Effects of Sugar Revolution - Economic Essay Example for Free

Effects of Sugar Revolution Economic Essay During the seventeenth century the pattern of the Landownership changed from small planters to wealthy individuals and the price of land became extremely high as sugar became more profitable in the Caribbean. Previously tobacco and the other cash crops such as corn were produced by small planters on relatively small plots of land between five and thirty acres. In the year 1645 there were approximately 5000 smallholdings in Barbados that mainly cultivated tobacco, but as the months went by the price of tobacco was gradually falling and ten acres was just not enough. The smallholders either moved to another island for a fresh start or returned to England. Consequently the availability of the land increased for larger sugar plantations in Barbados and other Caribbean Islands. Sugar could only be grown on economically large estates so the landholdings increased in size and small landholding were grouped together to make a large estate. They were owned by rich planters, a partnership between two planters or a planter who had a significant amount of money for capital. In Barbados the average holding was 150 acres after the change to sugar. If it was below this amount, then the estate tended not to be profitable. About half of the area was under sugar; a sixth would be for the cattle, another sixth for growing crops such as vegetables and fruits and the remainder for woodland which would be used for timber and firewood. When the sugar revolution was undergo it caused the price of the land to become exceeding high and in some parts of Barbados by as m uch as thirty times. For instance in 1630 the average price of an acre was three pound (Â £3). By 1648 when the sugar revolution was almost complete in Barbados, an acre was sold for over thirty pounds (Â £30).

Othello and Desdemona Essay -- Literary Analysis, Shakespeare, Marriag

In Shakespeare’s Othello, Othello and Desdemona’s marriage was doomed from the start. They did not start well; their marriage was controversial because of their race and Othello’s failure to follow proper etiquette while he was courting her. However these issues could have been overcome with time. The biggest problem is Othello’s attitude to Desdemona. Othello’s model of Desdemona prevents him from considering her a person. He thinks of her instead as superior to himself in every way, to the point that she is a god. Her race, beauty, and status make her godly in his mind. She becomes untouchable in Othello’s mind, and he begins to distance himself from her. Because Othello thinks of Desdemona as â€Å"Alabaster†(5.2.5) he will never consider her capable of responding to his love. Because Othello is at his wit’s end when he refers to her as â€Å"Alabaster†, he is speaking out of his heart. When Othello receives a letter from Venice informing him that he is to return home and leave Casio in command of Cyprus he is greatly enraged. As a result he loses his grip on sanity and begins to speak in less cohesive manner. Take the line, â€Å"Pish! Noses, ears, and lips. Isn’t Possible? Confess! Handkerchief! O devil!†(4.1.42) contains none of Othello’s former eloquence. He begins to speak with word association, rather than in complete sentences. The word â€Å"confess!† brings up the word â€Å"Handkerchief!†, and â€Å"devil!†. Because Desdemona, the handkerchief, and the sense of maliciousness were on his mind so much, he begins to express with abstract words and ideas instead of sentences. Although this makes his lines harder to read, they show us what he is constantly thinking of. Instead of clear and concis e lines, they are a torrent of his true feelings. In the... ... Because of his high view of her, he creates a complex of his own insignificance. From his point of view, Desdemona is unable to love him because she is too elemental to have emotion. Othello has, put simply, encased Desdemona in alabaster. He has formed an opinion of her from which she is unable to break free. Because he has so strongly locked her into this state of mind he is unable to think of him in any other way. She is so high up on the pedestal that he puts her on that he is unable to see who she truly is. This is Othello’s failing. By making her too powerful, too divine, any minor fault is a glaring defect to her immaculate surface. Then at the first flaw, she becomes low and nothing, and he needs to return her to her former glory. He must â€Å"Quench thee†¦ [and] again they former light restore†(5.2.9). He fails to see her love through her alabaster covering.

Mandatory Life without Parole for Juveniles Essay

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, over 2,500 people are serving a life sentence without the option of parole for crimes committed as adolescents. Fortunately, this policy is not considered in all states. Twelve states have discontinued life sentences without the option of parole for juveniles. Almost two- thirds of life without parole sentences for juveniles (JLWOP) happens in five states. Seventy-three children were ages 13 or 14 at time that their crime was committed. Research has been conducted that proves the vast difference in brain development of a child compared to an adult. Society does not allow minors to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, enlist into the military or enter into a legal binding agreement such as an apartment lease until the age of 18 or older because of the knowledge that minors are not mature enough to make certain decisions. However, when a minor commits homicide we allow them to be sentenced as an adult and disregard their partial brain development and decreased culpability. It is the responsibility of society to protect our children from cruel and unusual punishment such as juvenile life without parole sentences. The policy brief will give a history of the juvenile justice system, trends, and current state. Brief will also address importance of the problem and recommendations for reform of this policy. CONTEXT AND IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM Almost everyone would agree that children are the core of our future. Therefore, it is imperative that we have laws/policies in place that will protect them from cruel and unusual punishment in any capacity. However, much debate continues to arise concerning mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. In attempting to change a social policy concerning the juvenile justice system it is important to address the concern in its context. Therefore, reviewing the history of the juvenile justice system is imperative when attempting to understand the system in its current state. The attitude of society towards juvenile offenders has drastically changed over the years and therefore impacted the overall goal of the system. The juvenile system was established in the late 1800s with the goal to reform and rehabilitate. During this time it was the  belief that â€Å"bad environments caused bad children†. Consequently, specialized institutions called reformatories were formed to inseminate home like environments. The main belief that motivated this structure of the system was that children were far different from adults and would have unique individualized needs. Contrary to the gentle idea of reformatories children were often subjected to harsh labor conditions in factories and farms. Often, children who reached fifteen years of age were seen as children with little to no hope of rehabilitation and as a result were transferred to adult prisons. During this era the system was not prepared to address serious offenses committed by juveniles and therefore lacked execution of formal due process rights. In 1899 the first juvenile court system was created and soon after in 1906 the first federal system followed. By 1925, almost all states established juvenile court systems and probation services. Due to a case in 1966 the Court decided that juveniles had the right to have procedural protections and due process rights. In the late 1980s violent crimes committed by juveniles dramatically increased. The increase in crime resulted in stricter crime legislation all through the nation. The new legislation was said to be motivated by fear due to frequent incidents of school violence. This legislation formed the belief that adult crimes should be addressed with adult punishment. Consequences to juvenile crime seemed to be more punitive, contrary to past ideas of rehabilitation and reform for juveniles. The number of juvenile offenders being imprisoned enlarged and the cruelty of sentencing began to include life without parole. More recently, it seems that the overall attitude of society has changed again towards juvenile offenders. Society has begun to focus on the obvious differences between children and adults and children’s ability to mature and change. Recent studies on adolescent brain development confirm that children are different from adults in ways that are important when attempting to identify appropriate sentences for juveniles. In addition, recent Supreme Court rulings have banned the use of capital punishment for juveniles and also limited life without parole sentences to homicide offenders. Furthermore, in 2012 the Court ordered judges to consider each individual child’s mitigating circumstances. This ruling prohibited mandatory sentences of life without parole for all juveniles. In 2005, Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles can no longer be sentenced to death for  crimes committed when they were younger than 18 years of age. This ruling stated that a death sentence was cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles as they are immature and therefore less culpable. Consequently, this ruling affected 72 juvenile offenders in twelve states. Before this decision 22 people were killed for crimes committed as minors. Following the Roper decision the harshest sentence for a minor was life without parole. In 2010 Graham v. Florida, the Court prohibited life without parole sentencing for minors not convicted of murder. The ruling immediately affected the sentencing of 123 prisoners. Following this ruling it was recognized that crimes that do not end in murder were less deserving of the most serious punishment. After the rulings that prohibited the death penalty for minors and restricted the sentence of life without parole to murder crimes almost 2,500 prisoners were serving sentences of life without parole for crimes committed as minors. However, in 2012 Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court ruled that for minors the life without parole sentence was a direct violation of the Eighth Amendment. This ruling required that judges consider the juveniles character and extenuating circumstances in an attempt to give a fair sentence. As stated previously, a number of professionals have reported that adolescent brains are not fully developed and therefore over time will develop and provide capability for change as children mature. Adolescence is known to be noticeable by â€Å"transient rashness and inability to assess consequences.† In addition, people serving life without parole sentences lives vary but usually have been plagued with difficult upbringings, exposure to violence, and direct abuse. It is important that when determining sentencing for a juvenile that family and home environment are considered. Moreover, racial inequality seems to factor into the burden of this sentence. â€Å"While 23.2% of juvenile arrests for murder involve an African American suspected of killing a white person, 42.4% of JLWOP sentences are for African-American convicted of this crime. White juvenile offenders with African American victims are only half as likely to receive JLWOP sentences†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Approximately 2,000 prisoners who are currently serving juvenile life without parole sentences may be affected by this decision. The most recent ruling, Miller v. Alabama affects mandatory sentencing  policies in 29 states and the federal government. There are currently no guidelines about how states should implement retroactivity of this ruling. As a result, there have been very different reactions to the way that states will handle retroactivity of this ruling. Some state Supreme Courts have decided that Mille implies retroactively and other states have decided that Miller is not retroactive. However, most states have not changed their statues and therefore have left many prisoners anxiously waiting for possible resentencing. Currently, fifteen states do not have prisoners serving life without parole sentences and the remaining 35 states have less than 100 prisoners serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed as juveniles. Furthermore, the monetary cost for JLWOP is astronomical. Housing cost for juveniles serving LWOP requires decades of public expenditures. It is estimated that the annual cost for incarceration per inmate is approximately 31,000. Due to increased medical expenses after the age of 55 the annual cost raises to 65,000. Therefore, a lifetime sentence for a juvenile will cost taxpayers almost 2 million dollars. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS There have been great strides concerning cruel and unusual punishment for sentencing of juvenile offenders. Removing juvenile life without parole for all juveniles would not guarantee release of offenders. However, it would provide the opportunity for the offender’s case to be reviewed once he/she has served a realistic amount of their sentence. During this review the offenders individual circumstances, such as their family and home environment would be considered when decided to grant the possibility of parole. In several other countries a mandatory review is completed once the offenders serve 10 to 15 years of their sentence. However, if sufficient rehabilitation has not occurred the individual will remain in prison and another review be granted in the next five years. There is growing support for this method of reform concerning JLWOP. The state of California now provides offenders a realistic opportunity at parole after 15-25 years if their crime was committed while they w ere minors. Also, requiring Miller’s retroactivity for all states would be a great stride  in the area of policy reform. Opponents to retroactivity argue that Miller did not ban life without parole for juvenile offenders but instead required that a judge follow a particular process when imposing the penalty. Those against retroactivity also highlight the significant cost of requiring this. They also dispute that resentencing could take resources from current cases in order to focus on old cases where facts may not be available or non-existent. Furthermore, this could activate the right to counsel for offenders who wish to challenge their sentence which would also add to the cost of retroactivity. Opponents strongly insist that funds would be better directed at reforming juvenile sentencing for sentencing after Miller. On the contrary, proponents of retroactivity argue that the court meant for its ruling to be retroactive. Opponents state that â€Å"once a new rule is functional to the defendant in the case announcing the rule, evenhanded justice requires that it be applied retroactively to all who are similarly situated.† For that reason, when the Court reversed Jackson v. Hobbs it also authorized the retroactivity of other cases similar positioned. Replacing mandatory life without parole with lesser sentences such as life with the possibility of parole or eliminating juvenile life without parole altogether is also another recommendation for reform of this policy. The best solution seems to be individualized sentencing for juvenile offenders. This solution would require individual sentence hearing for minors with crimes of murder and individual evaluation. However, if this law was required to be retroactive family of the victims would directly be affected by this change. Families may have to endure the potential impact of parole board hearing for the offender. In addition, community members who have a financial investment in the business of prisons would also be directly affected as their revenue would greatly decrease over time. Lastly, schools and Social workers can work to identify children who may be experiencing difficulty in the family and home environment and offer services in an attempt to prevent the child from committing a crime and therefore having to be introduced to the juvenile justice system. REFERENCES The End of Mandatory Juvenile Life without Parole. Kennedy, Megan. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Sep. 2014, Vol. 25 Issue 5, p553-578. 26p DO1: 10. 1177/0887430341. Review for Release: Juvenile Offenders, State Parole Practices & the Eight Amendment. Russell, Sarah French. Indiana Law Journal. Winter 2014, Vol. 89 Issue 1, p373-440. 68p. Just Grow Up Already: The Diminished Culpability of Juvenile Gang Members After Miller V. Alabama. Kellogg, Sarah A. Boston College Law Review. 2014, Vol. 55 Issue 1, p265-299. 35p. Branded for Life: The Unconstitutionality of Mandatory& Life time Juvenile Sex Offender Registration& Notification. Parker, Shannon C. Virginia Journal of Social Policy& the Law. 2014, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p167-205. Criminal Law-Juvenile Life without Parole Sentences-Eleventh Circuit Holds that Miller Is Not Retroactive. Harvard Law Review. Feb. 2014, Vol. 127. Issue 4, p1252-1259. 8p. Mitigating After Miller: Legislative Considerations & Remedies for the Future of Juvenile Sentencing. Fiorillo, Sara E. Boston University Law Review. Dec 2013, Vol. 93 Issue 6, p2095- 2129, 35p. Symposium: Bombshell or Baby step? The Ramifications of Miller V Alabama for Sentencing Law& Juvenile Crime Policy. Litton, Paul. Missouri Law Review. Fall 2013, Vol 78 Issue 4, P 1003-1014. 12p.

San Lorenzo - Olmec Civilization in Veracruz

San Lorenzo is an Olmec period site located in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. San Lorenzo is the name of the central place in the larger San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan archaeological region. It is located on a steep plateau above the Coatzacoalcos floodplain. The site was first settled in the second millennium BC and had its heyday between 1200-900 BC. Temples, plazas, roadways and kingly residences are included in an area of about a half acre, where about 1,000 people resided. Chronology Ojochi phase (1800-1600 BC)Bajio phase (1600-1500 BC)Chicharras (1500-1400 BC)San Lorenzo A (1400-1200 BC)San Lorenzo B (1000-1200 BC) Architecture at San Lorenzo Ten colossal stone heads representing heads of past and present rulers have been found at San Lorenzo. Evidence suggests that these heads were plastered and painted in bright colors. They were arranged in ensembles and set in a plaza paved with red sand and yellow gravel. Sarcophagus-shaped thrones linked living kings with their ancestors. A royal processional aligned to the north-south axis of the plateau led the way to the center. At the center of the site are two palaces: the San Lorenzo Red Palace and the Stirling Acropolis. The Red Palace was a royal residence with a platform substructure, red floors, basalt roof support, steps and drain. The Stirling Acropolis may have been the sacred residence, and is surrounded by a pyramid, E-group and a ballcourt. Chocolate at San Lorenzo Recent analysis of 156 potsherds were collected from stratified deposits at San Lorenzo, and reported in an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in May of 2011. Residues of the pottery were collected and analyzed at the University of California, Davis Department of Nutrition. Of the 156 potsherds examined, 17% contained conclusive evidence of theobromine, the active incredient in chocolate. Vessel types exhibiting multiple occurrences of theobromine included open bowls, cups and bottles; the vessels date throughout the chronology at San Lorenzo. This represents the earliest evidence of chocolate use. Read more about the history of chocolate Excavators of San Lorenzo include Matthew Stirling, Michael Coe and Ann Cyphers Guillen. Sources This glossary entry is a part of the About.com Guide to the Olmec Civilization, and part of the Dictionary of Archaeology. Blomster JP, Neff H, and Glascock MD. 2005. Olmec Pottery Production and Export in Ancient Mexico Determined Through Elemental Analysis. Science 307:1068-1072. Cyphers A. 1999. From Stone to Symbols: Olmec Art in Social Context at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlà ¡n. In: Grove DC, and Joyce RA, editors. Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks. p 155-181. Neff H, Blomster J, Glascock MD, Bishop RL, Blackman MJ, Coe MD, Cowgill GL, Diehl RA, Houston S, Joyce AA et al. 2006. Methodological Issues In The Provenance Investigation Of Early Formative Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 17(1):54-57. Neff H, Blomster J, Glascock MD, Bishop RL, Blackman MJ, Coe MD, Cowgill GLC, Ann, Diehl RA, Houston S, Joyce AA et al. 2006. Smokescreens in the Provenance Investigation of Early Formative Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 17(1):104-118. Pohl MD, and von Nagy C. 2008. The Olmec and their contemporaries. In: Pearsall DM, editor. Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London: Elsevier Inc. p 217-230. Pool CA, Ceballos PO, del Carmen Rodrà ­guez Martà ­nez M, and Loughlin ML. 2010. The early horizon at Tres Zapotes: implications for Olmec interaction. Ancient Mesoamerica 21(01):95-105. Powis TG, Cyphers A, Gaikwad NW, Grivetti L, and Cheong K. 2011. Cacao use and the San Lorenzo Olmec. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(21):8595-8600. Wendt CJ, and Cyphers A. 2008. How the Olmec used bitumen in ancient Mesoamerica. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27(2):175-191.