Category: Justice

In their philosophical discussion of justice, Rawls and Hobbes adhered to different considerations, which informed their opposing definition of this concept. On the one hand, Rawls defined justice, emphasizing its so-called ideal state without proper consideration of the injustices (Wilburn 96). In particular, Rawls perceived justice as the prevalence of fairness for all people regardless of the traditional views in a society where all members are equal. On the other hand, Hobbs held another position which implied setting its concept in the context of the social contract. More specifically, Hobbs did not perceive the possibility of ideal justice and defined it as a means for states functioning where every individual has the right to do anything. Therefore, in Hobbs opinion, the existence of unjust actions is impossible (Wilburn 121). In my opinion, the definition of justice proposed by Rawls is more relevant to contemporary civilized societies due to the importance of tolerance and recognition of the rights of all people with respect to equity considerations.

The social contract is a set of agreements persisting in a society according to which the citizens abide to live. Contrary to the principles of equality and ideal justice that were proclaimed by Martin Luther King, the ideas of the social contract allow for unjust actions to be committed. King was a devoted advocate for justice, freedom, and equality for all people, which excludes the possibility of justifying any breach of these values under social contract (2). Therefore, Kings accounts might be compatible with Rawls vision of ideal justice but contradict the perception of Hobbs, who prioritized social contract over equality and justice. Such a disagreement between Hobbs and King might be justified by the difference in their ethical and philosophical perception of the concepts of justice.

Works Cited

King, Martin Luther. Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963,  Web.

Wilburn, Heather. Philosophical Thought. 4th ed., Creative Commons.

Introduction

Justice is primarily concerned with the ideals that should support the state, politics, and the law relevant to Western pluralistic cultures. Sandel provides a three-way argument between utilitarian, liberal, and communitarian viewpoints, with the latter emerging victorious, aided by a healthy dose of neo-Aristotelianism. Reasonable explanations are provided, and they are based on the nuances of these perspectives and a forensic study of their limits. In determining how obligations, rights, riches, and power are distributed in a society, ethical values such as libertarianism and utilitarianism influence various life scenarios.

Doing The Right Thing

There are various lessons to be learned from Hurricane in terms of how people should respect one another, what the law should be, and how society should be constituted. The discussion against price gouging revolves around three concepts: maximization of welfare, respect for freedom, and promotion of virtue. Markets foster societal well-being while respecting individual liberty. Outrage at price gougers is more than just irrational wrath. Outrage is a type of wrath that occurs when people believe that others receive benefits that they do not deserve. This type of outrage stems from a sense of unfairness. Greed is a horrible way of being, specifically when it renders individuals insensitive to the suffering of others. It contradicts civic morality, in times of crisis, a society wherein people exploit their neighbors for monetary benefit is not a civilized society.

Welfare, Freedom, and Virtue

The argument over regulations on price-gouging is approximately more than just liberty and welfare. It is also about virtue, fostering the dispositions and attitudes, the character attributes, that lead to the decency of society. On the contrary, the virtue argument is based on the belief that greed is a fault that the government should combat. When people examine their emotions toward price gouging, it is discovered that views are torn between two camps being indignant when people acquire goods they do not deserve and believing that selfishness that preys on human misery should be penalized, not commended. According to Immanuel Kant, a fair society respects every individuals right to select the persons definition of happiness, which is termed freedom.

What Wounds Deserve the Purple Heart?

The Purple Heart issue is about more than how to establish the reality of damage in medical terms. Rival ideas of moral character and military courage are at the center of the conflict. The debate over the Purple Heart exemplifies the moral logic of Aristotle, it is impossible to decide who gets a military award without first determining what qualities the medal is supposed to commemorate (Dimmock & Fisher, 2020). The bailout indignation was not primarily motivated by greed. What most angered Americans sense of fairness was using their tax money to reward failure.

Three Approaches to Justice

The scenarios are on the three approaches to justice, determining whether a society entail looking at how it allocates the things people value, such as money and riches, obligations and rights, opportunities, and power. A just society equitably distributes these commodities, ensuring that everyone receives their fair share (Rawls, 2020). When it comes to determining what individuals are owed and why the difficult questions arise. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of price gouging, vying for the Purple Heart, and bailout outrage (Sandel, 2010). Three distinct approaches to the distribution of commodities have been identified, virtue, welfare, and freedom (Pils & Schoenegger, 2021). Every one of these ideas indicates a distinct perspective on justice.

Case the Run-Away Trolley

This is a case of moral dilemma considering the situation that the driver on the troller is in, the is no other option to avert the fact that death has to result. Perhaps the moral distinction rests not in the impact on the victims (both of whom die), but in the purpose of those individuals who are decision-makers. Moral reasoning is sometimes thought of as a method of persuasion. However, it is also a means of sorting out our own moral convictions, of determining what humans believe and the reasons for that. Conflicting moral ideals can lead to moral difficulties, when faced with a circumstance in which saving a large number of lives necessitates the death of an innocent individual, then that is a situation of moral dilemma.

The best solution is that diverting the trolley onto another track with only one person on it is the only option to save the five workers lives. This one employee will perish if the trolley is redirected to the other track, while the other five employees will be rescued. According to Smart, (Ed). (2020) Utilitarianism favors the right that leads to the happiness of a great number of people in a given society. The approach of utilitarianism is, therefore, recommended, this is because it is acceptable to determine which concept has more weight or is more suitable in the given situation. Other moral difficulties occur as a result of our inability to predict how events will unfold.

Moral Dilemmas

According to this section of the chapter, one may recognize how to make sense of the complex issues of injustice and justice, equality and inequality, individual rights, and the collective good. One place to start is to observe how moral contemplation naturally arises from an encounter with a difficult moral matter (Faulhaber, 2019). People begin with an opinion or belief about what is the correct thing to do. Then it is considered why humans have this conviction and look for the principle that underpins it: It is preferable to sacrifice one life rather than many. One may come to a different conclusion about what is the correct thing to do. The urge to philosophy comes from the power of bewilderment and the temptation to figure things out. Moral contemplation is the process of shifting ones thinking from the arena of action to the realm of reasoning and back again. It is a public undertaking that needs the presence of a buddy or two to debate it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ethical values such as libertarianism and utilitarianism are among the significant philosophical views that influence the rights, obligations, power, and riches as described in the scenarios by Sandel. Consequently, his claim that the goal of justice is to assure the formation of the general welfare through political virtue nurturing looks to be compelling. In order to have a comprehensive view of the problem of justice in modern society, it is possible to confront more ideologies, particularly current ones, in a future study on the subject. Because of a straightforward style of expressing major ideas and concerns addressing the problems of affirmative action, just acts, and equality the book is vital to be evaluated by students and other types of readers.

References

Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (Eds). (2020). Aristotelian virtue ethics. PHI220 Ethics. Web.

Faulhaber, A. K., Dittmer, A., Blind, F., Wächter, M. A., Timm, S., Sütfeld, L. R.,& & König, P. (2019). Human decisions in moral dilemmas are largely described by utilitarianism: Virtual car driving study provides guidelines for autonomous driving vehicles. Science and engineering ethics, 25(2). Web.

Pils, R., & Schoenegger, P. (2021). On the epistemological similarities of market liberalism and standpoint theory. Episteme. Web.

Rawls, J. (2020). A theory of justice. In A theory of justice. Harvard university press. Web.

Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: Whats the Right Thing To Do? Macmillan.

Smart, J. J. C. (Ed). (2020). Utilitarianism and its applications. In New Directions in Ethics. Routledge.

The views of Hobbes and Locke on the state of nature and natural rights

Hobbes believed that the state of nature is based on the natural rights as well as Locke. They also thought that people are free to acts as they want considering the natural rights. Still, their ideas differ, as Hobbes claimed that there is no personal property, and all people are willing to fight to preserve their lives while Locke said that all people have their own property, which should not be threatened by others otherwise the individual will be punished. Locke also associated the state of nature with Christian belief while Hobbes found no connection between theology and the state of nature.

Rousseaus criticism of both Hobbes and Locke regarding the state of nature

Rousseau criticized the views of both Hobbes and Locke regarding the state of nature. He believed that Hobbes imagined people who were raised in the society without it. He said that people are not born good or bad, as these philosophers thought. The society and environment, in which they were raised, formed them. Rousseau also disproved the idea of people being engaged in conflicts. His views seem to be reasonable, as they tend to avoid any false starts. Rousseau focuses on people as individuals who are influenced by other living beings, and his ideas were supported by many scholars.

The difference between the labor theory of property and labor theory of value

The labor theory of value underlines that labor is the force of nature. It can be measured by measuring the labor hours but not the number of people who worked, as the society is treated as a whole. According to the labor theory of property, all people have an equal opportunity to use the world and its resources, so those who produced some object own it, and the individuals but not time should be considered.

Karl Marxs analysis of class struggle as presented in his Communist Manifesto

Karl Marxs believed that all people are divided into two classes: workers and capitalists. The class struggle occurs when the individuals realize to what group they belong, define their shared interests and then start to take actions to prevent exploitation of the lower class. In other words, the conflict occurs because the interests of the groups fail to be common and differ greatly. It is not obligatory a violent process, but the issue is always critical.

Rhe views of Nozick and Hospers regarding legitimate laws and the role of government

Nozick believed that the government is to protect people and their property as well as Hospers who also accepted the idea of protection. Hospers believed that the laws should help the government and prohibit aggression. Nozick claimed that the laws should protect people, the taxes can be used for advantages in such spheres as healthcare and education, etc.

Rawls and Nozick on justice

Rawls claimed that the justice is fairness and people are to be treated equally regarding basic rights. Inequality may be observed if the goods are used to help those who are in need. Nozick believed in an entitlement theory of justice, according to which people can gain something only by dint of just acquisitions or at least the transfers made by free will.

Plea bargaining is one of the key elements of the American Criminal Justice system. It is a unique approach towards inducing cooperation between the defendant and the prosecutor regarding the case. Its advantage is that both parties achieve some form of benefit, but the disadvantage is the endangerment of the fair and correct outcome. It is often used to avoid committing resources and time, and the process takes place before trial. The positive effect is that one can prevent publicity, traumatic testifying, or harsh sentence, but the negative side is that it encourages innocent accusing.

The primary pro of plea bargaining is that it allows the two parties to negotiate a deal that offers some form of benefit to both sides. For example, it is stated around 90% of all conviction end in some form of plea bargaining (Lippke, 2006). In other words, it significantly reduces the burden on the criminal justice system (Gorr, 2000). However, the con is that it incentivizes incorrect legal outcomes, where a defendant can severely decrease the harshness of sentences or charges and serve smaller ones. One of the most important problems of the criminal process is the need to optimize the current procedural form, which would effectively ensure the realization of the human right to free access to justice, contribute not only to the economy but also the rational use of resources allocated for the administration of justice, to reduce the time for consideration of criminal cases and reduce the burden on the judiciary.

It is evident that plea bargaining is used to move the cases as quickly as possible through the system. Two parties also commit fewer resources and time to the issue, which removes unnecessary pressure. The procedure itself takes place before trial, and it can take a number of forms. The main two are charge bargaining and sentence bargaining, which differ in the fact that the former focuses on reducing charges, and the latter negotiates the sentence (Heumann, 2020). Therefore, the mechanics of the process is manifested as an alternative route for the trail.

The positive outcome of plea bargaining is that defendant can negotiate a sentence or charge if he or she believes that there no chance for acquittal. A prosecutor saves time and secures conviction, whereas witnesses and victims avoid unnecessary publicity and testifying, which can be traumatic. However, the main negative outcome is that plea bargaining incentivizes an innocent person to agree for a reduced sentence due to the factor of fear. It is stated that perceived case strength highly dictated the likelihood of falsely pleading guilty (Zimmerman & Hunter, 2017). In addition, there are racial aspects of the issue, where innocent African American defendants are more likely to plead due to the high chance of being convicted during the trial (Berdejo, 2018). In other words, the negative outcomes can be seen in moral problems as well as racism.

In conclusion, plea bargaining is a highly controversial and critical element of the American Criminal Justice system. It creates an opportunity for both defendant and prosecutor to come into an arrangement, but it also encourages incorrect legal outcomes. It is mostly used to increase the efficiency of case resolutions by committing fewer resources. It primarily takes place before trial and acts as an alternative route. The positive outcome is that both parties might improve their current state of being, and the criminal justice system reduces the load. However, the negative effect can be observed in moral issues, such as the conviction of innocent and racial disparity.

References

Berdejo, C. (2018). Criminalizing race: Racial disparities in plea-bargaining. HeinOnline.

Gorr, M. (2000). The morality of plea bargaining. Social Theory and Practice, 26(1), 129-151.

Heumann, M. (2020). Plea bargaining: The experiences of prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys. The University of Chicago Press.

Lippke, R. L. (2006). Retributivism and plea bargaining. Criminal Justice Ethics, 25(2), 3-16.

Zimmerman, D. M., & Hunter, S. (2017). Factors affecting false guilty pleas in a mock plea bargaining scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 53-67.

Introduction

Juvenile delinquency seems to be on the rise in many parts of the world. Many times, juvenile delinquency manifests in antisocial or illegal behaviors which have in the past been defined by existing numerous theories explaining the occurrence of youth crime. However, the biggest debate today is the type of sentencing to be given to juvenile offenders. To a section of the American population, juvenile offenders should be subjected to stiffer penalties, but to another; juveniles should not be treated as adult offenders. In most parts of the world (including democratic nations), juveniles have often been tried like adults and sentenced to adult prisons, even without the possibility of parole (Msnbc, 2011). Most of the crimes committed by juvenile offenders who undergo this kind of judicial process are normally worst-case offenses but the debate on juvenile sentencing heats up because the offenders are still treated as minors and therefore adult sentencing is often given to them for committing extreme crimes becomes a controversial matter.

In this debate, there exist two sides to the story. One side is dominated by legal interpretation of the law and how juvenile offenders should be sentenced (including the rights they enjoy under the law). However, the other side of the debate is marred by controversy regarding the degree of crime committed and the facilitation of correct justice to victims and the families of the victims. Across many American states, different courts have had different rulings regarding juvenile crimes and many have also adopted different tactics in dealing with the same. This implies a disjointed manner in which juveniles are treated across the country. This study seeks to further explore this debate and analyze when it is justifiable to subject juvenile offenders to adult trials or incarceration and when it is not. This study will therefore help in understanding the current debate surrounding juvenile delinquency and juvenile sentencing. Systematically, we will analyze the existing literature on juvenile sentencing (in the literature review section) but afterward, we will evaluate existing research methods we can use in coming up with an articulate research study on the same. This will be the final part of the study.

Literature Review

Many law experts today are increasingly noting that there is a new generation in America that is getting tougher on juveniles because cases of locking up juvenile offenders for life are quickly becoming a normal occurrence. This means that many states are repealing their laws to make juvenile sentencing tougher, and frankly, more like adult sentencing laws. However, this is happening even as new research studies point out that subjecting juvenile offenders through adult courts is more destructive than constructive (since such offenders grow up to be more socially distraught than is predicted) (Msnbc, 2011, p. 2). New research studies show that such juveniles become more violent in the future, more destructive, and commit crimes more often and faster than even adult offenders subjected through the same systems do (Msnbc, 2011).

In reference to the changes in juvenile laws from the 90s to date, Belichick (cited in Msnbc, 2010) notes that Its really the trifecta of bad criminal justice policy&..People didnt know that at the time the changes were made. Now we do, and we have to learn from it. In fact, studies presented in Hile (2003, p. 48) show that juvenile offenses have decreased over the past decade or so when many activists were struggling with the problem of removing children from the streets but still, current efforts to replace punitive measures have gone too far. Junger-Tas (2006, p. 255) notes that today, lawmakers have cast the net too broadly and are insensitive to the unique factors which make juvenile offenders different from adult offenders. Msnbc (2011, p. 5) reiterates that When you make these general laws& a lot of people believe they made it too easy for kids to go into the adult system and its not a good place to be.

However, juvenile sentencing varies from state to state and for some states, life without parole is acceptable while for others, the minimum age for juvenile sentencing is up for review. Other states are on their way to rehabilitate juvenile offenders even before they are sentenced, or after they have been sentenced. Ruth (2003, p. 260) notes that there is a huge wave of change among various states in the way they deal with juvenile offenders. However, even amid these changes, not every stakeholder believes rolling out harsher penalties for juvenile offenders (which was exhibited in the 90s) is the right thing to do. Inkwell (2010, p. 138) affirms that there was a need to change these laws back then, but nothing much has changed since then, so there is no reason for going back into the past. A Michigan prosecutor, (cited in Msnbc, 2011) notes that the primary need for most states at the moment should be protecting the public and not repealing laws to subject juvenile offenders to stiffer penalties.

Concern among many law experts on the changing nature of juvenile sentencing is increasing by the day, considering current estimates by Myers (2005, p. 2) expose the fact that about 200,000 juvenile offenders are subjected to adult sentencing rules and imprisonment in adult correction facilities. The major reason advanced by Elrod (2009, p. 234) on why such offenders end up in these adult facilities is a weakness in the laws which define juveniles as adults, although some, merely define juveniles by the nature of their offenses. According to statistics from the juvenile center (cited in Congress, 2010, p. 5763), many laws made by different states in America were much harsher in the 90s, when the juvenile crime was at an all-time high and therefore up to 48 states in the country made it very easy for juvenile offenders to be transferred to adult facilities. In fact, with such changes nigh, many prosecutors would transfer offenders to adult facilities even without the consent of a judge, and even in some cases, some would willingly lower the legal age for juvenile offenders so they could be transferred to adult correction facilities (and through expanding the scope of their crimes which would ultimately see them land in the same adult facilities) (Msnbc, 2011, p. 4).

However, proponents of juvenile sentencing through adult judicial systems point out that there is an increasing wave of juvenile crime across America and current sentencing laws are not strict enough to deter offenders from committing crimes (Msnbc, 2011). Msnbc (2011) further explains that some of the horror stories we hear today, such as children shooting up the school, murdering their fellow classmates, rebelling against society (and the likes) are increasing. He further explains that today A series of horrific crimes by kids rattle the nation: A sixth-grader shot and killed a stranger. A 12-year-old stomped and beat a younger playmate. Two grade-schoolers dropped a 5-year-old 14 stories to his death (Msnbc, 2011, p. 9).

The juvenile sentencing debate that came about from an increase in juvenile crime was therefore centered on curbing such horrific crimes. However, Kupchik (2006, p. 126) notes that many people are of the opinion that juvenile offenders who commit such atrocious acts should be rehabilitated instead of being punished. Other researchers such as Heckel (2001, p. 16) are of the opinion that the effectiveness of juvenile and adult sentencing courts lies in their objectives. They explain that juvenile courts are meant to rehabilitate offenders but adult courts are meant to punish offenders (Heckel, 2001, p. 16). This they note should be the central focus for most state repeal laws today. Nonetheless, the debate on juvenile sentencing is endless and more studies need to be done to establish whether states are justified to subject juvenile offenders to adult judicial processes or not.

Evaluation of Research Methods for the Study

Qualitative Research Method

Qualitative research methods have in the past been used in many disciplines but recently, it has been commonly used in social research studies to understand human behavior and the factors that affect it (Gratton, 2010, p. 34). Qualitative research methods seek to explore the detailed specifics of a given research topic explaining the how and why specific things happen in a given analysis, as opposed to where, what and when. In this regard, it is more appropriate to use qualitative research studies when analyzing small population samples instead of large ones.

A qualitative research study uses various methods of data collection but certain methodological approaches such as action research or action-network theories are commonly used (Gratton, 2010, p. 34). However, various methods of data collection used may vary from grounded theory practice, classical ethnography, and shadowing (among other minor types of data collection techniques) (Gratton, 2010, p. 34). In terms of data analysis, the qualitative research method basically uses the observer impression as the most common data analysis method (Gratton, 2010, p. 34). This means that specific observers analyze a piece of information from a neutral point of view and create an impression of it; after which they later report their findings in a structured or quantitative form. However, the qualitative research method also uses other data analysis techniques including coding, recursive abstraction, and mechanical techniques (Gratton, 2010, p. 34). In coming up with a research design for qualitative research analysis, certain parameters are observed to determine whether specific research attributes fall into a given pattern of characteristics or not. Moreover, the research method ensures the study is done in a holistic manner and not in an isolated or reductionist way where certain important attributes of the analysis are left out.

Quantitative research is unique to most researchers because it employs specific mathematical, theoretical, and hypothetical tools of analysis in coming up with the final conclusions or recommendations regarding a specific causal relationship. It is however important to note that in a quantitative research method, there is a strong emphasis on the measurement of the research variables because the research methodology seeks to connect empirical findings and mathematical tools throughout the research. The criterion for the use of the research methodology is that most research studies under the disciplines of psychology; sociology; anthropology; and political science are undertaken using the research design (Gratton, 2010, p. 35). However, research studies which require specific measurement of variables are common with this research methodology as well.

In terms of data collection, the quantitative research method relies on specific software such as the SPSS and R because they produce highly reliable, valid, and effective data (Gratton, 2010, p. 35). Afterward, the research method incorporates statistical tools in data analysis through the variation of independent variables in the study of causal relationships (Gratton, 2010, p. 35). However, in most contemporary quantitative research methods, the general linear model is used to analyze existing variables in causal relationships. Other methods of data analysis include the nonlinear and factors analysis models but it is important to note that causation does not imply correlation in this data analysis method. In terms of the research design, the quantitative research method seeks to determine the relationship between an independent and dependent variable through a descriptive and experimental research design. In this manner, a quantitative research design is only meant to define the attributes related to specific variations in a study.

Mixed Research Method

A mixed research methodology implies that both the quantitative and qualitative research methodologies are incorporated in the same study (Scott, 2006, p. 155). The mixed research method is majorly used as an alternative to the qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, especially when there is a dispute regarding which research method is to be used in a given study. In coming up with the research design (when using the mixed research methodology), it is important to determine whether the mixed research is appropriate in the first place. The rationale for using the research methodology should thereafter be established, based on the two existing categorizations of mixed research designs. One of the major categories of the mixed-method research design is the time order research design which basically defines the concurrent versus sequential research techniques (Scott, 2006, p. 155). The other research design is known as the paradigm emphasis technique which defines the equal status of existing variables and their dominant status (Scott, 2006, p. 155).

In data collection, the mixed research method uses a number of tools. However, the most basic tools used include questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, observation, and secondary data sources which can be used in virtually all environments and in any population group (depending on the nature of the research) (Scott, 2006, p. 155). With regards to data analysis, the mixed research method is quite dynamic and flexible because it can still use the quantitative and qualitative tools of data analysis. However, there are specific tools such as quantizing which is used by researchers using the research method to convert qualitative data into quantitative data, or the qualifying technique which converts quantitative data into qualitative (Scott, 2006, p. 155).

Action Research

The action research method is used in a community setting where the participants organize themselves in specific teams to improve the manner in which they argue out specific research problems. Action research majorly works by trial and error, where the participants develop a given strategy to establish whether it solves the research problem or not. If it fails, they try out a different approach until they arrive at a given workable conclusion. The criterion for the use of active research depends on the nature of the research because real research studies or practical application research studies are identified to be the best application of active research methodologies (Scott, 2006, p. 156). This is true because the active research methodology is commonly used to solve real-life problems but some researchers have noted that the method is also appropriate for social researchers when undertaking pilot research studies (Scott, 2006, p. 155). Scott (2006, p. 155) also affirms that Mostly, though, in accordance with active research principles, the active research method is chosen when circumstances require flexibility, the involvement of the people in the research, or when change must take place quickly or holistically.

The active research design incorporates four basic steps encompassing planning, acting, observation, and reflection. Since the research is holistic in nature, it does not incorporate only one data collection tool, but rather an array of tools, with the most common being research journals, document collection and analysis, participant observations and recordings, interviews, questionnaires, and case studies (Scott, 2006, p. 155). The basic research design of the active research methodology can be understood from the different types of action research streams which are the traditional active research, action learning, radical, and education action research (Scott, 2006, p. 155).

Comparison of Research Methods

Research methodologies have been used variably in many research studies. However, there is no appropriate type of research methodology to use in all studies because different research studies warrant the use of different types of research methodologies. However, there are some basic common differences and similarities in the use of the above-mentioned research methodologies. In most literature excerpts, the difference between qualitative and quantitative research methodologies has been extensively highlighted. Qualitative research aims to provide a complete detailed description of a given research study but the aim of the quantitative research study is to provide a detail of the features of a given research study. Also, in a qualitative research methodology, the researcher may only vaguely know what he or she is looking for, but in a quantitative research study, the researcher precisely knows what is being researched. In a qualitative research study, the researcher acts as the instrument for data gathering but in a quantitative research study, the researcher uses appropriate tools of analysis in gathering and analyzing data. Finally, in a qualitative research study, the data obtained is usually in a pictorial or graphic form but in a quantitative study, the data is usually presented in numeric form.

The mixed research method being a hybrid research methodology, consisting of the qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, therefore encompasses both attributes of the two research methodologies. Finally, the active research methodology differs from all other types of research methodologies because it seeks to improve its methodologies while the others are fixed on specific types of methodologies. Also, the goal of active research is problem-solving while those of the other types of research methodologies are establishing the relationships among variables. From this analysis, therefore, we come to the conclusion that the qualitative research method will be the most useful in undertaking this research study because it is especially useful in social research studies.

References

Congress. (2010). Congressional Record. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Elrod, P. (2009). Juvenile Justice: A Social, Historical, and Legal Perspective. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Gratton. C. (2010). Research Methods for Sports Studies. London: Taylor & Francis.

Heckel, R. (2001). Children Who Murder: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Hile, K. (2003). Trial of Juveniles as Adults. New York: Infobase Publishing.

Inkwell, I. (2010). Children in the Belly of the Beast: Breeding Ground for Social Pathology. New York: Dorrance Publishing.

Junger-Tas, J. (2006). International Handbook of Juvenile Justice. New York: Springer.

Kupchik, A. (2006). Judging Juveniles: Prosecuting Adolescents in Adult and Juvenile Courts. New York: NYU Press.

Msnbc. (2011). Prosecuting Kids as Adults: Are Laws too Tough. Web.

Myers, D. L. (2005). Boys among Men: Trying and Sentencing Juveniles as Adults. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Ruth, H. S. (2003). The Challenge of Crime: Rethinking Our Response. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Scott, D. (2006). Key Ideas in Educational Research. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Where are the borders between the truth and lies, between justice and injustice? Should the world be considered being civil and civilized, if it is based on the principles of law? What is the connection between law and justice, between civilization and the barbarian world? J. M. Coetzee has discussed these controversial questions in his novel Waiting for the Barbarians. The analysis of these contrasting aspects is presented in the form of the opposition between two characters of the novel, the Magistrate and Colonel Joll, and their visions of the problem of justice, humanity, and civilization. Power can reveal all the hidden personal features.

Moreover, every object and phenomenon has two sides. Therefore, the power of the Magistrate and Colonel Joll is their way to demonstrate their contradictory visions of the role of justice and morality in society as two sides of one phenomenon or different approaches to the situation.

The peculiarities of the characters attitude to the problems of morality and justice are depicted by J. M. Coetzee with the help of language devices that emphasize the positions of the Magistrate and Colonel Joll and the nature of their relationship. Their conflict develops according to several stages. However, it is not only a conflict of characters but a conflict of approaches to the principles of morality and ideologies.

Thus, we also realize that this is to be a novel not about nuances of character but about a clash of moral styles, a drama of representative ways of governing (Howe). This drama is described in the form of a vivid and emotional story with a lot of allegories and images which is told in a first-person narrative. The narrator is the Magistrate who had the power, but now he has to experience the changes in his community and to face new approaches to the authority provided by Colonel Joll.

The first interaction between the Magistrate and Colonel Joll can be described as the opposition between two men. However, this opposition is hidden because it is based on their different social status and powers of the Magistrate and Colonel Joll, but not on their different outlooks. Readers can feel the tension between them, but it is not obvious. It is possible to observe with paying much attention to the phrases which are presented in the form of the Magistrates thoughts about Colonel Joll.

Thus, he is rather confused with this person because Colonel Joll is from the Third Bureau, and the Third Bureau is the most important division of the Civil Guard, and that is what we hear, anyhow, in gossip that reaches us long out of date from the capital (Coetzee 1). The tensions are almost impossible to avoid in this situation because they touch the problem of power and influence in society.

Nevertheless, the relations between the Magistrate and Colonel Joll begin to acquire definite and obvious features of the conflict. J. M. Coetzee uses the concept of truth for depicting the contradictions between the characters:

What if your prisoner is telling the truth, I ask, yet finds he is not believed? Is that not a terrible position? Imagine: to be prepared to yield, to yield, to have nothing more to yield, to be broken, yet to be pressed to yield more! And what a responsibility for the interrogator! How do you ever know when a man has told you the truth? (Coetzee 3).

The author portrays all the features of a real dialogue with the help of word repetitions, the chain of emphatic questions, and by using exclamation marks. To depict the difference between the characters understandings of the notion of truth, J. M. Coetzee concentrates on determining the characters social positions. Their descriptions help to explain the Magistrate and Colonel Jolls further actions. Colonel Joll is quite strict about his vision of truth. That is why the Magistrate concludes that for Colonel pain is truth (Coetzee 3). This phrase has a rather metaphorical meaning which is revealed by the author through his depictions of the tortures against the barbarians as the typical way for Colonel Joll and his people to know and state the truth.

That is why, even though the Magistrate tries to hide his thoughts and considerations about Colonel Joll behind the phrase that the Empire does not require that its servants love each other, merely that they perform their duty, the reader can observe the increase of the tensions between the characters whose visions of such important aspects as morality and responsibility are extremely contradictory (Coetzee 3). Thus, they cannot love each other or even understand each other because their opinions on the question are rather conflicting. Unable to control the emissaries of the Third Bureau, the Magistrate wants to dissociate himself from their methods even as, in honesty, he has to admit that he and they are both servants of the Empire (Howe).

Nevertheless, what does the Magistrate mean when he speaks about justice? Is there a correlation between justice and truth? In his speeches, the Magistrate focuses on the fact that all people are inclined to think that they know the nature and roots of justice. You think you know what is just and what is not. I understand. We all think we know & all creatures come into the world bringing with them the memory of justice (Coetzee 73).

Thus, peoples considerations about justice and injustice depend on those ideas with which they began to learn the world with its rules and norms. However, is it possible to say that truth can be considered as the base for justice? According to the Magistrates words, Colonel Joll has his visions of truth and justice, thus, in his quest for the truth he is tireless (Coetzee 12). However, Colonel Joll is also tireless in his providing violent actions against the barbarian population because it is his way to find the truth. Nevertheless, are these actions just about the barbarians? Thus, Colonel Jolls borders of truth differ from his borders of justice.

On the other hand, the Magistrates attitude to justice and truth is based on the principles of morality and humanity. The author uses the protagonists initial monologue to express the depth of the characters feelings. The monologue is characterized by a lot of short simple sentences that reflect the thoughts of the character. For instance, the Magistrate states, The joy has gone from my life or I sleep like a dead man (Coetzee 12). There are also many metaphors, similes, and allegories in the text of the novel which are used to imply the emotional state and attitude of the character to the individual situations.

In his novel, the author also depicts the development of the Magistrates opinion on the question of justice. If at the beginning of the novel the Magistrate discusses justice in its connection with truth concentrating on the aspects of morality, at the end of the novel the character makes accents on the principles of law as the base for justice. It is possible to think that the chain of events depicted in the novel influenced Magistrates vision of the concept of justice. Now it is necessary to find the balance between justice and law because the reality of life proves the fact that justice does not always lead to truth.

&We live in a world of laws, I said to my poor prisoner, a world of the second-best. There is nothing we can do about that. We are fallen creatures. All we can do is to uphold the laws, all of us, without allowing the memory of justice to fade (Coetzee 73).

An open confrontation between the Magistrate and Colonel Joll depends on the changes in the positions of the characters. Thus, the situation is altered and the Magistrate is not a representative of the authorities anymore. He is considered by Colonel Joll and the community as an enemy. It can even seem that the Magistrate only states the facts, but the level of the tension is also presented with the help of the peculiarities of print. I read the words upside down: ENEMY& ENEMY& ENEMY& ENEMY He steps back and folds his hands. At a distance of no more than twenty paces he and I contemplate each other (Coetzee 56). The author depicts the controversial fact of injustice directed toward the Magistrate with the help of using emphatic sentences and repetitions of the words in which the thoughts of the Magistrate are expressed.

To depict the difference between Colonel Joll and the Magistrates visions of justice and morality, the author uses the description of the Magistrates tortures. It is emphasized that the torturers were interested only in demonstrating to the Magistrate what it meant to live in a body, as a body, a body which can entertain notions of justice only as long as it is whole and well (Coetzee 61). It was possible to do through the Magistrates feeling pain, but it is accentuated that the torturers also wanted to show the Magistrate the meaning of humanity (Coetzee 61).

The repetition of the word body helps to pay attention to the fact that tortures aim to make a person suffer from pain, and after his sufferings, he could betray his views and ideals. However, physical pain is not as intense as moral sufferings which can be a result of betraying personal viewpoints. The Magistrate had to understand the price of humanity in society through the pain caused by the tortures.

The question of morality in the novel can be discussed as rather controversial. In Waiting for the Barbarians the notion of morality is associated with the peculiarities of the attitude toward the barbarians and toward the Magistrate, and with the problem of morality or immorality of Colonel Jolls actions. Analyzing the elements of the development of the civilized and barbarian societies and the aspects of their opposition, J. M. Coetzee also examines the problem of a moral decline of the society. The vision of this moral decline is expressed with the help of depicting the Magistrate and Colonel Jolls positions.

Reacting to the consequences of civilization for the Empire, the Magistrate states that where civilization entailed the corruption of barbarian virtues and the creation of dependent people, I decided, I was opposed to civilization (Coetzee 20). The issue of moral decline is also discussed in Jean Rhyss Wide Sargasso Sea. Thus, a moral decline can be associated with a persons physical state and be a result of physical and mental diseases. Moreover, a moral decline can be considered as a social phenomenon in which origin is the social diseases from which the whole society and individuals in it suffer.

J. M. Coetzees Waiting for the Barbarians is a complex picture of the colonial world in which definite rules and laws are based on the specific understanding of the notions of justice and morality. Those principles which are common for the Empires organization reflect the principles which are typical for the whole colonial world. That is why it is possible to say that the nameless Empire is also timeless and is connected with the space of South Africas territory. Thus, Waiting for the Barbarians is the story of one mans efforts to break from the terrorizing ranks of his superiors, to make up in some way, shape, or form for the crimes committed with his passive consent (Blyn).

The novels organization helps to describe the peculiarities of the conflict between civilized and barbarian worlds through the development of the conflict between two men whose visions of justice and morality are too opposite to each other. In his work, Blyn focuses on the fact that Coetzee in his novel does not allow readers confusing the desire for expiation with something called justice (Blyn). Furthermore, the usage of lively dialogues and the narrators monologues helps readers to perceive the depicted story as true to life and the narrators voice as distinctive and convincing.

The conflict in relations between the Magistrate and Colonel Joll reveals their opposite visions of such phenomena as truth, justice, humanity, morality, and law. In his novel Waiting for the Barbarians, J. M. Coetzee has depicted the contradictory visions of the characters on the main aspects of life by paying attention to their attitude to the problem. If the Magistrate determines such main values as truth, morality, and humanity, and his vision of justice is based on these aspects, Colonel Joll discusses justice predominantly as connected with the principles of law. In this situation laws contribute to the needs of the state, but not the personal ones.

Thus, the concepts of justice and morality can be discussed from different points of view in society. One of the most controversial questions on which two mens visions of justice depend is the issue of truth, its absolute nature, and moral aspects. It is important to pay attention to the fact that the Magistrate, after all his tortures, understands that justice is not always associated with truth, and morality is not the base for those laws which determine the realization of justice in society. Power is the origin of justice in that society where the main accent is made on laws, but not on morality.

Works Cited

Blyn, Robin. Something Called Justice: J. M. Coetzees Waiting for the Barbarians. n.d. Web.

Coetzee, John Maxwell. Waiting for the Barbarians. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2010. Print.

Howe, Irving. A Stark Political Fable of South Africa. 1982. Web.

In recent times the government has responded enormously to the rise of criminal activities that have been a concern to the public by enacting numerous laws in response to the public outcries. Officials of the justice system are obligated to abide by several stipulated common law and statutory responsibilities. These officials who include the police are known to be the first people to come in contact with offenders and victims of crimes. They have the power to use force if necessary or any other form of legal compulsion for the good of the public. This condition does not necessarily depend on the officials having warrant letters to exercise their duty. A public peace officer can conduct a search and seizure with or without a warrant. In the fourth amendment, the warrants are used as references, in this case, warrants are mandatory unless under exceptional circumstances that can be used to justify a warrantless action. Most average police officers conduct warrantless mass arrests. During a routine procedure, a police officer whose role is to make a lawful and valid arrest is entitled to search the suspected offender together with the surrounding environment and eventually arrest the individual with or without an arrest warrant. (Nancy & Willard 2006).

In some countries, federal law allows any member of the public to arrest a suspected criminal who is caught at the crime scene or one who is running away from the crime scene. To what specific limits the authority of private security personnel can extend to in terms of citizens arrest both in common and statutory terms are not clearly defined, Sennewald, (2003). An individual is obligated to look at several sources to define the dividing line between proper and improper private security behavior in the arrest search and seizure of an offender. In modern society, the contributions of private security services have greatly transformed the resolution of crime today.

Both the general public and the justice officials have the responsibility of coming up with alternative ways which will be used in the surge of criminality and carrying out tasks of arrest, search, and seizure. When it comes to the time by which an arrest has to take place, both common law and statutory rationales have restrictions to the arresting party. Relevant to time, a delay or deferral of an arrest process will result in loss of arrest privileges. The advantage of having time restrictions is that the police use it to serve as a compelling reliance once the danger of immediate public harm from criminal activity stops.

The powers by justice officials in regards to arrest, search and detainment of suspected criminals are stipulated in the statute. An example of this statute is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) that was implemented in 1984 whose main concern relates to the creation of various law practice codes which law enforcement officials use while exercising their given powers. Once a suspect has been taken to the station, they have the power to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that can be used to charge the individual with an offense and whether the person should be detained in police custody or set free. If a suspect is released, it can be done so by the fact that there is not enough evidence for the persons detainment or the person may be released on bond if there is sufficient evidence. When a suspect is detained, the custody officer is obligated to explain to the offender the reason he is being detained and there should be legal grounds that result in the persons detainment.

References

Nancy. E.M and Willard M.O. (2006). The public policy of crime and criminal justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Sennewald, C.A. (2003). Effective security management, (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

The scenario at hand is that of an individual who commits a sexual crime against a woman, and is later linked to others as a result. After confessing the crime, we are given the possible option of three sentences: chemical castration with intense counseling while he continues to work and pay support, 30 years in prison with parole after 8, or life in prison with parole after 30. Our task is to determine what the proper course of action would be best suited considering the circumstances of the crime.

Initially, we must establish that there has been some wrong committed. In order to satisfy that punishment, there must be something worthy of being punished. Obviously, our moral sensibilities suggest that sexually forcing someone without consent is wrong. However, many animals force themselves sexually on each other. In fact, many things that humans consider wrong are seen in the natural world: nature offers plenty of examples of infanticide, cannibalism and rape (Flescher et al 2007, p. 159). Furthermore, adopting a strictly utilitarian position, it could be argued that the societal needs for the mans sexual desires to be fulfilled were greater than the harm committed to the woman. Consider if the man was an ambassador who was negotiating a nuclear arms treaty, it may have been necessary for him to be fully focused on the task at hand. However, for the purpose of this discussion, I will define committing a wrong as infringing a law, and assume that the laws of society represent a mutually agreed upon position of justice.

There are several different paradigms that could be used to weigh the sentences. Those who argue in favor of retributive forms of punishment suggest infliction of punishment dependent upon what the agent, as a wrongdoer, deserves, rather than upon any future social utility that might result from the infliction of suffering on the criminal (Pojman 2006, p. 113). In other words, the punishment must be confined to the examination of this particular instance, limited in scope to an individual who committed the crime. Any resulting harms done are to be considered casualties of the crime, but unrelated to the justice of the wrongdoers retribution. Indeed, the acts the wrong that he committed should be considered as done onto him, which means that justice is merely facilitating the evil that the individual himself caused. The criminal gets his just desert in accordance with the severity of the crime because crime, in and of itself, is worth punishing on a moral level.

On the other side of the spectrum are those who advocate Utilitarianism, which focuses on deterrence, reform, and prevention with regards to punishment (Pojman 2006, p.118). Instead of focusing on what happened in the past, they focus on what effect any future actions will have. They take into account the ramifications of not only the crime, but also the punishment. The reason that punishment exists is not to exact some sort of moral revenge on those who committed a crime, but rather to deter that person from committing the crime at all. However, because the purpose of punishment is to prevent crime, then all variables must be considered in preventing that crime, including not punishing the individual or punishing the innocent if necessary: since utilitarianism determines an optimum, it determines all possible variables at this optimum (Kolm 1996, p. 413).

Considering possible sentence number one: the criminal will be deprived of his ability to commit his crime as a result of chemical castration, forced to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet with ten years of probation, keep working to pay part of his corrections costs, restitution to the victims and child support. Someone who was advocating for retribution would not be happy with this option. First of all, the perpetrator doesnt have to serve any jail time, which means that he can live his life in a pretty normal state. He is chemically castrated, but since that eliminates your libido and sex drive, this wouldnt be too much of a hindrance for enjoying himself in other ways (Meisenkothen 2007). This individual gets to move on with his normal life in all the important ways, while the victims reality is forever shaken. Someone arguing for retribution would not say that he has received his just desert. A utilitarian would also probably not be in favor of this option because it would not serve as a worthy deterrence. If people knew that they could get away with rape with only a relative slap on the wrist if they were caught, then they might hesitate less than if they faced life in prison. However, an honest utilitarian might also conclude that because this individual is paying for child support and part of the cost of his punishment, that societal good has increased. Personally, I feel like this option would only be realistic if there was good evidence that chemical castration, counseling and monitoring would have some effect on rehabilitatingthis individual. Misenkothen points out that there are often other reasons that individuals commit rape than just sex drive (i.e. power, hate of women, etc.), implying he may do this again even under surveillance. I believe that this person needs to be removed from society until it is proven he is rehabilitated, instead of letting the process play out (or not) in public.

The second and third options consider the possibility of jail time and parole, with varying degrees of severity. Either the individual will serve three concurrent 10-year sentences, with the possibility of parole after 8 years, or 3 consecutive life sentences with the possibility of parole after a total of 30 years served. This is starting to sound more like the retribution style: this individual committed a crime and will be punished in a way that is generally undesirable. However, someone arguing for retribution would be troubled by the notion of a concurrent sentence if the crime of rape was worth punishment X, then an individual who committed 3 rapes should receive 3X. Therefore, he would be in favor of scenario three in which the sentence is clearly harsh enough considering the crime, and the individual has to answer for all the crimes that he committed against society. A utilitarian would also probably see the value in having some sort of jail time as deterrence. However, is there really too much tangible difference in deterrence between 30 years and 8 years served? In fact, it has been suggested that the certainty of getting punished is much more of deterrence than the severity of the punishment (Silberman 1976). Therefore, the second possibility would be perfectly acceptable, since it would achieve the same end of deterrence and cost less to keep the individual in prison. While an argument about the utility of letting this person back into society if he might commit this crime again could be made, it would also cross apply to the latter sentence. I personally agree that some sort of jail time would be in order in this scenario. First of all, this individual may feel compelled to commit other acts of sexual violence again, and should, at least for a number of years, be removed from society. I agree that this individual should be made answerable for all of his crimes, and should therefore be given the same sentence in all of the cases. Therefore, if the conclusion is reached that this person ought to serve jail time for the first case, it should cross apply three times.

Punishment is a difficult matter to asses from an objective point of view. I probably would feel differently if this person was my brother, or if the victim was my sister. However, a just society must take into account a variety of factors, including retribution and utility, when making determinations about justice.

Works Cited

1. Flescher, A. M., & Worthen, D. L. (2007). The altruistic species. Templeton Foundation Press.
2. Kolm, S. C. (1996). Modern theories of justice. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
3. Meisenkothen, C. (2007). Chemical castration  breaking the cycle of paraphiliac recidivism.
4. Pojman, L. P. (2006). Justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
5. Silberman , M. (1976). Toward a theory of criminal deterrence [Electronic version]. American Sociological Review, 41(3). From JSTOR.
6. Soltan, K. E. (1987). The causal theory of justice. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Introduction

Sherman Alexies quote is quite harsh, but true: young adult fiction should not become milder or sweeter just because some of the critics see is as too daunting. Instead, YA literatures aims should focus on addressing all children and being relevant to all social classes, without including or excluding only some of them. The problem of privilege and privileged citizens is a controversial one because not everyone tends to agree that privileges exist, moreover highly influence the persons worldview and awareness of other issues. It seems that some of those critics mentioned by Alexie can be simply blind to the existing problem of inequality, racism, classism, etc.

A large set of existing literature, even classics, is built upon this blindness, either because it was written by people who did not see the issue, or because it did not seem reasonable to them to recognize it and discuss it in their books. Therefore, some literature for young adults and adolescents is too sweet, while the world is not. This creates discrepancies and misunderstandings, which can lead to general dissatisfaction with the country and the world we live in. Instead of trying to present a fake brave new world in YA literature, writers need to focus on the issues that some of the readers face every day, to make other readers aware of how different and complicated life can be.

Truths about Our World

The Compound is a science-fiction dystopian book that was written by S.A. Bodeen and published in 2008. In this book, the author discusses various issues, including the power of authority, religion, obsessions, parental control, insanity, and human disparities. In the book, the main antagonist, Rex Yanakakis, locks up his family in a bunker, telling them that there was a nuclear war. It is a lie, but Rexs obsession with nuclear wars supports his decision to keep his family in fear. Although presented on a bigger scale, it seems that the author used Rexs obsession as a metaphor for closed, controlled, and often hostile family worlds where children have to suffer from parental abuse and overwhelming control. The problem of child abuse is a global one; family abuse is only a part of the issue, while child trafficking is still flourishing, and not only in third-world countries.

Impact on Adolescents

First of all, the significance of authority is a lesson that every child learns. However, not all children understand that authorities can be different, and they are not always right. The book, in return, is a good example of how authorities can manipulate and mislead others in order to pursue their goals. When Rex is asked why he had deceived his family with ideas about food and cloning, he answers: That was merely a matter of seeing how far you would all go to survive (Bodeen, 2008, p. 171). In this simple quote, the reader understands that there was not any specific or great aim behind Rexs actions  he was merely testing his own family. Obsession with dangerous ideas, the author stresses, can lead to tragedies and deaths, especially if the obsessed person has enough power to embody those ideas.

This idea those who are in power and have money are not always right is great for supporting the way to social justice and change in a young reader. It can make them re-evaluate the idea of authority as a whole and see how society is currently struggling to defeat the dangerous ideas people have been obsessed with for many generations.

Books Save the World

Honest storytelling is capable of saving the world. However, saving the world does not mean resolving a dangerous problem that already exists. Instead, it means bringing up generations that will be attentive to the past and history, will learn from humanitys mistakes, and prevent any dangerous problem from spreading and expanding. If we see books as teachers and storytelling as a tool to create more developed, thoughtful, and aware people, then books indeed can save the world.

Honest storytelling does not have to be too realistic or too brutal. Instead, it should focus on those questions that accompany every person: questions about death, life, the meaning of it, human connection, spirituality, wisdom, and happiness. Books do not always guide readers, but they can teach the art of asking the right questions. As Brandon Sanderson (2010) said: The purpose of a storyteller is not to tell you how to think, but to give you questions to think upon (p. 345). If stories dictated rules, they would not be very different from authorities and leaders that explain to others what is right and what is wrong. Honest storytelling is, above all, a method that writers use to make their readers reflect upon those matters they might see every day but never properly think through. If books can make people more aware, they can certainly save the world too.

References

Bodeen, S. A. (2008). The compound. London, England: Feiwel and Friends.

Sanderson, B. (2010). The way of kings. New York, NY: Tor Books

The sustenance of a nation is only possible when the government has enough revenue to support its projects, pay the workers, and continually develop its infrastructure. During his time as the finance minister, Alexander Hamilton opined that it was important for the government to collect internal and external taxes that would help pay the enormous debt. Comparatively, Adam Smith argued that the levying of taxes should be done in a way that makes it convenient for the people to pay. His belief was that taxes should be proportional to salary. The other economist of interest is David Ricardo, who wrote detailed principles regarding taxation but failed to propose a specific system that the British government could adopt following the Napoleonic Wars. Although the government needs taxes from citizens income, trade and land to carry out their projects, it is important for politicians to establish law, order, and an enabling environment for people to thrive. Therefore, I hold the view that Adam Smiths liberal strategy can be utilized by governments, whether in a financial crisis or boom, for the benefit of citizens and a flourishing economy.

The first area of contention between these economists is the role that the government plays in the endeavor to ensure a smooth process of tax collection. Riccardo and Hamilton were focused on raising money for the sustenance of the government. However, Smiths strategy was to enhance productivity across different ranks and fairness in taxation. Smith believed that manufacturers and commerce rarely have sustainable success without regular administration of justice. Whenever there is abused property rights and failed authority by the government to enforce debt repayment, businesses cannot thrive¹. The implication is that he had high expectations for the government to maintain good policies that would promote specialization and division of labor for people across all ranks. The strategy perfectly reflects symbiosis in which the government provides law and order for sustainable markets so citizens pay their dues. Conversely, Hamilton argues that public credit is significant proof of a good government and its management as it releases the country from a national embarrassment such as the one the United States was facing after borrowing millions for the supply of the continental army². Noteworthy, Hamilton saw people as a way for the government to protect itself from the humiliation that comes with having a huge foreign debt that resulted from the revolution era when America did not have the power to tax.

In addition, Adam Smith provided historical evidence to demonstrate the interconnection between politics and the economy. Smith portrays markets as operating within the broader social context of law and order³. The same conditions that enhance a flourishing industry and trade allow the treasury to get credit from the entrepreneurs. If the government proves that they can protect property rights, the businessmen will be willing to give their savings in extraordinary times and vice versa. Smith further argued that taxes from citizens and foreigners living or working in the nation should be the main strategy used as a source of income for the country.

Smith developed the four famous cannons for an ideal taxation system. They include convenience, fairness, efficiency, and certainty⁴. The government had an obligation to ensure that their way of getting revenue was ideal for the citizens. For instance, a value-added tax strategy might be good because there are not many procedures for payment. Moreover, he was concerned about fairness because he wanted the rich to be taxed more than the poor. The rank-based taxation distributes the burden of tax equitably across all workers. Efficiency is the ease of collection and payment in a way that is not deemed burdensome.

Similarly, David Ricardo was a liberalist whose stance was that the Landlords would get more income from the national government as the federalists receive little, which would then cause economic stagnation. He advocated for an increase in population for the appreciation of real estate. One of his taxation principles was getting revenues from the landowners and enhancing the value of the land. Smith maintained that the landlords proportions would be increased with a diminished cost of production⁵. Conversely, Ricardo maintained that when the cost of labor is low and the produce is abundant, it will depreciate the land value such that the biggest beneficiaries will be the capitalist and consumers⁶. Smith wanted to provide a principle that allows for a good outcome to all people. However, Ricardos analysis is more accurate as it shows that the interest of the landowners would interfere with that of the community and the revenues from the government.

The other strategy was aimed at having a tax reservoir for emergency times. Hamilton believed it was impossible for the government to raise its revenues from both internal and external taxes to have a surplus and sustain the economy in times of war. He further opined that the confederation is the main legislation for states and governments association with corporates and individuals⁷. His point on the constitution confers the rights of the taxpayer while providing the obligation of the government. Particularly, when the politician can be held accountable to correctly using taxpayer money, the economy thrives. The principle is consistent with one of Smiths cannon, certainty. Thus, when there are policies in place, there is a surety that the politicians will protect the citizens even as they pay their dues.

These economists provided principles for creating an enabling environment for trade beyond their respective borders. Smiths and Riccardos insight on free trade to enhance international transactions is perhaps one of the important principles that support a symbiotic co-existence between the government and its citizens. Selling of goods and services remains one of the ways to enhance the revenue of the government. Smith believed that monopoly of trade causes malignant expedients of the mercantile system while depressing the markets of other countries⁸. Ricardo held to a similar argument but differed on the issue of making a treaty with the mother country because he argued that doing so would make the mother country purchase goods at a similar cost as it is in the country while there are other options for getting similar commodities at a lower cost. Therefore, having monopolies changes relationships to be more parasitic, where one nation gains at the expense of the other.

In conclusion, it is vital in the governments endeavor to get taxes and revenue for the running of its affair. There are multiple ways from which the taxes can be obtained, including taxable income from consumers, landowners rent, and trade, where tax calculations are made on pricing. Most countries combine all to ensure that all citizens and foreigners are actively involved in building the nation. Importantly, it is vital for government policies to be favorable to the people and make it easy for them to work hard and get money.

Works Cited

Hamilton Alexander., et al. The Federalist & The Anti-Federalist Papers: Complete Collection. New York University Libraries, 2018.

Ricardo, David. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation 1817. Batoche Books, 2001.

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. Princeton University Press, 1902.

Footnotes

1. Adam. The Wealth of Nations. P.262.
2. Hamilton A., et al. The Federalist & The Anti-Federalist Papers: Complete Collection. P.61.
3. Adam. The Wealth of Nations. P.65.
4. Adam. The Wealth of Nations. P.65.
5. David. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation 1817 P.241.
6. David. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation 1817 P.242.
7. Hamilton A., et al. The Federalist & The Anti-Federalist Papers: Complete Collection. P.62.
8. David. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation 1817 P.245.