Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Stalin came to power
Emergence of Stalin in Russia
Emergence of Stalin in Russia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Stalin came to power
Execution by Hunger
Miron Dolot. Execution By Hunger: New York: W.W. Norton & Company
Inc., 1985
Miron Dolot’s book, EXECUTION BY HUNGER, is a detailed account as seen
through the eyes of a true survivor during the reign of Stalin and the
Soviet Union between 1929-1933. In his accounts, he portrays
atrocities against human civilization while documenting his real life
experiences and those of his fellow Ukrainian village farmers. He
portrays them as victims of their own time period. Victims of a new
wave of political beliefs, namely collectivization were enforced by
Stalin and his followers in the name of Communism.
Dolot convinces the reader that powerful forces of government made it
clear to village farmers there was no option for them. They had no
choice but to join the collective farm. It was a do or die situation;
a matter of survival with the consequences of rebellion meant arrest,
execution, concentration camps, or starvation. Do...
Maintaining feudal conditions through violence and intimidation, the army holds the populace in a constant state of fear. Guaranteeing that the peasants stay ill and in need furthers the necessity that they work to stay alive, but prevents them from doing so. This is the paradox of the poor worker, but one the army does not see. The army blindly kills anyone who tries to help the peasants, murdering all the doctors and priests that enter the villages. They do so to keep the peasants in need and in ignorance, to prevent them from learning another way of life. Lacking knowledge of the outside world ensures that the peasants will remain in the plantations, because fear of the unknown is stronger than fear of the known. Acting as feudal knights, the army forces people into the feudal plantation relationship using fear and intimidation.
While obtaining food seemed to be the entire purpose of life for the people imprisoned in the camps, it often killed more people than it saved. Though focusing on food seemed like a logical thing to do when you are being starved, it was not always very effective in helping people survive. There are many situations in the book illustrating how living for the sole purpose of acquiring food—under any condition—could turn out to be lethal.
The guillotine was one of the fastest and most painless ways to kill people. Before that though there were a lot more painful and torturous ways to execute people. For example, they used to hang people but they would also torture them, to make their death even more painful. During the Enlightment, people favored human rights and their well being, so they didn’t torture people as bad as before. During the Enlightment, people got more rights so they couldn’t be tortured as much like former executions. The guillotine made execution a lot better. The guillotine was an enlightened way to execute people.
Modern industry has replaced the privately owned workshop with the corporate factory. Laborers file into factories like soldiers. Throughout the day they are under the strict supervision of a hierarchy of seemingly militant command. Not only are their actions controlled by the government, they are controlled by the machines they are operating or working with, the bourgeois supervisors, and the bourgeois manufacturer. The more open the bourgeois are in professing gain as their ultimate goal, the more it condemns the proletariat.
Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.
Capital punishment is punishment for a crime by death, which is frequently referred to as the death penalty. Today, most countries have abolished the death penalty. America is one of the few countries that has kept this form cruel and inhumane form of punishment. In American history, the death penalty was abolished, but it was brought back not long afterwards. Not only is capital punishment inhumane and pricey but it also voids our rights as a citizen and is unconstitutional. Capital punishment is an improper form of punishment that needs to be abolished in all states.
man from killing again then so be it. I don't know if it is immoral
murder rates in given areas both before and after an execution. Clear and cole(2000) have
Over one hundred and forty people have been exonerated and freed of capital punishment since 1973.
One hundred and ninety-eight countries have abolished the cruel punishment of death penalty in law by 2012 (Valeontis, 2012, para. 5). The capital punishment is cruel and cannot be said as a viable form of punishment for crime control. Taking away someone’s life cannot be justified in any way as a form of punishment. Death penalty is cruel and should be abolished because it violates right to life, it is cruel to humankind or gives birth to brutalization and it cannot be reversed.
In 1997, 80% of Americans favored the death penalty. A recent national poll found that, that number has significantly dropped to an all time low of 63%percent. In addition, those favoring the death penalty dropped to fifty percent when those polled were asked to assume that the alternative to the death penalty was life in prison with no chance of parole. And, the amount of death sentences imposed in the United States during the recent years has dropped to the lowest level since capital punishment was reinstated. Hence, it would seem that our society’s attitude toward capital punishment is changing as well. What was once ordinary is now abnormal, and what was once essentially unquestioned is now questioned.The debate over the legitimacy or morality of the death penalty may be almost as old as the death penalty itself and, in the view of the increasing trend towards its complete abolition, perhaps as outdated. Capital punishment is horribly flawed, ineffective at deterring crime, completely unethical, outrageously expensive, and has no place in a civilized society.
One of the most controversial topics that affects the United States and other nations in
Capital punishment is the most severe sentence imposed in the United States and is legal in thirty-eight states. The death penalty is a controversial subject, especially because the U.S. is the only western democracy to retain this consequence (Scheb, 518). I personally believe that the death penalty is a valid sentence for those who deserve it. Some believe it is not constitutional, but those who face this penalty are clearly suspect of a savage offense and therefore should be at a loss of certain rights. The arguments don’t end there once one considers that “the controversy over capital punishment becomes more heated when special circumstances arise” (Sternberg, 2). This issue brings up more arguments against the death penalty because of the constitutionally protected ban on cruel and unusual punishment which is protected by the Eighth Amendment. There have been nearly 15,000 executions that have taken place in America, the first in 1608 with the death of Captain George Kendall (Siegel, 410). Most of these were sentenced to death because of their own action of killing others. However, more and more crimes are now able to be punishable by death. This is the result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which “dramatically increased the number of federal crimes eligible for this sentence” (Scheb, 520). Even so, the federal government has yet to put someone on death row for a non-homicidal case. The arguments for and against capital punishment are lengthy and strictly opinionated, but are also important to see the evolution of our society as the majority view changes and new influences come about.
Capital Punishment I recently read an article from the ACLU, written by Adam Bedau. It explained, quite eloquently, that for society to execute a murderer made society no better than the murderer himself. He said, “The executioner is no better than the criminal.” I was impressed by this moral stance, but I was surprised to read that he failed to apply this logic consistently. For example, the he went on to argue that life imprisonment would be a more appropriate penalty for murder than death. Using this ACLU logic, it appears that for our society to lock someone in a room against his will and not free him for a considerable length of time makes our society no better than the everyday kidnapper. But if an individual locked another up against his will, wouldn’t the ACLU view this as kidnapping. Being from the Methodist faith I found this argument somewhat difficult. For in the Bible there is a scripture that states, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” I presume the ACLU would agree that beatings or torture are also unacceptable forms of punishment for crimes. They seem to be inhumane. Yet in Eastern cultures, if one steals something, they lose a finger or two and sometimes an entire hand depending on the severity of the crime. This seems to be reason enough not to steal, as in these cultures there is a very low theft rate. Maybe the ACLU would find a monetary fine a more appropriate punishment? For society to take money away from someone against his will without giving him any tangible goods in return would make society a thief. Of course, the Bedau also explains that capital punishment brutalizes society, leading to even more murders. If we, as a society, adopt this no-punishment position, it logically follows that there would be less crime. Once criminals realized that no matter what they did, no fellow citizen would lift a finger to stop them, why, they’d just be so overcome with the generosity of their neighbors that they’d naturally be inclined to become upstanding, productive citizens.
Many people are split on the idea of capital punishment because it involves death. I feel that capital punishment is morally and ethically acceptable because it rids society of our worst criminals. Many people argue that killing criminals who kill is just as bad as being the criminals. For one the criminals killed innocent people who had no idea what was coming, and had no way to prevent it. The criminal who commited the crime in almost all cases had to commit first degree murder, which includes some planning of the act. To plan an act of murder and taking someone’s life is beyond emotion, it is psychological and takes some rationalization. If no rationalization takes place, then it can happen again.