment is morally obligatory, not just permissible.We suggest, in other words, tha t on certain empirical assumptions, capital punishment may be morally required, not for retributive reasons, but rather to prevent the taking of innocent lives. 7 The suggestion bears not only on moral and political debates, but also on constitutional questions. In invalidating the death penalty for juveniles, for example, the Supreme Court did not seriously engage the possibility that capital punishment for juveniles may help to prevent the death of innocents, including juvenile innocents. And if our suggestion is correct, it relates to many questions outside of the context of capital punishment. If omissions by the state are often indistinguishable, in principle, from actions by the state, then a wide range of apparent failures to act—in the context not only of criminal and civil law, but of regulatory law as well—should be taken to raise serious moral and legal problems. Those who accept our arguments in favor of the death penalty may or may not welcome the implicat ions for government action in general.In many situations, ranging from environmental quality to appropriations to highway safety to relief of poverty, our arguments suggest that in light of 7. In so saying, we are suggesting the possibility that states are obliged to maintain the death penalty option, not that they must inflict that penalty in every individual case of a specified sort; hence we are not attempting to enter into the debate over mandatory death sentences, as invalidated in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978), and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976). For relevant discussion, see Martha C.Nussbaum, Equity and Mercy, 22 PHIL. & PUB. AFF. 83 (1993). 8. Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005). Here is the heart of the Court’s discussion: As for deterrence, it is unclear whether the death penalty has a significant or even measurable deterrent effect on juveniles, as counsel for the petitioner acknowledged at oral argument. . . . [T]he absence of evidenc e of deterrent effect is of special concern because the same characteristics that render juveniles less culpable than adults suggest as well that juveniles will be less susceptible to deterrence. . . To the extent the juvenile death penalty might have residual deterrent effect, it is worth noting that the punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person. Id. at 1196. These are speculations at best, and they do not engage with the empirical literature; of course, that literature does not dispose of the question whether juveniles are deterred by the death penalty. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM 06 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:703 imaginable empirical findings, government is obliged to provide far more protection than it now does, and it should not be permitted to hide behind unhelpful distinctions between acts and omissions. The foundation for our argument is a significant bod y of recent evidence that capital punishment may well have a deterrent effect, possibly a quite powerful one. 9 A leading national study suggests that each execution prevents some eighteen murders, on average. 0 If the current evidence is even roughly correct—a question to which we shall return—then a refusal to impose capital punishment will effectively condemn numerous innocent people to death. States that choose life imprisonment, when they might choose capital punishment, are ensuring the deaths of a large number of innocent people. 11 On moral grounds, a choice that effectively condemns large numbers of people to death seems objectionable to say the least.For those who are inclined to be skeptical of capital punishment for moral reasons—a group that includes one of the current authors—the task is to consider the possibility that the failure to impose capital punishment is, prima facie and all things considered, a serious moral wrong. Judgments of thi s sort are often taken to require a controversial commitment to a consequentialist view about the foundations of moral evaluation. One of our principal points, however, is that the choice between consequentialist and deontological approaches to morality is not crucial here.We suggest that, on certain empirical assumptions, theorists of both stripes might converge on the idea that capital punishment is morally obligatory. On 9. See, e. g. , Hashem Dezhbakhsh et al. , Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data, 5 AM. L. & ECON. REV. 344 (2003); H. Naci Mocan & R. Kaj Gittings, Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment, 46 J. L. & ECON. 453, 453 (2003); Joanna M. Shepherd, Deterrence Versus Brutalization: Capital Punishment’s Differing Impacts Among States, 104 MICH. L. REV. 03 (2005) [hereinafter Shepherd, Deterrence Versus Brutalization]; Joanna M. Shepherd, Murders of Passion, Exe cution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment, 33 J. LEGAL STUD. 283, 308 (2004) [hereinafter Shepherd, Murders of Passion]; Paul R. Zimmerman, Estimates of the Deterrent Effect of Alternative Execution Methods in the United States, 65 AM. J. ECON. & SOC. (forthcoming 2006) [hereinafter Zimmerman, Alternative Execution Methods], available at http://papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers. cfm? abstract_id=355783; Paul R. Zimmerman, State Executions, Deterrence, and the Incidence of Murder, 7 J. APPLIED ECON. 63, 163 (2004) [hereinafter Zimmerman, State Executions]. 10. See Dezhbakhsh et al. , supra note 9, at 344. In what follows, we will speak of each execution saving eighteen lives in the United States, on average. We are, of course, suppressing many issues in that formulation, simply for expository convenience. For one thing, that statistic is a national average, as we emphasize in Part IV. For another thing, future research might find that capital punishment has diminishing retu rns: even if the first 100 executions deter 1800 murders, it does not follow that another 1000 executions will deter another 18,000 murders.We will take these and like qualifications as understood in the discussion that follows. 11. In recent years, the number of murders in the United States has fluctuated between 15,000 and 24,000. FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES tbl. 1 (2003), available at http://www. fbi. gov/ucr/03cius. htm. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM December 2005] IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MORALLY REQUIRED? 707 consequentialist grounds, the death penalty seems morally obligatory if it is the only or most effective means of preventing significant numbers of murders; much of our discussion will explore this point.For this reason, consequentialists should have little difficulty with our arguments. For deontologists, a killing is a wrong under most circumstances, and its wrongness does not depend on its consequences or its ef fects on overall welfare. Many deontologists (of course not all) believe that capital punishment counts as a moral wrong. But in the abstract, any deontological injunction against the wrongful infliction of death turns out to be indeterminate on the moral status of capital punishment if the death is necessary to prevent significant numbers of killings.The unstated assumption animating much opposition to capital punishment among intuitive deontologists is that capital punishment counts as an â€Å"action† by the state, while the refusal to impose it counts as an â€Å"omission,† and that the two are altogether different from the moral point of view. A related way to put this point is to suggest that capital punishment counts as a â€Å"killing,† while the failure to impose capital punishment counts as no such thing and hence is far less problematic on moral grounds. We shall investigate these claims in some detail.But we doubt that the distinction between state a ctions and state omissions can bear the moral weight given to it by the critics of capital punishment. Whatever its value as a moral concept where individuals are concerned, the act/omission distinction misfires in the general setting of government regulation. If government policies fail to protect people against air pollution, occupational risks, terrorism, or racial discrimination, it is inadequate to put great moral weight on the idea that the failure to act is a mere â€Å"omission. No one believes that government can avoid responsibility to protect people against serious dangers—for example, by refusing to enforce regulatory statutes—simply by contending that such refusals are unproblematic omissions. 12 If state governments impose light penalties on offenders or treat certain offenses (say, domestic violence) as unworthy of attention, they should not be able to escape public retribution by contending that they are simply refusing to act.Where government is conce rned, failures of protection, through refusals to punish and deter private misconduct, cannot be justified by pointing to the distinction between acts and omissions. It has even become common to speak of â€Å"risk-risk tradeoffs,† understood to arise when regulation of one risk (say, a risk associated with the use of DDT) gives rise to another risk (say, the spread of malaria, against which DDT has been effective). 13 Or suppose that an air pollutant creates adverse health effects 12.Indeed, agency inaction is frequently subject to judicial review. See Ashutosh Bhagwat, Three-Branch Monte, 72 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 157 (1996). 13. See generally RISK VERSUS RISK: TRADEOFFS IN PROTECTING HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT (John D. Graham & Jonathan Baert Wiener eds. , 1995) (considering â€Å"risk-risk tradeoffs† on topics such as DDT, the use of estrogen for menopause, and clozapine theory SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM 708 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:703 ut also has health benefits, as appears to be the case for ground-level ozone. 14 It is implausible to say that, for moral reasons, social planners should refuse to take account of such tradeoffs; there is general agreement that whether a particular substance ought to be regulated depends on the overall effect of regulation on human well-being. As an empirical matter, criminal law is pervaded by its own risk-risk tradeoffs. When the deterrent signal works, a failure to impose stringent penalties on certain crimes will increase the number of those crimes.A refusal to impose such penalties is, for that reason, problematic from the moral point of view. It should not be possible for an official—a governor, for example—to attempt to escape political retribution for failing to prevent domestic violence or environmental degradation by claiming that he is simply â€Å"failing to act. † The very idea of â€Å"equal protection of the laws,† in its oldest and most literal sense, attests to the importance of enforcing the criminal and civil law so as to safeguard the potential victims of private violence. 5 What we are suggesting is that to the extent that capital punishment saves more lives than it extinguishes, the death penalty produces a risk-risk tradeoff of its own—indeed, what we will call a life-life tradeoff. Of course, the presence of a life-life tradeoff does not resolve the capital punishment debate. By itself, the act of execution may be a wrong, in a way that cannot be said of an act of imposing civil or criminal penalties for, say, environmental degradation.But the existence of life-life tradeoffs raises the possibility that for those who oppose killing, a rejection of capital punishment is not necessarily mandated. On the contrary, it may well be morally compelled. At the very least, those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that th e failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life—and must, in our view, justify their position in ways that do not rely on question-begging claims about the distinction between state actions and state omissions, or between killing and letting die.We begin, in Part I, with the facts. Raising doubts about widely held beliefs based on older studies or partial information, recent studies suggest that capital punishment may well save lives. One leading study finds that as a national average, each execution deters some eighteen murders. Our question whether capital punishment is morally obligatory is motivated by these findings; our central concern is that foregoing any given execution may be equivalent to condemning some unidentified people to a premature and violent death.Of course, social science can always be disputed in this contentious domain, and spirited attacks have been made on the recent studies;16 hence, we mean to for schizophrenia). 14. See Am. Trucki ng Ass’ns, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027, 1051-53 (D. C. Cir. 1999). 15. See RANDALL KENNEDY, RACE, CRIME, AND THE LAW (1997). 16. See Richard Berk, New Claims About Executions and General Deterrence: Deja SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM December 2005] IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MORALLY REQUIRED? 709 outline, rather than to defend, the relevant evidence here.But we think that to make progress on the moral issues, it is productive and even necessary to take those findings as given and consider their significance. Those who would like to abolish capital punishment, and who find the social science unconvincing, might find it useful to ask whether they would maintain their commitment to abolition if they were firmly persuaded that capital punishment does have a strong deterrent effect. We ask such people to suspend their empirical doubts in order to investigate the moral issues that we mean to raise here.In Part II, the centerpiece of the Article, we offer a few remarks on moral foundations and examine some standard objections to capital punishment that might seem plausible even in light of the current findings. We focus in particular on the view that capital punishment is objectionable because it requires affirmative and intentional state â€Å"action,† not merely an â€Å"omission. † The act/omission distinction, we suggest, systematically misfires when applied to government, which is a moral agent with distinctive features.The act/omission distinction may not even be intelligible in the context of government, which always faces a choice among policy regimes, and in that sense cannot help but â€Å"act. † Even if the distinction between acts and omissions can be rendered intelligible in regulatory settings, its moral relevance is obscure. Some acts are morally obligatory, while some omissions are morally culpable. If capital punishment has significant deterrent effects, we suggest that for government to omit to impose it is morally blameworthy, even on a deontological account of morality.Deontological accounts typically recognize a consequentialist override to baseline prohibitions. If each execution saves an average of eighteen lives, then it is plausible to think that the override is triggered, in turn triggering an obligation to adopt capital punishment. Once the act/omission distinction is rejected where government is concerned, it becomes clear that the most familiar, and plausible, objections to capital punishment deal with only one side of the ledger: the objections fail to take account of the exceedingly arbitrary deaths that capital punishment may deter.The realm of homicide, as we shall call it, is replete with its own arbitrariness. We consider rule-of-law concerns about the irreversibility of capital punishment and its possibly random or invidious administration, a strict scrutiny principle that capital punishment should not be permitted if other means for producing the same le vel of deterrence are available, and concerns about slippery slopes. We suggest that while some of these complaints have Vu All over Again? , 2 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. 03 (2005); see also Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence: Hearings on the Future of Capital Punishment in the State of New York Before the New York State Assemb. Standing Comm. on Codes, Assemb. Standing Comm. on Judiciary, and Assemb. Standing Comm. on Correction, 2005 Leg. , 228th Sess. 1-12 (N. Y. 2005) (statement of Jeffrey Fagan, Professor of Law and Pub. Health, Columbia Univ. ), available at www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/FaganTestimony. pdf [hereinafter Deterrence and the Death Penalty].For a response to Fagan’s testimony, see generally Shepherd, Deterrence Versus Brutalization, supra note 9. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM 710 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:703 merit, they do not count as decisive objections to capital punishment, because they emb ody a flawed version of the act/omission distinction and generally overlook the fact that the moral objections to capital punishment apply even more strongly to the murders that capital punishment apparently deters.In Part III, we conjecture that various cognitive and social mechanisms, lacking any claim to moral relevance, may cause many individuals and groups to subscribe to untenable versions of the distinction between acts and omissions or to discount the lifesaving potential of capital punishment while exaggerating the harms that it causes. An important concern here is a sort of misplaced concreteness, stemming from heuristics such as salience and availability. The single person executed is often more visible nd more salient in public discourse than any abstract statistical persons whose murders might be deterred by a single execution. If those people, and their names and faces, were highly visible, we suspect that many of the objections to capital punishment would at least be shaken. As environmentalists have often argued, â€Å"statistical persons† should not be treated as irrelevant abstractions. 17 The point holds for criminal justice no less than for pollution controls. Part IV expands upon the implications of our view and examines some unresolved puzzles.Here we emphasize that we hold no brief for capital punishment across all contexts or in the abstract. The crucial question is what the facts show in particular domains. We mean to include here a plea not only for continuing assessment of the disputed evidence, but also for a disaggregated approach. Future research and resulting policies would do well to take separate account of various regions and of various classes of offenders and offenses. We also emphasize that our argument is limited to the setting of life-life tradeoffs— in which the taking of a life by the state will reduce the number of lives taken overall.We express no view about cases in which that condition does not holdâ⠂¬â€for example, the possibility of capital punishment for serious offenses other than killing, with rape being the principal historical example, and with rape of children being a currently contested problem. Such cases involve distinctively difficult moral problems that we mean to bracket here. A brief conclusion follows. I. EVIDENCE For many years, the deterrent effect of capital punishment was sharply disputed. 18 In the 1970s, Isaac Ehrlich conducted the first multivariate 17. Lisa Heinzerling, The Rights of Statistical People, 24 HARV.ENVTL. L. REV. 189, 189 (2000). 18. Compare, e. g. , Isaac Ehrlich, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death, 65 AM. ECON. REV. 397, 398 (1975) (estimating each execution deters eight murders), with William J. Bowers & Glenn L. Pierce, The Illusion of Deterrence in Isaac Ehrlich’s Research on Capital Punishment, 85 YALE L. J. 187, 187 (1975) (finding Ehrlich’s data and methods unreliable). A good over view is Robert Weisberg, The Death SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM December 2005] IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MORALLY REQUIRED? 711 egression analyses of the death penalty, based on time-series data from 1933 to 1967, and concluded that each execution deterred as many as eight murders. 19 But subsequent studies raised many questions about Ehrlich’s conclusions—by showing, for example, that the deterrent effects of the death penalty would be eliminated if data from 1965 through 1969 were eliminated. 20 It would be fair to say that the deterrence hypothesis could not be confirmed by the studies that have been completed in the twenty years after Ehrlich first wrote. 21 More recent evidence, however, has given new life to Ehrlich’s hypothesis. 2 A wave of sophisticated multiple regression studies have exploited a newly available form of data, so-called â€Å"panel data,† that uses all information from a set of units (states or counties ) and follows that data over an extended period of time. A leading study used county-level panel data from 3054 U. S. counties between 1977 and 1996. 23 The authors found that the murder rate is significantly reduced by both death sentences and executions. The most striking finding was that on average, each execution results in eighteen fewer murders. 24 Other econometric studies also find a substantial deterrent effect.In two papers, Paul Zimmerman uses state-level panel data from 1978 onwards to measure the deterrent effect of execution rates and execution methods. He estimates that each execution deters an average of fourteen murders. 25 Using state-level data from 1977 to 1997, H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings find that each execution deters five murders on average. 26 They also find that increases in the murder rate result when people are removed from death row Penalty Meets Social Science: Deterrence and Jury Behavior Under New Scrutiny, 1 ANN. REV. L. & SOC. SCI. 151 (2005). 19.See Ehrlich, supra note 18, at 398; Isaac Ehrlich, Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Further Thoughts and Additional Evidence, 85 J. POL. ECON. 741 (1977). 20. For this point and an overview of many other criticisms of Ehrlich’s conclusions, see Richard O. Lempert, Desert and Deterrence: An Assessment of the Moral Bases of the Case for Capital Punishment, 79 MICH. L. REV. 1177 (1981). 21. See id. ; Weisberg, supra note 18, at 155-57. 22. Even as this evidence was being developed, one of us predicted, perhaps rashly, that the debate would remain inconclusive for the foreseeable future. See Adrian Vermeule, Interpretive Choice, 75 N.Y. U. L. REV. 74, 100-01 (2000). 23. See Dezhbakhsh et al. , supra note 9, at 359. 24. Id. at 373. 25. Zimmerman, Alternative Execution Methods, supra note 9; Zimmerman, State Executions, supra note 9, at 190. 26. Mocan & Gittings, supra note 9, at 453. Notably, no clear evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment emerges from L awrence Katz et al. , Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence, 5 AM. L. & ECON. REV. 318, 330 (2003), which finds that the estimate of deterrence is extremely sensitive to the choice of specification, with the largest estimate paralleling that in Ehrlich, supra note 18.Note, however, that the principal finding in Katz et al. , supra, is that prison deaths do have a strong deterrent effect and a stunningly large one—with each prison death producing a reduction of â€Å"30-100 violent crimes and a similar number of property crimes. † Id. at 340. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM 712 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:703 and when death sentences are commuted. 27 A study by Joanna Shepherd, based on data from all states from 1997 to 1999, finds that each death sentence deters 4. 5 murders and that an execution deters 3 additional murders. 8 Her study also investigates the contested question whether executions deter crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Although intuition might suggest that such crimes cannot be deterred, her own finding is clear: all categories of murder are deterred by capital punishment. 29 The deterrent effect of the death penalty is also found to be a function of the length of waits on death row, with a murder deterred for every 2. 75 years of reduction in the period before execution. 30 Importantly, this study finds that the deterrent effect of capital punishment protects African-American victims even more than whites. 1 In the period between 1972 and 1976, the Supreme Court produced an effective moratorium on capital punishment, and an extensive unpublished study exploits that fact to estimate the deterrent effect. Using state-level data from 1977 to 1999, the authors make before-and-after comparisons, focusing on the murder rate in each state before and after the death penalty was suspended and reinstated. 32 The authors find a substantial deterrent effect: â€Å"[T]he data indicate that murder rates increased immediately after the moratorium was imposed and decreased directly after the moratorium was lifted, providing support for the deterrence hypothesis. 33 A recent study offers more refined findings. 34 Disaggregating the data on a state-by-state basis, Joanna Shepherd finds that the nationwide deterrent effect of capital punishment is entirely driven by only six states—and that no deterrent effect can be found in the twenty-one other states that have restored capital punishment. 35 What distinguishes the six from the twenty-one? The answer, she contends, lies in the fact that states showing a deterrent effect are executing more people than states that are not. In fact the data show a 27. Mocan & Gittings, supra note 9, at 453, 456. 8. Shepherd, Murders of Passion, supra note 9, at 308. 29. Id. at 305. Shepherd notes: Many researchers have argued that some types of murders cannot be deterred: they assert that murders committed during arguments or oth er crime-of-passion moments are not premeditated and therefore undeterrable. My results indicate that this assertion is wrong: the rates of crime-of-passion and murders by intimates—crimes previously believed to be undeterrable—all decrease in execution months. Id. 30. Id. at 283. 31. Id. at 308. 32. Hashem Dezhbakhsh & Joanna M.Shepherd, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a â€Å"Judicial Experiment,† at tbls. 3-4 (Am. Law & Economics Ass’n Working Paper No. 18, 2004), available at http://law. bepress. com/cgi/viewcontent. cgi? article=1017&context=alea (last visited Dec. 1, 2005). 33. Id. at 3-4. 34. Shepherd, Deterrence Versus Brutalization, supra note 9. 35. Id. at 207. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM December 2005] IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MORALLY REQUIRED? 713 â€Å"threshold effect†: deterrence is found in states that had at least nine total executions between 1977 and 1996.In states below th at threshold, no deterrence effect can be found. 36 This finding is intuitively plausible. Unless executions reach a certain level, murderers may act as if the death penalty is so improbable as not to be worthy of concern. 37 Shepherd’s main lesson is that once the level of executions reaches a certain level, the deterrent effect of capital punishment is substantial. All in all, the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its â€Å"apparent power and unanimity. 38 But in studies of this kind, it is hard to control for confounding variables, and reasonable doubts inevitably remain. Most broadly, skeptics are likely to question the mechanisms by which capital punishment is said to have a deterrent effect. In the skeptical view, many murderers lack a clear sense of the likelihood and perhaps even the existence of executions in their states; further problems for the deterrence claim are introduced by the fact that ca pital punishment is imposed infrequently and after long delays.Emphasizing the weakness of the deterrent signal, Steven Levitt has suggested that â€Å"it is hard to believe that fear of execution would be a driving force in a rational criminal’s calculus in modern America. †39 And, of course, some criminals do not act rationally: many murders are committed in a passionate state that does not lend itself to an all-things-considered analysis on the part of perpetrators. More narrowly, it remains possible that the recent findings will be exposed as statistical artifacts or found to rest on flawed econometric methods.Work by Richard Berk, based on his independent review of the state-level panel data from Mocan and Gittings, offers multiple objections to those authors’ finding of deterrence. 40 For example, Texas executes more people than any other state, and when Texas is removed from the data, the evidence of deterrence is severely weakened. 41 Removal of the appa rent â€Å"outlier state[s]† that execute the largest numbers of people seems to eliminate the finding of deterrence 36. Id. at 239-41. 37.Less intuitively, Shepherd finds that in thirteen of the states that had capital punishment but executed few people, capital punishment actually increased the murder rate. She attributes this puzzling result to what she calls the â€Å"brutalization effect,† by which capital punishment devalues human life and teaches people about the legitimacy of vengeance. Id. at 40-41. 38. See Weisberg, supra note 18, at 159. 39. See Steven D. Levitt, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, 18 J. ECON. PERSP. 163, 175 (2004). 0. See Berk, supra note 16; Deterrence and the Death Penalty, supra note 16, at 6-12. 41. Berk, supra note 16, at 320. It has also been objected that the studies do not take account of the availability of sentences that involve life without the possibility of paro le; such sentences might have a deterrent effect equal to or beyond that of capital punishment. See Deterrence and the Death Penalty, supra note 16. A response to Berk can found in Shepherd, Deterrence Versus Brutalization, supra note 9. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM 714STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:703 altogether. 42 Berk concludes that the findings of Mocan and Gittings are driven by six states with more than five executions each year. Berk, however, proceeds by presenting data in graphic form; he offers no regression analyses in support of his criticism. These concerns about the evidence should be taken as useful cautions. At the level of theory, it is plausible that if criminals are fully rational, they should not be deterred by infrequent and much-delayed executions; the deterrent signal may well be too weak to affect their behavior.But suppose that like most people, criminals are boundedly rational, assessing probabilities with the aid of heurist ics. 43 If executions are highly salient and cognitively available, some prospective murderers will overestimate their likelihood, and will be deterred as a result. Other prospective murderers will not pay much attention to the fact that execution is unlikely, focusing instead on the badness of the outcome (execution) rather than its low probability. 44 Few murderers are likely to assess the deterrent signal by multiplying the harm of execution against its likelihood.If this is so, then the deterrent signal will be larger than might be suggested by the product of that multiplication. Levitt’s theoretical claim assumes that prospective murderers are largely rational in their reaction to the death penalty and its probability—standing by itself, a plausible conjecture but no more. As for the recent data, it is true that evidence of deterrence is reduced or eliminated through the removal of Texas and other states in which executions are most common and in which evidence of deterrence is strongest. 5 But removal of those states seems to be an odd way to resolve the contested questions. States having the largest numbers of executions are most likely to deter, and it does not seem to make sense to exclude those states as â€Å"outliers. †46 By way of comparison, imagine a study attempting to determine what characteristics of baseball teams most increase the chance of winning the World Series. Imagine also a criticism of the study, parallel to Berk’s, which complained that data about the New York Yankees should be thrown out, on the ground that the Yankees have won so many times as to be â€Å"outliers. This would be an odd idea, because empiricists must go where the evidence is; in the case of capital punishment, the outliers provide much of the relevant evidence. Recall here Shepherd’s finding, compatible with the analysis of some skeptics, that the deterrent effect occurs only in states in which there is some threshold 42. Berk, supra note 16, at 320-24; Shepherd, Deterrence Versus Brutalization, supra note 9. 43. On bounded rationality in general, see RICHARD H. THALER, QUASI-RATIONAL ECONOMICS (1991). 44.See Yuval Rottenstreich & Christopher K. Hsee, Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk, 12 PSYCHOL. SCI. 185, 188 (2001); Cass R. Sunstein, Probability Neglect: Emotions, Worst Cases, and Law, 112 YALE L. J. 61 (2002). 45. See Shepherd, Deterrence Versus Brutalization, supra note 9. 46. Id. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM December 2005] IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MORALLY REQUIRED? 715 number of executions. 47 But let us suppose, plausibly, that the evidence of deterrence remains inconclusive.Even so, it would not follow that the death penalty as such fails to deter. As Shepherd also finds in her most recent study,48 more frequent executions, carried out in closer proximity to convictions, are predicted to amplify the deterrent signal for both ration al and boundedly rational criminals. We can go further. A degree of doubt, with respect to the current system, need not be taken to suggest that existing evidence is irrelevant for purposes of policy and law.In regulation as a whole, it is common to embrace some version of the precautionary principle49—the idea that steps should be taken to prevent significant harm even if cause-and-effect relationships remain unclear and even if the risk is not likely to come to fruition. Even if we reject strong versions of the precautionary principle,50 it hardly seems sensible that governments should ignore evidence demonstrating a significant possibility that a certain step will save large numbers of innocent lives.For capital punishment, critics often seem to assume that evidence on deterrent effects should be ignored if reasonable questions can be raised about the evidence’s reliability. But as a general rule, this is implausible. In most contexts, the existence of legitimate qu estions is hardly an adequate reason to ignore evidence of severe harm. If it were, many environmental controls would be in serious jeopardy. 51 We do not mean to suggest that government should commit what many people consider to be, prima facie, a serious moral wrong simply on the basis of speculation that this action will do some good.But a degree of reasonable doubt need not be taken as sufficient to doom a form of punishment if there is a significant possibility that it will save large numbers of lives. It is possible that capital punishment saves lives on net, even if it has zero deterrent effect. A life-life tradeoff may arise in several ways. One possibility, the one we focus on here, is that capital punishment deters homicides. Another possibility is that capital punishment has no deterrent effect, but saves lives just 7. See id. 48. Id. 49. For overviews of the precautionary principle and related issues, see INTERPRETING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE (Tim O’Riordan & J ames Cameron eds. , 1994); ARIE TROUWBORST, EVOLUTION AND STATUS OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (2002). 50. See, e. g. , Julian Morris, Defining the Precautionary Principle, in RETHINKING RISK AND THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE (Julian Morris ed. , 2000). 51.Indeed, those skeptical of capital punishment invoke evidence to the effect that capital punishment did not deter, and argue, plausibly, that it would be a mistake to wait for definitive evidence before ceasing with a punishment that could not be shown to reduce homicide. See Lempert, supra note 20, at 1222-24. This is a kind of precautionary principle, arguing against the most aggressive forms of punishment if the evidence suggested that they did not deter. We are suggesting the possibility of a mirror-image precautionary principle when the evidence goes the other way. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN.L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM 716 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:703 by incapacitating those who would otherwise k ill again in the future. 52 Consider those jurisdictions that eschew capital punishment altogether. What sanction can such jurisdictions really apply to those who have already been sentenced to life in prison without parole? Sentences of this sort may take more lives overall by increasing the number of essentially unpunishable withinprison homicides of guards and fellow inmates. 53 Many murderers are killed in prison even in states that lack the death penalty. 4 And if murderers are eventually paroled into the general population, some of them will kill again. Overall, it is quite possible that the permanent incapacitation of murderers through execution might save lives on net. A finding that capital punishment deters—and deterrence is our focus here—is sufficient but not necessary to find a life-life tradeoff. In any event, our goal here is not to reach a final judgment about the evidence. It is to assess capital punishment given the assumption of a substantial deterre nt effect.In what follows, therefore, we will stipulate to the validity of the evidence and consider its implications for morality and law. Those who doubt the evidence might ask themselves how they would assess the moral questions if they were ultimately convinced that life-life tradeoffs were actually involved—as, for example, in hostage situations in which officials are authorized to use deadly force to protect the lives of innocent people. II. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: MORAL FOUNDATIONS AND FOUR OBJECTIONS Assume, then, that capital punishment does save a significant number of innocent lives.On what assumptions should that form of punishment be deemed morally unacceptable, rather than morally obligatory? Why should the deaths of those convicted of capital murder, an overwhelmingly large fraction of whom are guilty in fact, be considered a more serious moral wrong than the deaths of a more numerous group who are certainly innocents? We consider, and ultimately reject, several re sponses. Our first general contention is that opposition to capital punishment trades on a form of the distinction between acts and omissions.Whatever the general force of that distinction, its application to government systematically fails, because government is a distinctive kind of moral agent. Our second general contention is that, apart from direct state involvement, the features that make capital punishment morally objectionable to its critics are also features of the very murders that capital punishment deters. The principal difference, on the empirical assumptions we are making, is that in a legal regime without capital punishment far more people die, and those people are innocent of any 2. See Ronald J. Allen & Amy Shavell, Further Reflections on the Guillotine, 95 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 625, 630-31 (2005). 53. See id. at 630 n. 9. 54. See Katz et al. , supra note 26, at 340. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM December 2005] IS CAPITAL PUNISHME NT MORALLY REQUIRED? 717 wrongdoing. No one denies that arbitrariness in the system of capital punishment is a serious problem. But even if the existing system is viewed in its worst light, it involves far less arbitrariness than does the realm of homicide.Let us begin, however, with foundational issues. A. Morality and Death On a standard view, it is impossible to come to terms with the moral questions about capital punishment without saying something about the foundations of moral judgments. We will suggest, however, that sectarian commitments at the foundational level are for the most part irrelevant to the issues here. If it is stipulated that substantial deterrence exists, both consequentialist and deontological accounts of morality will or should converge upon the view that capital punishment is morally obligatory.Consequentialists will come to that conclusion because capital punishment minimizes killings overall. Deontologists will do so because an opposition to killing is, b y itself, indeterminate in the face of life-life tradeoffs; because a legal regime with capital punishment has a strong claim to be more respectful of life’s value than does a legal regime lacking capital punishment; and because modern deontologists typically subscribe to a consequentialist override or escape hatch, one that makes otherwise mpermissible actions obligatory if necessary to prevent many deaths—precisely what we are assuming is true of capital punishment. Only those deontologists who both insist upon a strong distinction between state actions and state omissions and who reject a consequentialist override will believe the deterrent effect of capital punishment to be irrelevant in principle. Suppose that we accept consequentialism and believe that government actions should be evaluated in terms of their effects on aggregate welfare.If we do so, the evidence of deterrence strongly supports a moral argument in favor of the death penalty—a form of punish ment that, by hypothesis, seems to produce a net gain in overall welfare. Of course, there are many complications here; for example, the welfare of many people might increase as a result of knowing that capital punishment exists, and the welfare of many other people might decrease for the same reason. A full consequentialist calculus would require a more elaborate assessment than we aim to provide here.The only point is that if capital punishment produces significantly fewer deaths on balance, there should be a strong consequentialist presumption on its behalf; any argument against capital punishment, on consequentialist grounds, will face a steep uphill struggle. To be sure, it is also possible to imagine forms of consequentialism that reject welfarism as implausibly reductionist and see violations of rights as part of the set of consequences that must be taken into account in deciding what to SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 03 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM 718 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol . 58:703 do. 55 For some such consequentialists, killings are, under ordinary circumstances, a violation of rights, and this point is highly relevant to any judgment about killings. But even if the point is accepted, capital punishment may be required, not prohibited, on consequentialist grounds, simply because and to the extent that it minimizes rights violations. Private murders also violate rights, and the rights-respecting consequentialist must take those actions into account.But imagine that we are deontologists, believing that actions by government and others should not be evaluated in consequentialist terms; how can capital punishment be morally permissible, let alone obligatory? For some deontologists, capital punishment is obligatory for moral reasons alone. 56 But suppose, as other deontologists believe, that under ordinary circumstances, the state’s killing of a human being is a wrong and that its wrongness does not depend on an inquiry into whether the action prod uces a net increase in welfare.For many critics of capital punishment, a deontological intuition is central; evidence of deterrence is irrelevant because moral wrongdoing by the state is not justified even if it can be defended on utilitarian grounds. Compare a situation in which a state seeks to kill an innocent person, knowing that the execution will prevent a number of private killings; deontologists believe that the unjustified execution cannot be supported even if the state is secure in its knowledge of the execution’s beneficial effects. Of course, it is contentious to claim that capital punishment is a moral wrong.But if it is, then significant deterrence might be entirely beside the point. It is simply true that many intuitive objections to capital punishment rely on a belief of this kind: just as execution of an innocent person is a moral wrong, one that cannot be justified on consequentialist grounds, so too the execution of a guilty person is a moral wrong, whateve r the evidence shows. Despite all this, our claims here do not depend on accepting consequentialism or rejecting the deontological objection to evaluating unjustified killings in consequentialist terms.The argument is instead that by itself and in the abstract, this objection is indeterminate on the moral status of capital punishment. To the extent possible, we intend to bracket the most fundamental questions and to suggest that whatever one’s view of the foundations of morality, the objection to the death penalty is difficult to sustain under the empirical assumptions that we have traced. Taken in its most sympathetic light, a deontological objection to capital punishment is unconvincing if states that refuse to impose the death penalty produce, by that 55.Amartya Sen, Rights and Agency, 11 PHIL. & PUB. AFF. 3, 15-19 (1982). 56. See Pojman, supra note 4, at 58-59. As noted below, the case of Israel is a good test for such deontologists; Israel does not impose the death penal ty, in part on the ground that executions of terrorists would likely increase terrorism. Do deontologists committed to capital punishment believe that Israel is acting immorally? In our view, they ought not to do so, at least if the empirical assumption is right and if the protection of lives is what morality requires. SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN.L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM December 2005] IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MORALLY REQUIRED? 719 very refusal, significant numbers of additional deaths. Recall the realm of homicide: for deontologists who emphasize life’s value and object to the death penalty, the problem is acute if the refusal to impose that penalty predictably leads to a significant number of additional murders. In a hostage situation, police officers are permitted to kill (execute) those who have taken hostages if this step is reasonably deemed necessary to save those who have been taken hostage.If the evidence of deterrence is convincing, why is capital punishment so different in principle? Of course, these points might be unresponsive to those who believe that execution of a guilty person is morally equivalent to execution of an innocent person and not properly subject to a recognition of life-life tradeoffs. We will explore this position in more detail below. And we could envision a form of deontology that refuses any exercise in aggregation—one that would refuse to authorize, or compel, a violation of rights even if the violation is necessary to prevent a significantly larger number of rights violations.But most modern deontologists reject this position, instead admitting a consequentialist override to baseline deontological prohibitions. 57 Although the threshold at which the consequentialist override is triggered varies with different accounts, we suggest below that if each execution deters some eighteen murders, the override is plausibly triggered. To distill these points, the only deontological accounts that are inconsistent with our argument are those that both (1) embrace a distinction between state actions and state omissions and (2) reject a consequentialist override.To those who subscribe to this complex of views, and who consider capital punishment a violation of rights, our argument will not be convincing. In the end, however, we believe that it is difficult to sustain the set of moral assumptions that would bar capital punishment if it is the best means of preventing significant numbers of innocent deaths. Indeed, we believe that many of those who think that they hold those assumptions are motivated by other considerations—especially a failure to give full weight to statistical lives—on which we focus in Part III. B.Acts and Omissions A natural response to our basic concern would invoke the widespread intuition that capital punishment involves intentional state â€Å"action,† while the failure to deter private murders is merely an â€Å"omission† by the state. In our view, this appealing and intuitive line of argument goes rather badly wrong. The critics of capital punishment have been led astray by uncritically applying the act/omission distinction to a regulatory setting. Their position condemns the â€Å"active† infliction of death by governments but does not condemn the â€Å"inactive† production of death that comes from the refusal to maintain a system 57.For an overview, see Larry Alexander, Deontology at the Threshold, 37 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 893, 898-901 (2000). SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM 720 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:703 of capital punishment. The basic problem is that even if this selective condemnation can be justified at the level of individual behavior, it is difficult to defend for governments. 58 A great deal of work has to be done to explain why â€Å"inactive,† but causal, government decisions should not be part of the moral calculus.Suppose that we endorse the deontological pos ition that it is wrong to take human lives, even if overall welfare is promoted by taking them. Why does the system of capital punishment violate that position, if the failure to impose capital punishment also takes lives? Perhaps our argument about unjustified selectivity is blind to morally relevant factors that condemn capital punishment and that buttress the act/omission distinction in this context. There are two possible points here, one involving intention and the other involving causation.First, a government (acting through agents) that engages in capital punishment intends to take lives; it seeks to kill. A government that does not engage in capital punishment, and therefore provides less deterrence, does not intend to kill. The deaths that result are the unintended and unsought byproduct of an effort to respect life. Surely— it might be said—this is a morally relevant difference. Second, a government that inflicts capital punishment ensures a simple and direct causal chain between its own behavior and the taking of human lives.When a government rejects capital punishment, the causal chain is much more complex; the taking of human lives is an indirect consequence of the government’s decision, one that is mediated by the actions of a murderer. The government authorizes its agents to inflict capital punishment, but it does not authorize private parties to murder; indeed, it forbids murder. Surely that is a morally relevant difference, too. We will begin, in Part II. B. 1, with questions about whether the act/omission distinction is conceptually intelligible in regulatory settings.Here the suggestion is that there just is no way to speak or think coherently about government â€Å"actions† as opposed to government â€Å"omissions,† because government cannot help but act, in some way or another, when choosing how individuals are to be regulated. In Part II. B. 2, we suggest that the distinction between government acts and omissions, even if conceptually coherent, is not morally relevant to the question of capital punishment. Some governmental actions are morally obligatory, and some governmental omissions are blameworthy.In this setting, we suggest, government is morally obligated to adopt capital punishment and morally at fault if it declines to do so. 1. Is the act/omission distinction coherent with respect to government? In our view, any effort to distinguish between acts and omissions goes 58. Compare debates over going to war: Some pacifists insist, correctly, that acts of war will result in the loss of life, including civilian life. But a refusal to go to war will often result in the loss of life, including civilian life.SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV. 703 1/9/2006 10:51:05 AM December 2005] IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MORALLY REQUIRED? 721 wrong by overlooking the distinctive features of government as a moral agent. If correct, this point has broad implications for criminal and civil law. Whate ver the general status of the act/omission distinction as a matter of moral philosophy,59 the distinction is least impressive when applied to government, because the most plausible underlying considerations do not apply to official actors. 0 The most fundamental point is that, unlike individuals, governments always and necessarily face a choice between or among possible policies for regulating third parties. The distinction between acts and omissions may not be intelligible in this context, and even if it is, the distinction does not make a morally relevant difference. Most generally, government is in the business of creating permissions and prohibitions. When it explicitly or implicitly authorizes private action, it is not omitting to do anything or refusing to act. 1 Moreover, the distinction between authorized and unauthorized private action—for example, private killing— becomes obscure when the government formally forbids private action but chooses a set of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it. To be sure, a system of punishments that only weakly deters homicide, relative to other feasible punishments, does not quite authorize homicide, but that system is not properly characterized as an omission, and little turns on whether it can be so characterized.Suppose, for example, that government fails to characterize certain actions—say, sexual harassment—as tortious or violative of civil rights law and that it therefore permits employers to harass employees as they choose or to discharge employees for failing to submit to sexual harassment. It would be unhelpful to characterize the result as a product of governmental â€Å"inaction. † If employers are permitted to discharge employees for refusing to submit to sexual harassment, it is because the law is allocating certain entitlements to employers rather than employees. Or consider the context of ordinary torts.When Homeowner B sues Factory A over air pollution, a decision not to rule for Homeowner B is not a form of inaction: it is the allocation to Factory A of a property right to pollute. In such cases, an apparent government omission is an action simply because it is an allocation of legal rights. Any decision that allocates such rights, by creating entitlements 59. For discussion of the philosophical controversy over acts and omissions, see generally RONALD DWORKIN, LIFE’S DOMINION: AN ARGUMENT ABOUT ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM (1993); Frances M.Kamm, Abortion and the Value of Life: A Discussion of Life’s Dominion, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 160 (1995) (reviewing DWORKIN, supra); Tom Stacy, Acts, Omissions, and the Necessity of Killing Innocents, 29 AM. J. CRIM. L. 481 (2002). 60. Here we proceed in the spirit of Robert Goodin by treating government as a distinctive sort of moral agen