Ethical Reflection

According to Brown (2000) the ability to engage ethical reflection requires that suitable conditions and training opportunities be in place. Ethical reflection prepares one with the (Cohen, McDaniels, & Qualters, 2005) confidence, interdisciplinary skills, and resources to make more caring, compassionate, and appreciative choices about ethical issues such as fairness, honesty, and privacy that may be experienced in life as professionals.

Brown discusses the four components at the crux of ethical reflection; role flexibility, inquiry, trust, and power. While each of these components serve in an individualized sense, their combined use provides members with the tools necessary to affect communication and collaboration between themselves in a manner that refrains from devaluing the thoughts, ideas, values, and beliefs of others.

Power, as per Brown (2000) denotes the basic rights of others. In order to effectively engage the art of ethical reflection, not only does the process have to be empowered, but so to do the participants. Empowered members readily take an active role in this process without fear of reprisals, they trust that their co-workers will respect their right to offer differing points of view and do not fear that these differences will invoke negative attitudes outside of the discussion.

Inquiry, a part of the learning process is representative of the quest for more information; information necessary to gain an accurate picture of what exactly is at stake in order to determine the best possible course of action. Role flexibility portrays the taking on of another identity. Role reversal provides members with the opportunity to see things from a vantage point other than that of their own and is helpful in creating the ability to empathize with the plight of another.

Ethical reflection in organizations serves as guideposts with a view to long lasting success. Ethical reflection provides the opportunity for members to meditate on past behaviors, while making adjustments and changes along the way. It influences members to make the best possible decision in the face of many difficult situations.

References:

Brown, M. (2000). Working Ethics: Strategies for Decision Making and Organizatonal
Responsibility. Oakland, CA: Regent Press.

Cohen, P., McDaniels, M., & Qualters, D. (2005). Air Model: A Teaching Tool for
Cultivating Reflective Ethical Inquiry. College Teaching, 53(3), 120-127.

Technology's Influence on Education

Technology as a means to connect students to the world beyond the classroom can have a substantial impact on learning. Reeder (cited by Technology and Learning, 2003) states, a massive amount of research has made it clear how people do or do not learn; the fact that it is still being debated is baffling. She goes on to report, all human beings learn by doing, analyzing, talking, processing, and problem solving; talking at kids never has been and never will be an effective way to help them learn. As most people learn far faster via interactive and hands on methods, the introduction of technology into instruction introduces a whole new level of experiences whereby increasing the potential for students’ to make academic gains by leaps and bounds. Bransford, Brown, & Cocking (2000) note, in general, technology-based tools can enhance student performance when they are integrated into the curriculum and used in accordance with knowledge about learning.

Not only does technology offer interactive modes of learning through the use of various technological programs designed to enhance the educational needs of students, it also provides simulations of real life experiences that students can engage in that will aid in developing and honing higher level thinking skills. Wishengrad (1999) states, the impact that technology is having on education is believed by some observers to be immense; not only are students motivated to use computers, but their learning is being guided toward more relevant real-world experiences. Tech Trends (2004) reports, online simulations have the potential to develop students’ mental models of complex systems and problem solving strategies; these designs show that interactive technology use can create environments for problem-solving and deep learning.

In today’s world, more so than ever before, there is a push to incorporate the use of technology in the classroom setting. Because of its positive effects on students’ learning, technology is quickly becoming the wave of the future. Many school districts having come to understand the value of the applicable use of technology in the classroom have taken steps to rectufy this situation (Franklin, 2007). Moving an educational system toward the incorporation of any non-traditional teaching measure necessitates the need to determine the manner in which it will be implemented and its continued usage.

Consideration should be made of the potential need for the upgrading and repairing of equipment as needed in order to maintain the continued use of technology. There is also a need to include provisions that ensure that teachers have been trained in the use of this form of informational delivery system. It cannot be assumed that all teachers are knowledgeable in this area. Professional development trainers, teachers, and administrators will need to collaborate in order to ensure that everyone is on the same page regarding competency levels. According to Franklin (2007) although most elementary schools currently have updated technological equipment and internet access, an extremely small amount of teachers are confident in their ability to integrate educational technology into classroom instruction.

Therefore the school plan should define the process for training all staff, insure an equitable distribution for technology and identify the software to be used; both the district-wide and the school-level planning for technology should be viewed as an ongoing activity that results in a flexible plan for the deployment of technology resources; these plans need to be built to accommodate ongoing change (Nolan, Zaenglein, & Cox, 1994).

“Preparing future teachers to connect curriculum and technology necessitates the integration of technology into teacher preparation; just as we prepare future teachers to teach social studies in a social studies methods course, we must now prepare future teachers to teach social studies using technology in a social studies methods course (Franklin, 2007).

Instructional objectives need to be aligned with the use of technology so as not to confuse the learners or to hinder their acquisition of skills. In designing technology-based instruction, it is critical that attention be given to the content structure; failure to do so can be highly confusing and impair the learner’s ability to correctly understand the presented information (Walsh & Frontczak, 2003).

Technology can mean the difference between students that are prepared to take their place in a technology driven society and those that will continue to flounder as a result of an educational system’s shortsightedness. When implemented correctly the benefits that technology brings can enhance an educational program immensely, in addition to increasing student achievement.

References:

Bransford, J. (Ed.), Brown, A. (Ed.) & Cocking, R. (Ed.). (2000). How People Learn:
Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded Edition). Washington DC: National Academy Press

Franklin, C. (2007). Factors That Influence Elementary Teachers Use of Computers.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 15 no2 267-293. Retrieved March
21, 2005 from http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/hww/results/results_single.jhtml?nn=45

Nolan, J., Zaenglein, J., & Cox, C. (1994). Strategic Planning for the Future. Media &
Methods, 31, 58 Retrieved March 8, 2005 from http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/hww/results/results_single.jhtml?nn=5

21st Century Skills: Will Our Students Be Prepared. (2003). Technology and Learning,
24, 3, 17-18, 20, 22, 24, 26 Retrieved March 8, 2005 from http://0- vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/hww/results/results_single.jhtml?nn=14

Technology: Building Interaction. (2004). Tech Trends, 48, 5, 34-36 Retrieved March 8,
2005 from http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/hww/results/results_single.jhtml?nn=18

Walsh, J. & Frontczak, K. (2003). Back to Basics: Non-Technical Tips for Improving
Technology-Based Presentations Skills. Tech Trends, 47, 1, 41-45 Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/hww/results/results_single.jhtml?nn=23

Wishengrad, R. (1999) Are Paper Textbooks Ready to Fold. The Education Digest, 64, 6,
57-61 Retrieved March 8, 2005 from http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/hww/results/results_single.jhtml?nn=28

Who's Vision

What is a vision? A question asked by many over the years, yet strangely enough most of the answers coincides. Whitaker and Moses (cited by Lashway, 1997) refer to a vision as “an inspiring declaration of a compelling dream, accompanied by a clear scenario of how it will be accomplished.” Houze (2000) notes, vision, as the ability to get meaning from eyesight. Rawley (1997) expounds on this thought by adding that a vision is not only a tool for a leader of others; even a lone salesperson can create a vision of desired results for him or herself (note: goals are results and the vision is to become the most fully rewarded salesperson that ever lived.).

No matter the setting, a vision begins as a particular person’s dream it does not become a vision until it has been acted upon. A good vision not only has worthy goals, but; challenges everyone in the school. In some cases a single individual can carry out a vision, however, visions that affect others more often than not need the efforts of many to see it to fruition. Good leaders establish a vision and motivate others to work toward that end (Horowitz, 1997).

Bringing the Design to Others and Helping Them to Make It Their Own

Leaders that encourage others to embrace their vision utilize a plethora of strategies; more than just a model is the key ingredient. Leaders must be adept not only in the art of communication, as the conveyance of the vision to others is of utmost importance; but they must be equally able to induce subordinates to buy into their dream and to willingly take part in the endeavor. Motivating others to embrace your vision and work toward a common goal starts with a clear understanding of one thing: the people you are trying to motivate. Subordinates often do not see their efforts as a beneficial piece to goal achievement, (Horowitz, 1997) in which case their lack of knowledge tends to act as a hindrance to achieving the goal.

In order to effectively relate the importance of specific goals and roles, many steps must take place. In communicating plans of bringing a vision to reality leaders must be clear and concise in the delineation of information, they must be sure that during their projection of the vision they do not allow it to become overshadowed by doubt, as well as being prepared to display patience, to listen, and to provide additional information when necessary. To leaders their visions are quite clear, that is because it is a goal that they are enthusiastic about achieving.

To achieve their goals and fulfill their vision leaders need to persuade others to take action on their ideas, states Houze (2000) this requires that they think clearly, speak clearly, and listen carefully. The best way to do this is to operate in much the same way as a salesperson does. Salespersons patiently explain repeatedly if needed the purpose of their products and the benefits they will provide. Leaders have to be cognizant that a degree of patience will need to be exercised as they endeavor to help others to realize that this design is necessary and above all that their contribution is essential to realizing the goal.

Leaders that communicate to their staff the importance of the vision and the manner in which it fits with their needs and expectations, will go a long way toward making them feel that where the vision leads is where they want to go, that what they do really does make a difference, and that success depends upon their doing it. Active listening goes a long way in determining how well a leader will be received therefore it is of the utmost importance that they include measures that compel subordinates to offer up their thoughts and ideas. This method of doing things helps to provide varied points of view; therefore it would behoove leaders to become more receptive to alternative points of view (Covey, 1991). When people feel that they are valued and that their input is not only vital but encouraged, they are more apt to follow. Ostrow (2001) writes, when people feel heard they are more likely to hear you.

When leaders understand the goals of their subordinates they are able to articulate the manner in which their aspirations can be aligned with the vision. On the same note Covey (1991) reports leaders must seek to understand the intent of the communication without prejudging or rejecting the content. This can be accomplished by giving time, being patient, seeking first to understand, and openly expressing feelings. If members do not feel that they are a part of this joint venture, attempts at embracing another’s vision becomes an effort in futility.

References:

Covey, S. (1991). Principle-Centered Leadership. New York. Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Houze, R. (2000). What Makes Leaders Different. Rutherford Publishing, Inc. Retrieved
March 11, 2005 from http://www.careerknowhow.com/ldrsdifferent.htm

Horowitz, S. (1997). From vision to victory: Communication key to effective leadership, Thrust
for Educational Leadership. 27, 31 Retrieved March 12, 2005 from
http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/hww/results/results_single.jhtml?nn=6

Lashway, L. (1997). Visionary Leadership., Clearinghouse on Educational Policy Management.
ERIC Digest 110 Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest%20110.html

Ostrow, E. (2001). 20 Ways to Becoming A Leader. Emerging Leader.com. Retrieved
March 28, 2005 from http://www.emergingleader.com/articles31.shtml

Rawley, K. (1997). Visions helps leaders to overlook obstacles on the road to success.
Business Review Retrieved March 14, 2005 from
http://seatle.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/1997/10/20/smallb4.html?t=printable

High Stakes Testing: Who Wins

National Education Goals (Congress, 2000) indicates that, the percentage of all students who demonstrate the ability to reason, solve problems, apply knowledge, and write and communicate effectively will increase substantially. Senator Paul Wellstone in an article entitled, “High Stakes Tests: A Harsh Agenda for America’s Children” notes that education is a process of designing the moral imagination, character, skills, and intellect of children; thus requesting their participation into the conversation of our moral, cultural, and intellectual life and providing the resources necessary for their preparation into the life of the nation and the world.

Increasing standardized test scores (Guisbond, 2004) take priority in schools, however, this premise leads to a one size fits all teaching style whose primary
attention is aimed at test preparation, which in effect, sabotages efforts to provide all students with a high quality education. “This scripted approach to learning and emphasis on test-taking strategies makes schools more like private, for profit, test-prep centers in the mold of Kaplan or Sylvan and less like schools—at least American schools of the past (Baines & Stanley, 2004).”

According to Cimbricz & Mehrens (as cited by Yeh, 2005) two reviews on research found that in some cases state-mandated tests narrows the curriculum. Those schools that are designated as being on probation or unacceptable as a result of low scores on state exams the pressure builds and the curriculum narrows even further (Baines & Stanley, 2004). As per Vogler & Kennedy (2003) an elementary school in Lawrence, Massachusetts was forced to discontinue for a while the core subjects and implement a 15 week two-hour a day drill instruction measure specifically designed to increase state exam scores. According to Wellstone (2000) making students accountable for test scores looks good on a bumper sticker and helps politicians look good as they discuss the lack of tolerance for failure, however, it does not improve education. It is more likely that these measures mark a major decline from fairness, accuracy, quality, and equity.

Educators are asked to utilize an array of teaching styles to reach all learners, yet on testing day only one format is used (Hill, 2005). Baines & Stanley (2004) note that teachers’ having daily contact with students have little voice in determining the composition of classes, curriculum, or assessment; yet the system is designed to hold them accountable.

First and foremost, I firmly believe that it is grossly unfair to not graduate, or
to hold back a student based on a standardized test if that student has not had
the opportunity to learn the material covered on the test. When we impose high
stakes tests on an educational system where there are, as Jonathan Kozol says,
savage inequalities, and then we do nothing to address the underlying causes of the
those inequalities, we set children up to fail (Wellstone, 2000).

Attention to new standards in America's schools (Hilliard, 2000) has influenced one of the most active reform movements since the 1970s; the past 30 years, have seen the extensive use of testing to provide school accountability information, evaluate reform efforts, and to communicate important learning targets to schools. The fact is that in few districts do the goals set by boards of education match the standards reflected in a school's curriculum. In some cases, neither the school goals nor the high-stakes standardized tests reflect high standards (Hilliard, 2000).” However, as apposed to decreasing class size, increasing instructional time, and providing other beneficial initiatives, the implementation of standardized testing can be enacted more rapidly (Lin, 2002).

Instead of utilizing testing measures that penalize those students not meeting mastery criteria, standardized testing measures can be utilized as a diagnostic evaluation intended to delineate the skills that need to be attained. All learning involves thinking, therefore, what is needed is an assessment model designed to produce "thinking curriculum," in which students are able to learn in many domains. Despite that they may not have the background knowledge needed in a particular area they are adept at knowing how to go about gaining the knowledge needed (Lin, 2002). Accountability measures to some degree are a necessary evil, but when used to these ends they defeat the purpose.

References:

Baines, L., & Stanley, G. (2004). High-Stakes Hustle: Public Schools and the New
Bilion Dollar Accountability. The Education Forum, 69(1), 8-15.

Congress (2000). National Educational Goals. Retrieved on September 1, 2004 from
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/sec102.html

Guisbond, L. et. al. (2004). Failing Our Children: No Child Left Behind Undermines
quality and Equity in Education. The Clearing House, 78(1), 12-16.

Hill, B. (2005). Learning Styles and Standardized Test Scores: Is There a Connection?
The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 71(3), 27-30.

Hilliard, A.G. III. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized
testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(4), 293-304.

Lin, Q. (2002). Beyond Standardization: Testing and Assessment in Standards-Based
Reform. Action in Teacher Education 23(4), 43-9

Wellstone, P. Sen. (2000). “High Stakes Tests: A Harsh Agenda for America’s Children”
(2000) Teachers College; USA Today.

Vogler, K. & Kennedy, R. (2003). A view from the bottom: What happens when your
school system ranks last? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(6), 446-448.

Yeh, S. (2005). Limiting the Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(43) Retrieved October 21, 2006, from

Unethical Behaviors in Corporate America

Are Unethical Behaviors Limited to Corporate America?

While there is not a definitive answer for what is ethical and that which is not (Breeden, 2001) the show of good ethics often places one in a quandary. As per Jager (2002) making the determination of right and wrong can pose a challenge, and making the right decision in many cases is not easy. Responding to unethical behavior, be it that of self or others proves a difficult task (Jager, 2002) and trying to prevent unethical behavior in others and simultaneously do the right thing oneself, is an ethical mandate.

Given that the knowledge of right and wrong is inherent in most, the litany of scandals afflicting this country continues to cause quite a dilemma (Hanson, 2003). This dilemma is evident as business ethics run amok and continue to make headlines (Business Mexico, 2005). According to Cialdini, Petrova, & Goldstein (2004) corporate perpetrators continually engage in all sorts of unethical behaviors; from the taking of little things to malfeasance or criminal conduct in corporate governance, unethical accounting practices, regulatory evasions, career advancement, competitive concerns and many other fashions of unethical behaviors.

The magazine article, Goal setting and cheating, by Business Mexico (2004) expounds on this thought by adding that unethical behavior is generally spurred on by financial gain, goal setting, personal achievement as well as corporate success. According to Kayes, Stirling & Nielsen (2007) these negative behaviors more often than not place organizations at risk. Interestingly, however, people not only engage in these behaviors of their own accord, organizations have also been noted for recruiting individuals and even creating them for just such purposes (Cialdini, Petrova, & Goldstein, 2004).


References:

Breeden, L. (2001). Ethics for Making the Right Choice. The Education Digest, 67(4),
22-23.

(Cialdini, R., Petrova, P., & Goldstein, N. (2004). The Hidden Cost of Organizational
Dishonesty. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(3), 67-73.

Goal setting and cheating. (2004). Business Mexico, 14(9), 44-47.

Hanson, K. (2003). Confronting Unethical Conduct. Association Management, 55(1), 31.

Jager, P. (2002). Ethics: Good, Evil, and Moral Duty. Information Management Journal
36(5), 82-85.

Kayes, D., Stirling, D., & Nielsen, T. (2007). Building organizational integrity, Business
Horizons, 50(1), 61-70.

Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is defined as the legally sanctioned method adopted by the judicial system by which to retaliate and punish those who commit crimes, with an emphasis being made on crimes of a brutal or heinous nature (Grant, 2004).

Origins and Historical View of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment has served as the tool upon justice has been meted out for centuries (Death Penalty Information Center, 2007). With origins that date back to before Christ. According to the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1984) God’s law, as recorded at Matthew 5:21, states that whoever commits murder is accountable to the courts of justice; which in essence is summed up at Matthew 5:38 as an eye for and eye and a tooth for tooth. Moving farther ahead in history, capital punishment continued to influence the justice system of that time period (Death Penalty Information Center, 2007) with the death penalty playing an integral role during the Fourteenth Century B.C.'s Hittite Code as well as the Seventh Century B.C.'s Draconian Code of Athens, where all crimes were punishable by death. However, a period of evolution would occur during the reign of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, it is then that the first established death penalty law would come into effect, a law which codified the death penalty for only 25 different crimes punishable by death (Death Penalty Information Center, 2007).

During the late eighteenth century controversy regarding the use of capital punishment would begin to take root (Lund, 2002) as the invention of prisons would provide an alternative for the incarceration of criminals of a dangerous nature. The institution of capital punishment was one of most popular adoptions of the British Common Law (Liptak, 2002) which was brought with the European settlers to the New World. However, as the country and its people advanced, degrees of murder were developed that established suitable punishment in accordance with the crime, this occurred during the period between the American Revolution and the Civil War (Grant, 2004).

This stance on the issue was reached as compromise between both the proponents of capital punishment and those in opposition (Grant, 2004). According to Liptak (2002) the debate over capital punishment continued from the Civil War up until the 1960’s when the abolition of capital punishment occurred in many states. Because genuine consensus on its abolition never developed several states did away with capital punishment and subsequently brought it back (Lund, 2002).

This stagnated period would be short-lived as capital punishment would once again re-enter and take a foothold in the judicial system; by the 1960’s the role of the federal appellate courts had expanded, which now applied the federal Bill of Rights to criminal proceedings involving capital crimes at the state level (Grant, 2004). Prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment came under attack concurrently with that of capital punishment and resulted in its repeal between 1968 and 1976 during which no executions were carried out (Grant, 2004). Having issued a moratorium on executions between 1972 and 1976, the Supreme Court demanded that states develop procedures for ensuring that the use of capital punishment would be reserved for the worst offenders (Liptak, 2007). The revival of capital punishment in 1976 would be met with enthusiasm in some states more so than others; the renewed interest from those states in supporting of capital punishment, would result in an enormous increase in executions with appropriately 563 executions of which approximately one-third were carried out in the state of Texas alone (Grant, 2002).

Capital Punishment

The issue of capital punishment has and continues to be one the most debatable topics of the past two decades (Katz, Levitt, & Shustorovich, 2003) having stirred the emotions and intellect of many along the way, viable solutions continue to be unattainable between the two camps.

The proponents of capital punishment believe that its use is both morally and constitutionally justified (Satris, 2004). It is their belief that certain criminal acts demand death; therefore criminals engaging in these acts should pay the ultimate penalty; death (Satris, 2004). Satris (2004) continues to lend to the argument with the thought that capital punishment is designed to eliminate private vendettas and personal vindictiveness, the intent of the state is to support law and order and to protect its citizens from coming to harm at the hands of wrongdoers. Of course the long standing argument of deterrence continues to serve as an often used reason for the maintenance of capital punishment.

Moral justification according to Immanuel Kant supported this line of thought by stating that were a society to be dissolved, the last murderer remaining in prison would first have to undergo execution, lest the inhabitants become blood guilty in their mishandling of justice (Potter, Jr., 2002) and be regarded as collaborators in its public violation. Additionally, the bible verse, located at Matthew 5:38, which states “an eye for an eye” is often quoted as the basis upon which to morally justify the usage of the death penalty. Supporters of capital punishment apply this scripture in a literal sense as a means to justify its usage. The constitutional justification of capital punishment lends to the belief that the state as the enforcers of the law should be able to apply this measure equitably and without prejudice in their efforts to protect its citizens from criminals and would be criminals (Satris, 2004). The basis of the deterrent factor is designed to provide potential criminals with a warning, designed to appeal to their sense of self preservation (Rubin, 2002).

In spite of the gravity of this conundrum, Satris (2004) offers a bit of humor on this paradox in the form of a little joke. A Texan tells a visitor that in the old days the local punishment for horse stealing was hanging. The visitor is shocked. “You used to hang people just for taking horses?” “Nope, says the Texan, horses never got stolen.”

In taking an opposing view, the opposition takes the utilitarian stance, in the form of alternative methods designed to provide an equal measure of safety to citizenry (Ferrall, 2002). In so doing, the opposition addresses the issues of moral and constitutional justification from a more conservative vantage point.

With regards to moral justification, in contrast to the beliefs held by the proponents of capital punishment in the face of the bible application of “an eye for an eye”, the opponents expound on the scriptural support, by further investigation of biblical view. The information provided at James 2:3, offers this counsel, “for the one that does not practice mercy, will have his judgment without mercy, mercy exalts triumphantly over judgment” (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984). Additionally, cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, is supported by information gained by researchers from the toxicology report of executions from four states; these reports indicate that sufficient dosage of the initial drug (sodium pentothal- an anesthesia used to induce sleep) were not utilized to guard against awareness. In essence, the individual being executed was possibly awake and no one was able discern the individual’s wakefulness due to the pancuronium bromide which is used for paralysis (The Lancet, 2005) during the procedure.

Constitutionally speaking the opponents of capital punishment acknowledges that it is both legal and lawful; however, they question its effectiveness as a deterrent (Katz, Levitt, & Shustorovich, 2003). Satris (2004) appeals to readers by using the parable of the execution of the eighteenth century English pickpocket. Consider the example of the failure of deterrence that occurred in England when public hanging was the punishment for the crime of pick pocketing. Professional pick pockets undeterred by the activity on the gallows, circulated among the crowd of spectators, aware that a good time to pick pockets was when everyone’s attention was focused on something else- in this case, when the rope tightened around the neck of the convicted pick pocket. Lund (2002) states that while deterrence is believed to be an adequate rationale for punishing criminals, the certainty of this belief remains unproven; and does not appear to deter crime any more than does incarceration. Therefore it is believed by the opposition that the institution of prison systems (i.e. life sentences) offers a viable alternative to that of capital punishment (Tucker, 2007).

Miscarriages of justice have also become an issue that influences the oppositions stand on capital punishment (Roberts, 2005) the accumulating evidence suggests that not only is capital punishment unfairly administered, but has also resulted in the execution of innocence. Because of the fact that DNA testing has resulted in the exoneration of 120 people in 25 states ((Tucker, 2007) not including the hundreds that have been exonerated of lesser crimes, then more the reason to re-evaluate the use of a punishment that renders such irrevocable finality.

Johnson & Johnson (2001) addresses the discriminatory practices behind the act itself, by postulating that capital punishment in the United States is meted out in an economically and discriminatory manner. Statistical studies points (Satris, 2004) out that a black man that murders a white has a much greater chance of receiving the death penalty than he would have had his victim been black. This discriminates against black victims of murder so that they are not as fully or as often vindicated as white victims (Satris, 2004).

Capital punishment, although, believed to be as heinous in many ways as the crime committed, has been around for years. The original purpose of so harsh a manner of justice was provided as a measure by which to deter crime. The human race has over the years progressed from a society that once utilized this measure of justice for all criminal activity. However, mankind has evolved to the point of carrying out these sentences for only truly heinous acts. The institution of the prison system has served to nullify its usage to some degree, by the imprisonment of criminals for more minimal crimes against humanity.

Has capital punishment deterred criminal activity? Definitely not, research has been unable to ascertain the extent to which capital punishment does or does not deter criminal activity. The prisons remain full to capacity with more and more being tried and convicted of brutality every day. Given this, it can be argued that capital punishment does not deter brutality, especially in the case of crimes of passion. Two intoxicated individuals become incensed in a heated brawl. One grabs a gun and fatally wounds the other, under these circumstances can it be said that the individual that shot the gun was thinking in terms of capital punishment and would he had been deterred by 20 years incarceration (Satris, 2004). In light of the information gained via the extensive consideration of research, a more effective approach must be found other than that of capital punishment. From a moral standpoint, the bible does not condemn the use of capital punishment; however, it provides humankind with the option of behaving in a merciful way toward one’s persecutor.

A life sentence can serve equally to deter criminal behavior and if not it can and does alleviate the potential of the criminal being freed. There are many viable instances of wrongful deaths, discrimination, and the inequitable carrying out of justice that reinforces the questionable usage of capital punishment.

While the death penalty may have some merit, given the ineptitude of man thus far to determine the fate of another in a nondiscriminatory manner, the writer believes that progress to this end has not provided mankind with the ability to carry out this measure of justice. Just as the taking of life of an innocent bystander by that of a criminal is unjust, so to is the destruction of the life of the wrongfully accused.

Until such time as the judicial system can determine the unquantified guilt of a criminal without possibility of error, a life sentence as an alternative to capital punishment will suffice. According to Perlman (1998) “taking a life, in any circumstance, is a solemn and dangerous action, with repercussions that affect the entire fabric of our moral standards and decisions.”

References

Death Penalty Information Center. (2007). Introduction to the Death
Penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

Ferrall, B. (2002). The Death Penalty: An American History. Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology, 93(1), 299-300.

Grant, R. (2004). Capital Punishment and violence. The Humanist, 64(1), 25-29.

Johnson, J., & Johnson, C. (2001). Poverty and the Death Penalty, Journal of Economic
Issues, 35(2), 517-523.

Katz, L., Levitt, S., & Shustorovich, E. (2003). Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment,
and Deterrence. American Law and Economics Review, 5(2), 318-321.

Liptak, A. (2007). The Death Penalty Debate. New York Times Upfront,
139(9), 10-17.

Lund, N. (2002) Capital punishment in America. Public Interest, 149, 122-128.

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. (1984). Brooklyn, NY:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

Perlman, L. (1998). Killing by any other name: Taking a life is a solemn and dangerous
act, no matter what you call it. The Gazette, B.3.

Potter, Jr., N. (2002). Kant and Capital Punishment Today. The Journal of Value Inquiry,
36, 267-282.

Rubin, P. (2002). The death penalty and deterrence. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 82(1), 10-12.

Satris, S (2004). Taking Sides. Guilford, CN: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin

The Lancet. (2005). Medical collusion in the death penalty: An American atrocity. 365,
1361.

Tucker, C. (2007). DNA Refutes case for bill on death penalty. The Atlanta Journal, 19.