Reasearch Article Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Reasearch Article - Essay Example Deaf children have special needs and they have to be educated with extra care and effort. It is usually observed that children with hearing impairment have major problem in phoneme production, syntax and vocabulary. The need of such children always varies according to the defect they have in their sensory organs and therefore educational activities has to be tailored according to it. It has been proved that inclusive classrooms are very beneficial to deaf children as it gives them better exposure. The article really emphasize on how non verbal communication play a vital role in the language development of these kids. The communication procedure and teaching strategies of the educational process of deaf children is the main subject of the article The article pin points those children with hearing impairment come three year later in studies than normal children. Research was practiced to prove the success of three methods of communication used in the education of deaf children. They are lip-reading, lip-reading and finger spelling, and lip-reading, finger spelling and signing. However, Lip-reading, finger spelling, and signing seems to be more effective to these students. This form of communication has shown eighty – six percent of success rate. The sign language is thus shown to increase the learning ability of the deaf kids. However Inclusive classrooms can have negative effect as the teacher uses more than one method to communicate to pupil. If the teacher uses both communication styles simultaneously children can be left in doubtful situation. The students who are hearing are less benefited from this kind of teaching as they are less delivered with information while teacher use sign language. Inclusive language has its merits and demerits as sign language benefit the deaf and can enhance their phonetic aspect while strong vocabulary use can confuse the student with hearing ability. the deaf

The Instructional Strategy for the Student Essay

The Instructional Strategy for the Student - Essay Example The disability in speech and language slows down his capability to comprehend sounds and language that he is able to listen (Speech and Language Disorders and Diseases, 2009).   I would use visuals and words to meet the needs of the speech and language disabled student. For instance, if I wanted to teach this student what a house was, I would show him the picture of a house with the word â€Å"house† written under the picture of the house. I would then proceed to break down the visual of the house to its various components such as the door, windows, walls, floor, etc. each with the respective words under them and show these visuals to the student until he has thoroughly understood them.   The speech and language disabled student will have some problems in understanding what he is being taught with pictures and words. However, he will soon master the art of identifying the house with the word â€Å"house† beneath the picture. Although he is speech and language disabled, he is not completely deaf and dumb. He is capable of producing sounds. He is also capable of recognizing the outlines in the pictures being shown to him.   The speech and language disabled student will have a problem with different languages. For instance, if I show him the picture of the house with the word â€Å"house† written below the picture in English, he will soon master the English language as well. However, if I used the words in other languages he may have to be taught all over again. In this case, it will be a challenge like the one experienced by a person learning a new language.   The strategy or activity chosen could be challenging because there is no guarantee that one strategy could work for all the speech and language disabled students. One strategy could work for one student, but for another student, I may have to use another strategy that may be successful only with the second student.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty: An Evaluation

Innocent Until Proven Guilty: An Evaluation This claim is very similar to that of Blackstones ratio, which simply states that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer When taken at face value, it simply means that no one should be punished for any alleged crime, unless it can be proven that they are guilty. This is so that justice can be done, where no innocent should suffer for anothers crime. Although it sounds logical and fairly straight forward, before we agree with the claim, we should seek to understand each detail of the claim, where the claim implies, and the consequences of the eventuation of the claim. Interpretation and Analysis As discussed above, the general idea of the claim is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The claim implies that as long as there is any doubt, however insignificant, that a defendant is guilty, he should be released, lest he be unjustly incarcerated. By using the word incarcerated instead of using more specific words like imprison, it opens up several other possible meanings to the claim. The other possible meanings would be confinement or, in other words, placed under detention. The claim also failed to specify the time frame, so it is also implying that innocent persons should not be unjustly incarcerated, even for the shortest period of time. In this context, it can be linked to that of Australias detention orders under the anti terrorism law, which allows a person to be detained for 24 hours, with the option for the order to be extended for a total period not exceeding 48 hours. This, in itself, is controversial, as it is said to infringe the personal rights of liberty of individuals. Sadly, a world where no innocents are unjustly punished is a utopian one. Indeed, it is the ideal scenario when only the guilty is punished, and the innocent walks free. That is what the justice system is about. However, this is not always the case, and there is always a possibility that an innocent person is found guilty. An example of such a case would be DOrta-Ekenaike v Victorian Legal Aid, when the plaintiff was unjustly convicted due to bad legal advice given by the Victorian Legal Aid  [2]  . In fact, in many criminal cases, there is always a small chance that, however ridiculous the argument or explanation the defence puts up, it could be actually true, and that the defendant is truly innocent. Therefore, in order to ensure that truly no innocent is punished by mistake, the defendant must be allowed to go free in such cases, no matter how probable that he is guilty of the accused crime. This is the exact scenario which the claim seems to suggest at face value, where it is better that fifty guilty persons walk free than a single innocent person be unjustly incarcerated, and this might lead to the breakdown of the justice system, when the accused would simply conjure up some story to use as defence in court, hence raising doubt about their guilt, so that they would get acquitted. The claim also failed to mention the type of crime which the fifty persons allowed to walk free were guilty of. The scenario the claim suggests might be within limits which are reasonable if it is for relatively minor offences such as littering or parking offences, but it is an entirely different story if the crimes of the fifty guilty people include serious offences such as murder. This raises the question on whether it is worth the personal rights of the person, to uphold justice for this one innocent person, and in turn, opening up the possibility that fifty violent psychopaths being allowed to walk free to wreak havoc in society. Even if it is argued that it is not necessary that all fifty people are those guilty of serious crimes, the damage that even just one serial murderer can do is very significant. We just cannot afford to let one serial murderer walk free, much less fifty, for the stability and peace within our society. In light of the terrorist acts on the September 11, 2001, as well as the subsequent acts of terror around the world, it raises another problem to the claim. The damage that a single terrorist could wreak in our society could possibly be beyond what many of us can imagine. Even if just one of the hypothetical guilty people who are released is a terrorist, much less fifty, there would be serious implications to our society as a whole. The terrorist, with an agenda to create as much terror as he can, could detonate bombs in crowded areas like what happened in the Bali bombings, go on a shooting spree or even disrupt important conferences which involves world leaders. Not only will these result in loss of numerous lives, it will also tarnish the nations reputation in the eyes of other countries, especially if it involved the leaders of other nations, and this, in turn would have negative economic consequences, an example being the decline in the number of tourists. Therefore, in these times of turmoil and terror, perhaps, if the incarceration, be it temporary or permanent, of one innocent along with the fifty guilty people would be the key factor in preventing a terrorist attacks which would possibly result in numerous loss of lives, perhaps, ignoring the personal rights of the individual, it is the better alternative than letting all of them walk free, with possibly disastrous consequences. Evaluation and Inference The claim can be related to many of the theories we have learnt in the course, the most prominent one being liberalism, which is linked to human rights. It also can be related to the theory of natural law, as well as utilitarianism, which focuses more on the morals of the consequences rather than that of the action itself. From the natural law point of view, which focuses on the ethics of ones actions rather than the consequences, the laws of the state which goes against the values set out in Gods law, or based on principles of justice, are morally wrong. Laws made by the state should follow the set of values, or they would not be just law. Some things are just plain morally wrong, such as the wartime atrocities under the German law, and most people, if not all, would agree. The punishment of an innocent individual, as suggested by the claim, although nowhere as serious as the former, is still morally wrong in the eyes of most people. It is even stated in the Bible in Genesis 18:23-32 that God would not punish the innocent, and that if ten innocent and just people are found within the city, God would not destroy the city for their sake.  [3]  Therefore it can be said that in the eyes of natural law, the claim is perfectly just, and that laws made by the state should adhere to the principles laid do wn by the claim. From the liberalism point of view, which emphasises on individual rights, the unjust incarceration of an individual, regardless of the duration, would be an infringement of the rights of the individual. In fact, by the incarceration of the individual, it already goes against a number of rights listed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, examples being Article 11, where everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and Article 13, where everyone has freedom of movement within the boundaries of each state.  [4]  These are fundamental human rights which everyone is presumed to have, and it can be disturbing to suggest that some of this rights are being violated in a first world country, such as Australia. Examples would be the preventive detention order, control orders as well as questioning warrants in Australia, where individuals, in some cases even those without suspicion, may be detained for questioning.  [5]   However, the two perspectives mentioned above does not take into account the consequences of the actions. From the utilitarianism point of view, the most moral action would be the one which would benefit the most number of people in the end, instead of focusing on the morality of the act itself. This could be seen as for the benefit of communal wellbeing, which brings about the commonly heard phrase for the greater good. If by detaining the group of people, inclusive of the fifty guilty people as well as one innocent person, and as a result, terrorist attacks could be avoided, then in the eyes of the utilitarian, it is the act that is the most moral. In fact, by the very same Universal declaration of rights mentioned earlier, it is mentioned in Article 2 that Everyone has the right to security of the person.  [6]  Since in this scenario, it is impossible to be entitled to all the rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is ultimately better to choose the out come which end up benefiting the most people. Since somebody is going to suffer in the end, it might as well be that innocent individual, rather than the whole of society being affected as a result. Of course, some people might point out the individual rights of the hypothetical innocent person. and the justification for the incarceration. They might even enquire how is it even permissible that the innocent can be incarcerated even without being proven that he is guilty. However, looking back in time, when man first came together to form society, they had to give up part of their liberty in exchange for stability when they had to follow the law, so that they are able to live peacefully in turn. In light of the terrorist attacks, each of us should be prepared to give up a bit more of our rights, so that we are able to have the peace of mind and live in security. It is due to the nature of the terrorist attacks, which we have to take extra precautions, as there can be almost no warning when a terrorist will strike, and when it does happen, the damage would be massive. It is not always possible to find sufficient evidence in time to detain the suspected terrorists, and new anti ter rorism laws had to be introduced to allow the detention of suspected terrorists without the need for evidence, and it is inevitable that innocents would be detained by mistake as well. This is further justified, when Australia is near the top of the terrorists hit list, and the danger of such attacks occurring in the country is very real indeed.  [7]  The possibility of being incarcerated by mistake, along with the actual guilty people is a risk we must be all be prepared to take, so that we can enjoy continued peace. Reflection When I first started working on the essay, my original intention was to write revolving around the issue of human rights. I actually intended to write in support for the human rights of the innocent individual, as in reality, no reasonable person would want to be put under detention even without being proven to be guilty. This, I believe, would be the more popular mindset, and the more popular perspective. It is also one of the reasons why I chose to study law, which is to fight for the rights of others, and for a small duration of time, I was focused on planning my essay argument solely towards that direction. Although I am not a fan of the utilitarian perspective, being from a Christian background and having the beliefs that the morality is all about the actions of the individual, throughout the course of planning and writing the essay I have realised that the consequences of the scenario suggested by the claim are also extremely important, and a balance has to be struck between the morality of the action and that of the consequences. Having held leadership appointments in the Singapore Armed Forces, I also understand that some measures, although harsh and unpopular, are necessary for the security and wellbeing of the society. This has also helped me to understand that the threat of terrorism is very real, and that the peace we are living in now should not be taken for granted. This essay has also revealed myself as a open-minded individual, as I was willing to reconsider my own views and beliefs throughout the course of writing this essay. The essay also revealed showed that I am courageous, by challenging the viewpoints which are commonly taken for granted, as well as taking up an unorthodox perspective. Conclusion Therefore, perhaps in these times of terror, and with Australia running the real risk of being hit by terrorist attacks, letting fifty people go free so that no innocents are incarcerated would be inappropriate. Although I support the laws allowing individuals to be detained even without being proved to be guilty due to the sheer necessity, I believe that the authorities should show discretion in doing so and not abuse the power it provides. This is after all, a delicate balance between human rights and the communal wellbeing of the society.

green house effect :: essays research papers

GREEN HOUSE EFFECT INTRODUCTION In temperate countries some economically important plants that cannot grow outside at a very low temperature during the winter are grown in glass-walled & glass-roofed growth chambers (known as glass houses)exposed to sunlight. Glass houses are also used in sub tropiacal regions during winter months & relatively cold high altitude for high value horticultural annual crops including flowers on a cmmercial scale as well as for research work especially for breeding of new varities & crop physiological & pathological studies. Temperature within the glass house rises because of the glass of the roof & walls through it allows entry of sunlight with little obstruction,resist the escaping of the reflected light of longer wave-lengths rich in infra-red rays resulting in a heat built up. Such glass houses are called green housesas the light & heat within such houses prove very effective for profuse growth of green plants. The property of trapping heat by carbon di oxide & other gases of the atmosphere is similar to the glass cover of green house that reasists the escaping of heat radiated from inside of the house.As such, these atmospheric gases are called green house gases that resist the escaping of radiated heat from the earth by absorbing infra red rays & particularly reflecting the trapped heat back to earth's surface.this phenomenon is therefore called the green-house effect in wicch certain atmospheric gases act in a manner similar to the glass cover of glass house,as earth itself act as a green-house. MAJOR GREEN HOUSE GASES The major sources of green house gases are (i)CARBON DI OXIDE - It comes from burning of fossil fuels &from deforrestation. (ii)METHANE- It comes from paddy field,burning of wood,wetland etc. (iii)CHLOROFLURO CARBONS -which is populary known as CFC. It comes from air conditioning industry,foam packaging industries. (iv)NITROUS OXIDE-It comes from coal burning,motor veicheles,breakdown of chemial fertilizer,biomass burning. Carbon-di-oxide is the major green-house gas responsible for more than 55% of the green-house-effect. Methane is responsible for 20%,CFC is responsible for 15% & NO is responsible for 5% of the green-house effect. If the amount of carbon-di-oxide & other green-house gases would increase in the atmsphere ,the temperature on the surface of the earth & that of the layers of air adjuscent to the surface would increase,on the other hand global temperature would increase with the decrase in amount of the green house gases in the atmosphere.In fact the amount of all the green-house gase in the atmosphere is gradually increasing, as a result of which it is predicted that the global temperature would increase & there would be climatic changes on the earth resulting in adverse effects on the ecosystem of earth.

Korematsu v. United States

IntroductionToyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), is considered to be the most important of the Japanese-American cases because it upheld the forced exclusion of loyal citizens. The case was decided by a 6 to 3 majority vote by the Justices to sustain Korematsu’s conviction for exclusion order violation. Justice Hugo Black authored the majority opinion. The dissenter in the decision among others was Justice Frank Murphy. If situations arise in which legal reasoning overrides the value of a narrative, it may be time for the decision makers to reformulate the law. The Justices in Korematsu, in making their decision had the authority to use the law as they did, but they also had the authority to go the other direction and strike down the wrongful actions of the government. The following opinions of the Court fully explain the facts of the case.Majority Opinion: Justice BlackJustice Black, considered at the time to be the civil libertarian of the Court, deliv ered the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States, upholding the conviction of Fred Korematsu. He began by stating that â€Å"all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect† (Korematsu 216). He then qualified this statement by asserting that not all such restrictions are unconstitutional, but that they should be subject to the most rigid scrutiny (216).Black then laid the legal groundwork for the case by reciting the Congressional Act, which Korematsu is accused of â€Å"knowingly and admittedly† violating. Korematsu is convicted of violating the Congressional Act sanctioned via Executive Order No. 9066, requiring ‘every possible protection against espionage and sabotage’ through national defense, and then applied via military Exclusion Order 34, requiring the exclusion of all those of Japanese ancestry from designated military zones (216).Justice Black then revealed the case context by explaini ng the precedent on which Korematsu would rely. In the series of military orders, the first violation was the curfew order. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction in the preceding case of Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1944). Black explained that the both the Hirabayashi conviction and the Korematsu conviction are upheld by the same Act of Congress, aimed at protection against sabotage and espionage.The Act was disputed as unconstitutional by the petitioner in Hirabayashi because it was beyond the war powers of the government, and that the curfew order was aimed at only citizens of Japanese ancestry, and therefore discriminatory (217). Justice Black contended that these arguments were seriously considered, but that the curfew order was upheld as necessary government prevention of sabotage and espionage threatened by Japanese attack (217).Acknowledging that exclusion is a â€Å"far greater deprivation† than the curfew, Black remained supportive of the mil itary authorities because the Court was unable to prove that exclusion of those of Japanese ancestry was beyond the war power â€Å"at the time† that it occurred (218). He claimed the exclusion â€Å"has a definite and close relationship† with the prevention of sabotage and espionage (218). The petitioner disputed the assumptions on which the Hirabayashi opinion rested and contended that by May, when the exclusion was ordered, there was no longer danger of invasion (218).Black flatly rejected these contentions, reciting Hirabayashi, â€Å" ‘†¦we cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained’†¦most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country† (218-219). To the petitioner’s charge of group discrimination, Black answered that the Court sustained exclusion of the whol e group because it could not reject the military’s contention that immediate separation of the loyal from disloyal was impossible (219).The next portion of the majority opinion speaks to the petitioner’s and dissenters’ arguments against the government by giving an account and explanation of the pertinent dates that were in question as ill-fitting of the military’s assertions and the decision of the court. One of the counter arguments to the Majority opinion was that on May 30, 1942, when Korematsu was charged with remaining in the prohibited area, there were conflicting orders forbidding him both not to leave and to remain in the area (220). Justice Black refuted this argument by stating that the March 27, 1942 order stated that it was in effect until further direction from a subsequent order. The exclusion order was that subsequent order, which was given on May 3, 1942 and was to be enacted by May 9.Citing more important information concerning the dates , Justice Black explicitly conceded that before the exclusion was to take place on May 9, an instruction to report to an assembly center upon evacuation was issued, â€Å" ‘to insure the orderly evacuation and resettlement of Japanese voluntarily migrating from military area No. 1 to restrict and regulate such migration’ † (221). On May 19, 1942, before Korematsu was arrested, the military issued an order that â€Å"provided for detention of those of Japanese ancestry in assembly or relocation centers,† and so it was argued that the exclusion order could not be considered separately from the detention order (221). Justice Black refuted the notion that the Court must pass on the â€Å"whole detention program† when only the exclusion charge is before them (221).The majority asserted that since Korematsu was not convicted of failing to report to or remain in an assembly center, that they could not determine the validity of the separate order (222). Spe aking on the issue, Black stated that, â€Å" It will be time enough to decide the serious constitutional issues which [the] petitioner seeks to raise when an assembly or relocation order is applied or is certain to be applied to him and we have its terms before us† (222).Justice Black’s opinion spoke to the argument of racism in consideration of the fact that there had been no evidence of Korematsu’s disloyalty. Black denied that the order was based on racial prejudice. He implied a more complex situation, due to wartime, by stating that the Court’s task would be â€Å"simple† and its â€Å"duty clear were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice.† Black added that, â€Å"regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers†¦we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order.† (223).Finally, the majority opinion ended with the issue of military deference. Due to the military’s fear of invasion, â€Å"they [the military] decided† that the situation demanded segregation of the citizens of Japanese ancestry, and Congress determined that â€Å"they should have the power to do this† (223). Ironically Black stated that, â€Å"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (223). Black ended by asserting that from the â€Å"calm perspective of hindsight,† the Court cannot â€Å"say that at that time these actions were unjustified† (223).Dissenting Opinion: Justice MurphyJustice Murphy’s opinion can be referred to as the most scathing criticism of the three dissents, with his argument based on the charge of racism. First, Justice Murphy mentioned that the plea of military necessity for the exclusion came â€Å"in the absence of martial law,† and so s hould have been approved (233). He asserted that such exclusion goes beyond constitutional power into â€Å"the ugly abyss of racism† (233).Justice Murphy acknowledged the need to consider the reasoning of Military authority during war, and stated that their judgments should â€Å"not be overruled lightly† by those who may not have access to all of the military intelligence (233). He believed, however that there should be limits where martial law has not been declared (233). He claimed that individuals could not be stripped of their rights by â€Å"military necessity that has neither substance nor support† (233). Murphy explicitly reserved the right of the judicial branch to judge the validity of military discretion.Murphy cited the traditional judicial test of military discretion in depriving rights in various Court precedents: â€Å"Whether the deprivation is reasonably related to a public danger that is ‘so immediate, imminent, and impending’ as not to admit of delay and not to permit the intervention of ordinary constitutional processes to alleviate the danger† (234). He then pointed to the verbiage of the exclusion order having used the phrase ‘all person of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien,’ and declared it insufficient to meet the immediate danger criteria, calling it â€Å"obvious racial discrimination† (234).The order deprived those within its scope of their Fifth Amendment rights of equal protection (235). The order also deprived them of due process, because it excluded them without hearings and deprived them of being able to live and work where they choose and move about freely (235). Justice Murphy found no correlation between the exclusion and immediate danger, citing it as a â€Å"racial restriction† that brought about more â€Å"sweeping and complete deprivations of constitutional rights in the history of this nation in the absence of martial law† (235).Justice Murphy conceded that there was a fear of invasion, sabotage and espionage at the time on the Pacific Coast, and that reasonable military action would have been appropriate; however, the â€Å"exclusion, either temporarily or permanently, of all persons with Japanese blood in their veins has no such reasonable relation† (235). The military reasons, he states, relied on the assumptions that all those of Japanese ancestry have â€Å"a dangerous tendency to commit sabotage and espionage and to aid our Japanese enemy in other ways† (235).Justice Murphy’s opinion specifies the incongruent relationship of military necessity and immediate danger by reviewing the text of General DeWitt’s final report. He found that the report erroneously assumes â€Å"racial guilt† rather than military necessity. Murphy used as an example the words of DeWitt, who â€Å"refers to all individuals of Japanese descent as ‘subversive,’ as belonging to an ‘en emy race’ whose ‘racial strains are undiluted,’ and as constituting ‘over 112,000 potential enemies†¦at large today’ along the Pacific Coast† (236).In the report, Murphy found no reliable evidence of disloyalty, using either general or menacing conduct of the Japanese aliens and citizens (236). Murphy claimed that â€Å"justification is sought, instead, mainly upon questionable racial and sociological grounds not ordinarily within the realm of expert military judgment† (236-237). He proceeded to cover and dispute the evidence provided by General DeWitt.Justice Murphy’s opinion continued with more â€Å"unverified† information used in the General’s report to the Government. He methodically included footnotes behind each of DeWitt’s assertions, which cited studies that refuted assimilation claims, clarified reasons for dual citizenship and other claims, and also pointed out statements made that were based o n pure speculation. Justice Murphy thereby disproved a â€Å"reasonable relation between the group characteristics of Japanese-Americans and the dangers of invasion, sabotage and espionage† (239).Acknowledging the long-standing racial discrimination of the group, Justice Murphy chastised the military for having based its decision on racial and sociological judgments when â€Å"every charge relative to race, religion, culture, geographical location, and legal and economic status has been substantially discredited by independent studies made by experts in these matters† (240).Justice Murphy then directed his opinion to a discussion of individual guilt, which is recognized by the United States, as opposed to group guilt. He stated that there are some disloyal individuals who are among those of Japanese ancestry, just as there are among those of German and Italian ancestry, but to cite examples of individual disloyalty as indicative of group disloyalty is discriminatory (2 40). This process, he continued, denies our legal system that is based on deprivation of rights for individual guilt (240).There were no â€Å"adequate reasons† given by the military not to treat Japanese-Americans like German-Americans and Italian-Americans, and hold investigations and hearings on an individual basis in order to separate the loyal from the disloyal (241). Murphy cited the inconsistency between the claim that â€Å" ‘time was of the essence,’ † and the time period it took for the enactment of orders. The exclusion order was issued four months after Pearl Harbor, the last order was issued eight months later, and the â€Å"last of these ‘subversive’ persons was not actually removed until almost eleven months had elapsed† (241). â€Å"Deliberation† was more â€Å"of the essence than speed† (241).Murphy emphasized the suspect representation of urgency when â€Å"conditions were not such as to warrant a declar ation of martial law† (241). Murphy held that within this time period and in these circumstances it would have been possible to hold loyalty hearings for at least the 70,000 American citizens â€Å"especially when a large part of this number represented children and elderly men and women† (242). As evidence to this, Murphy cited the fact that during a six-month period the British set up hearing boards and summoned and examined 74,000 Germans and Austrians (Korematsu Footnote 16).Finally, Justice Murphy ends his opinion in a declaration of dissent:I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. (242)Discussion and SummaryThe decision set one of the gravest precedents in history for the United States. Since then, efforts at redress have been made in the form of minimal monetary compensation, congressional acts allowing Asian immigrants to become naturalized citizens, and Presidential apologies. Fred Korematsu received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in January of 1998 for his courage in standing up to an unjust deprivation of liberty. The Korematsu case is a constant reminder to Americans that civil liberties for all citizens must be especially protected under adverse conditions, even in the face of public opposition and wrongful government action.Korematsu vs. United States is one of the best examples of the Supreme Court deferring to military and government authority, even under conditions that the Court itself realizes are suspicious. The Majority Court purposely avoided ruling on the whole process of exclusion, evacuation, and internment set by the military and sanctioned by the government before Fred Korematsu’s arrest. The narrow parameters in which they ruled were highly questionable because Fred Korematsu along with the rest of the ethnic Japanese were mandated to abide by the whole process intended by the military and the government to be a program.The Justice Black’s opinion make it clear that Majority do not intend to question the reasoning of the government and military, but only to suppose that they have one and therefore that the order is valid. The Majority leans on the context of war to legitimize their decision. The Justice Murphy’s opinion targets distinct and relative issues. He comments on the racial nature of the decision while focusing separately on the indivisibility of the exclusion order from the program, the lack of evidence to back the military’s report, and the danger of constitutionally endorsing the Majority decision.The Korematsu Court, acting as final judge of the entire episode, allowed those with power to decide the prevailing value in its ruling. Their decision was not consiste nt with their duty. Justice Black, in the majority opinion, makes two strong references that reveal the Court’s intent not to question the values of those in power. In the first reference, they reject Korematsu’s arguments and rest on precedent by quoting Hirabayashi: â€Å" ‘†¦we cannot reject as unfounded the judgement of the military authorities and of Congress that their were disloyal members of the population†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬  (Korematsu 218). The Court never answers why they cannot reject the military’s assertions, which were weak and lacking in any concrete evidence.In the second statement, Justice Black says on the Court’s behalf that, â€Å"we cannot-by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight-now say that at that time these actions were unjustified† (Korematsu 224). Again, no plausible explanation was provided. The nature of trials is such that many times they are conducted in the calm perspective of hindsig ht and their duty and purpose is to determine whether or not there is justification for the actions of those involved. Justice Murphy dutifully reviewed the military findings, and in doing so found:No reliable evidence is cited to show that such individuals were generally disloyal, or had generally so conducted themselves in this area as to constitute a special menace to defense installations or war industries, or had otherwise by their behavior furnished reasonable ground for their exclusion as a group. (Korematsu 236)Public opinion and political pressure were the initiators of the government actions, however, government and military officials were the ones who made the decisions to act on those pressures. Worse yet, in the face of this influence and power, the 1944 Supreme Court displayed the same negative value of racism as the populace by shamefully failing in their duty to remain impartial and pass judgment based on the constitutionality of the individual’s conviction. F rom the perspective of the Majority of the 1944 Supreme Court, the issues involved in the Korematsu case were based purely on their own and the government’s motives. The Supreme Court Majority completely lacked consideration for the value of the Japanese person perspective in the United States.ReferencesToyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Available at: laws.findlaw.com/us/323/214.html

Governements Use Fiscal Policy to Help Them Achieve Their Macroeconomic Objectives

Explain what is meant by this statement and discuss specific fiscal measures that the UK government has implemented in recent years to influence economic activity in the built environment. Definitions: FISCAL POLICY: â€Å"A combination of government spending and taxation used to achieve macroeconomic management. (The flow of government money in and out of the treasury. † (Danny Myers, 2006, pgs 75&126) MACROECONOMIC OBJECTIVES: â€Å"Targets relating to the whole economy, such as employment, price, stability and the balance of payments. † (Danny Myers, 2006, pg128) The Governments Macroeconomic (nations economy) objectives: 1. Low inflation/stable prices 2. Sustained economic growth 3. Low unemployment 4. Balance of payments between imports and exports (keeping money within the country as well as spending abroad 5. Environmental protection 6. Redistribution of income and wealth to poorRECENT YEARS: The fiscal measures looked at in this essay will be taken from 1990 onw ards. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY: â€Å"The production and distribution of goods and services at all levels. † (Wall Street Words, David L. Scott. 2003) THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT: â€Å"The built environment is made up of various types of property (residential, commercial, industrial etc); linked by infrastructure (sewers, canals, roads, tunnels etc) and separated by spaces in between (parks, woods, playing fields, landscaped areas, squares etc)†. (Danny Myers, 2006, pg6)AGGREGATE DEMAND: â€Å"All planned expenditures for the entire economy summed together. † (Danny Myers, 2006, pg123) †¢By influencing Government taxation and expenditure, aggregate demand can be stimulated to achieve Macroeconomic objectives such as; price stability, full employment and economic growth. †¢It is the total demand for goods and services in an economy. EXPANSIONARY FISCAL POLICY: †¢Increase in government spending and/or a decrease in taxes that causes the government’s budg et deficit to increase or budget surplus to decrease. This is a method used in a recession to stimulate the economy by providing each household with more disposable income, which can be used for consumption expenditures, which then stimulates aggregate production. It also decreases unemployment, which leads to further increases in income. CONTRATIONARY FISCAL POLICY: †¢Decrease in government spending and/or an increase in taxes that causes the government’s budget deficit to decrease or its budget surplus to increase. †¢Decreases the amount of disposable income per household meaning the output and national income is less.EXPLANATION OF STATEMENT: ‘Governments use fiscal policy to help them to achieve their macroeconomic objectives’ Fiscal policy deals with the governments spending and taxation. There are two types of fiscal policy, Expansionary and Contrationary. When the government needs to stimulate the economy by increasing public spending then they w ill decrease taxes so that each household has more disposable income to be spent on consumer goods. In turn this puts more money back into the economy, creating more jobs and encouraging economic growth.An increase in aggregate demand leads to a higher inflation as there is more money being spent on limited goods and services, which pushes the prices up. To counteract this the government decreases taxation and spending, so that consumer households have less disposable income to spend on goods and services, this decreases aggregate demand and brings inflation back down with it. To achieve a balance of stable prices the government must mediate between the two. SPECIFIC FISCAL MEASURES: STAMP DUTY HOLIDAY:The Stamp Duty holiday was introduced in September 2008 whereby properties worth between ? 125,000 and ? 175,000 were to be temporarily exempt from stamp duty. The stamp duty on this particular property bracket was 1% of the sale price, therefore saving a potential ? 1,750. The intent ion of the holiday was to boost demand in the property market by encouraging first time buyers to take advantage of the saving and buy a house. More money is then borrowed as people take advantage of this, which has the effect of boosting the mortgage market as well.According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML), 132,500 house purchase mortgage transactions have benefited from the holiday; this is the equivalent of 25% of the overall 486,400 house purchase loans in the period. Buyers have saved 173 million from the holiday rather than the 600 million the government forecasted. The success is questionable as the incentive was supposedly directed at lower income areas to the North, the Midlands, Wales and Scotland where as, the majority of the benefits have gone to the richer areas in the SE.As this area in particular was hit by the recession the least and where the housing market is the strongest, the governmental loss of the taxation seems to have been wasted. The holiday ended on the 31st December 2009. Although there has been a brief stimulation in the current housing market the number of transactions is still at an all time low. The figures may fall further now that stamp duty has been reinstated, meaning that the government may have to explore other options. AGGREGATES LEVY â€Å"The Aggregates levy is a tax on sand, gravel and rock that is dug from the ground or dredged from the sea in UK waters.The tax addresses the environmental damage caused by these business activities in the form of noise, dust and loss of biodiversity. † (www. businesslink. gov. uk, Environmental tax obligations and breaks (online), (07. 01. 2010). The Levy was introduced on the 1st April 2002 setting out to address the macroeconomic objective of environmental protection while trying to retain sustainable economic growth. The idea is that the tax should make the cost of the aggregates better reflect the cost to the environment and should therefore influence business decis ions to become more eco-friendly and efficient.In terms of the Built Environment this encourages sustainable development, â€Å"The creation and responsible management of a healthy built environment based on resources efficient and ecological principals† (Charles. Kibert,1994). This definition incorporates six principals, (Miyatake, 1996) †¢Minimisation of resource consumption †¢Maximisation of resource reuse †¢Use renewable and recyclable resources †¢Protection of the natural environment †¢Creation of a healthy and non-toxic environment †¢The pursuit of quality in creating the built environment There is an argument that taxes such as this will damage international Competitiveness.The common object of development is to keep the cost as low as possible, to have a minimal construction period and to have the best quality possible. With increased taxation on these materials investors may become more cautious due to the rising cost, which is to be kep t as low as possible, therefore there is a possibility of the UK losing international business. This is just part of the problem between economic growth and environmental protection as both have the potential to hinder the other. However some of the tax revenue accumulated will go towards a sustainability fund.This will be spent through various agencies to promote new innovative ways to protect the environment and provide good quality construction at the same time. The Aggregate levy is a further development of the original ‘Landfill Tax of 1996. ’ This was set to influence the management of waste by encouraging a movement away from the cost of disposing waste in a landfill to a cheaper and more productive way of reusing waste materials. Both have helped to make businesses greener which agrees with the macroeconomic objective of Environmental protection. THE THAMES GATEWAY REGENERATION PROJECTThe Thames gateway regeneration project includes an area stretching 40 miles E ast of inner East London, both sides of the Thames and the Estuary. The area has been targeted for urban regeneration by both government and developers. There are an estimated 1. 6 million people living in this area, which has been deemed one of the most depraved in the UK. This is because of the lack of access to public transport, services, employment and affordable quality housing. The government wishes to gentrify this brownfield site to make the most of the economic potential of the gateway, and to encourage new investment and job opportunities. The Government Delivery Plan, 29th November 2007, Yvette Cooper) The project is co-ordinated by The Department For Communities and Local Government who continue to invest 3bn every year alongside the regional development agencies, the London Development agency, the East England Development agency and the SE England Development agency. (Thames Gateway Annual Report 2008/09). The Gateway project was drawn up in 1995 with the government hop ing to achieve 225,000 new jobs and 200,000 new houses by 2016. In this area there is emphases on developing town centres, public spaces and infrastructure to attract new investment to expand the economy.The Government hopes for this project to lead the way in terms of environmental jobs, new technologies and environmental improvements to existing homes and buildings. The Government is insuring this by providing funds for an eco-risk assessment of the housing programmes, energy savings methods for green housing and a zero construction waste target across the gateway. This project seems to have a lot of potential, however the timing of the recession limits the productivity and investment that it needs. The shortage of mortgages makes it difficult to sell the new housing at the arranged rices, which in turn can reduce investor confidence when companies are to buy up the land for housing developments. CONCLUSION From this essay it is clear that to some extent fiscal policies can be use d to help achieve macroeconomic objectives. From the examples shown, a combination of taxation and government expenditure has been directed at particular areas in the built environment to attain certain results. The construction industry makes up a large proportion of the UK economy and the government seems to be very focused on the issue of sustainable economic growth and environmental protection.The policies such as the ‘Aggregates levy’ and ‘landfill tax’ are addressing the objective of Environmental protection by playing a large part in the way buildings are constructed or demolished. By promoting the use of recycling of materials and reuse, the future of development will change for the better. This is seen in the Thames gateway regeneration project where they are leading the way for the future of construction by using eco friendly and sustainable methods. At the same time they are creating a huge investment opportunity, which will lead to the continued sustained growth of our economy.There will be an improved standard of living for the people who once lived in a depraved area by increasing the once lower levels of employment. From the Stamp Duty we can see that the government was trying to use this tax break to boost the property sector of the UK economy in a time of decline. However I do not believe that this has necessarily achieved its goal. The housing market may well fall again and the aim of helping people of lower income to get on the property ladder has not had its desired effect as the benefits did not go to the poorer areas in mind.