Discrimination in Harrison Bergeron, after you my dear...

Discrimination in the Short Stories, Harrison Bergeron, after you my dear Alphonse, and The Lottery The trait of discrimination is the basis for the stories, Harrison Bergeron, after you my dear Alphonse, and Lottery. Discrimination is when someone is hated or acted upon negatively for the reason of race, sex, or nationality. In the short stories the authors feelings of discrimination are expressed through the characters differently. In these stories the author has his own feelings and thought depicted through the characters. By the popular theme of discrimination and racism it suggests that these stories were written in the late sixties early seventies. In the story Harrison Bergeron the whole country is handicapped except for†¦show more content†¦This shows discrimination against everyone because they are taking that persons freedom away and judging them on their looks and abilities. A man named Harrison who would be a sport super star in real life because of his outstanding talent is fitted with weights and other handicaps to make him like everyone else. He revolts and overcomes his handicaps but is soon killed for breaking the law. In this story discrimination plays a big part in how the main character revolts. The next example is in the story, after you my dear alphonse. In this story a boy becomes friends with an African American boy named Boyd and brings him home for lunch, when he gets home his mother is shocked to see her son with this boy. The mother assumes that the father works hard labor in the fields and that the boy will grow up and do the same. But that?s not the case, the boys father works in a factory. This is an example of discrimination because the mother assumes things just because he is black. The last example of discrimination as a theme for a short story is in The Lottery. In this story a community has a lottery every year and the winner is stoned to death. The theme of discrimination is shown when they just pick a random person and kill them. That discriminates against that person because they show hate for little or no reason. In these

Dissecting a Clockwork Orange - 1815 Words

â€Å"You men need to tuck away your penises and surrogate penises (guns), because you will never get anywhere with them. Masculinity is a myth and a dead end.† - Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 classic A Clockwork Orange is an interesting beast. The film has been vilified, banned, condemned on artistic grounds and yet it survives. The film’s hallucinatory visuals depicting a strange, narcissistic modernistic society, steeped in seventies art deco and harsh, contrasting lighting, paint a bleak, uncompromising picture. Kubrick’s use of implied violence, death and cultural destruction throw the viewer into a hellish, emotional marsh of pessimism and hate. Reviewed by Tim Dirks the title of the film is explained: â€Å"The controversial†¦show more content†¦But Kubrick mocks the viewer for thinking the film is about male dominance. As for when the Droog’s return to feed on mother’s milk back at the bar – the drinks are poured from a breast-shaped pourer asserting motherhood and female dominance. ‘Choice’ is a major aspect of the film because the male characters are seen to enforce this idea of masculinity, but Kubrick sees this as ambiguous. The psychiatrists in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ take away Alex’s freedom of choice through psychological manipulation, and therefore strip him of his own self worth. ‘Choice’ is a freedom Alex is born with, but by being brought up in this society he has been conditioned and nurtured to think only one way. By taking away his ability to choose, society is being institutionally condemned to decay. And how potent is this decay? Malcolm McDowell (who played Alex), speaking thirty years after the film was first release said, when asked about cinema violence mirroring real life: ‘Are we supposed to ignore the fact that we live in a very violent society?’ He continued, ‘maybe it’s frustration about the American dream gone sour. I don’t know what it is. It is the expectations of something that’s never quite fulfilled. There’s great anger and frustration around. There’s a lot of that.’ Kubrick doesn’t condone the violence of the film; he uses it to example freedoms of choice. When Alex is cured, violence still finds him and it suddenly takes on a moreShow MoreRelatedLogical Reasoning189930 Words   |  760 Pagesoffering for sale with apples that are rotten. 196 Answer (a). The two horns of this dilemma are stated in choice (d). Choice (a) expresses just one horn of that dilemma. 274 c. compare apples with oranges and fail to consider that at current prices, two apples equal one orange in California but not in New York. d. promote the health value of your own apples over the competitions apples by comparing the health of eaters of your apples with people who eat no fruit at all. e. say that

Mandatory Jail Sentence free essay sample

Many lives would be saved by car crashes every year. If they are put into jail for at least 48 hours or more, they would learn from their mistakes most likely and wont do it again. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * If there was more at stake for people, they would be more hesitant about making bad decisions. Drunk driving is a direct result of bad decisions. It doesnt happen accidentally, and the people causing it are not victims. If the punishment for this horrid crime is harsher, maybe people would think a bit more and decide against getting behind a wheel and being irresponsible. Posted by: 4uncLife Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Since most drunk drivers are otherwise non-criminal average citizens, I do think a mandatory jail sentence would decrease drunk driving. I do not feel that a small fine and temporary suspension of your drivers license is a steep enough punishment to effectively deter drunk driving. But, I do think that a mandatory jail sentence would discourage the average citizen from committing that crime. Posted by: ToughEfrain26 Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Jail deters those who are currently freed and those who served the time. Many of the cases of drunk driving are repeat offenders who received warnings, fines, or points on their licenses that drove up their auto insurance rates and other monetary fines but rarely any thing that made them stop driving drunk. Mandatory jail time for drunk driving literally drives the lesson home, that drunk driving will take the drunk driver away from their life. Increasing the jail time per incident also shows the increasing penalty for the decision and takes away the leniency of some judges who give a slap on the wrist until someone is killed. Posted by: Pir4And Report Post LikeReply 0 0 48 hours is a slap on the wrist to some. Being from a rural area, many people consume alcohol because there is simply, nothing else to do. These same people fight, drive and do other thoughtless acts because their brain is not processing the full concequences of their actions. People like this have run-ins with the law on a regular basis, so 48 hours in jail is a slap on the wrist to them . Two years ago two young boys were riding an ATV on the road in this same rural town when they were struck and killed by a drunk driver. This would have never happened had he been imprisoned for a few months. Not many people can have a true life changing experience within two days. when 211 children die in one year thanks to drunk driving then something must be done to prevent drunk driving from ever occuring. At some point people will realize that drunk drivers are a threat to society and should be locked up for a long peoriod of time so that they can not hurt anyone, and hopefully change their ways. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I agree completely that a mandatory jail sentence on the first offense would decrease the number of drunken drivers. If you have a mandatory sentence people would be less likely to drive under the influence, they would more likely to stay at home or use the common idea of a designated driver. There are repeat offenders I know that havent done a bit of jailtime for their crimes and they still drink and drive. They dont find the penalties that bad because they havent been properly punished. There are a select few who learn from their mistakes but that is few and far between. The treatments last 30 to 90 days and most alcoholics just go throught the paces and continue on their merry way. The treatment plans arent working, so why not try this? Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * A mandatory jail sentence would help decrease the instances of drunk driving, because people would be more careful. You have a variety of people who get stopped for drunk driving. A mandatory jail sentence would help decrease the instances of drunk driving for those people who are more casual, or only social, drinkers. It might help some of those who love to party, but it is hard to say. Nothing would stop those who are alcoholics. Posted by: eyeslikethat Report Post LikeReply 0 0 Yes, a mandatory jail sentence will decrease the instances of drunk driving, because the perpetrators will be sitting in jail, instead of driving drunk on our streets. It has been shown, over and over, that people who drive drunk are often repeat offenders. They do this over and over. I dont know if a stint in jail will stop them from drinking and driving, but at least it will remove them from the street s, so that they are not out there doing the same thing. I am sure that, for lots of people, the threat of an automatic jail sentence will also make them think twice about drinking and driving, or letting a friend or relative drink or drive. Posted by: I0ckHead Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I believe drunk drivers should be imprisoned on the first offense If there was a mandatory jail sentence for drunk drivers, there would be less of them on our roads. On average a drunk driver drives 87 times while intoxicated before being pulled over. And then they get pulled over, and get a warning, or fine, or points on their license. Thats it. If they have driven drunk before they probably will again if all they get is a warning. Think about all your loved ones on the road each day, they are being put in danger of being hit by a drunk driver. nd youre saying its okay for people that drive drunk to get a slap on the wrist! If drunk drivers go to jail, even for 48 hours, they probably wont do it again. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Because many drunk drivers do not consider themselves criminals, a jail sentence would re-frame the way the public thinks about drunk driving not just a lapse in judgment but a crime. Fir st of all, drinking is an inherent part of our culture and the line between social drinking and driving drunk can be a difficult one to judge, encouraging many to not take drunk driving seriously. Moreover, many drinkers who might get a DUI do not engage in other criminal activity and do not consider drinking or its consequences to be a criminal offense. Attaching a jail sentence to a DUI would re-frame the way drinkers and the general public perceive a DUI and force them consider the consequences more seriously. A jail term carries a much heavier punishment (as well as social stigma) than the usual punishments for a DUI offense which would make it effective as a means to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol. Posted by: PeytonW Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * You could end up killing sombody If you just get a slap on the wrist you will be urged just to drive intoxicated again. i mean think of your loved ones who are always playing in your yard and a drunk driver came crashing through your fence and kills your kids? how would that make you feel? In my opinion they should go to jail for at least a few days so when they get out they realize what they did was wrong and it would encourage them to never drive intoxicated again. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 I believe a mandatory jail sentence would decrease instances of drunk driving drastically because it would establish a clear unfavorable consequence for their behavior. When there is a mandatory sentence attached to a crime people are more likely to think twice before doing it. If a person knows that there is more chance than not of them going to jail they are less likely to do it because of the circumstances that would create such as losing your drivers license, job, children and possibly your spouse. Most people would say that drinking and driving is not worth risking the loss of all those things. Posted by: N4nClar Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Driving under the influence is a choice and any deterrent is totally warranted. I strongly believe that there should be zero tolerance for driving under the influence of alcohol. A mandatory jail sentence would send a clear message that it is unacceptable behaviour and people might think twice before doing it. Those who do the right thing have nothing to fear. Posted by: Mo2esDonaId Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * People are inherently scared of jail, so a mandatory sentence would help. A more severe punishment would almost certainly decrease the instances of drunk driving, to some extent. People can deal with fines and community service, but jail is something that no person wants to experience. The fact that assaults occur in jail isnt really justifiable, and needs to be addressed more thoroughly than it has been. But, it does make many terrified and, as such, stops people from committing severe crimes. Posted by: TwoVic Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I agree with your opinion. A jail sentence would be very helpful in decreasing drug driving. I agree because nowadays, drunk driving is not a crime. They give money to court and that settles that case. Then sometimes they repeat this again. Mandatory jail sentence help decrease the instances of drunk driving. Posted by: 5h4ngMaxi Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Jail sentences will definitely reduce drunk driving instances. Jail sentences are usually effective in frightening people away from doing certain things. Because people with criminal records have fewer job opportunities and limited futures, people will generally avoid doing things that will get them imprisoned, such as murder, rape, and vandalism. If you start imprisoning people for drunk driving as well, then you will see a dramatic decrease in that area. Posted by: N0bIatina Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * A no-tolerance policy on drunk driving would cause people to take the offense more seriously. Drinking and driving has contributed to thousands of accidents, injuries, and deaths. In my opinion, I believe a mandatory jail sentence for convicted offenders would cause people to seriously consider the consequences of drinking and driving. Taking a serious civil approach to the offense would cause friends and family to view drinking and driving as completely unacceptable. It would add a risk of job loss, public humiliation, and jail time, to the risks of injury, death and property damage. Additionally, incarcerated offenders would not be putting other motorists at risk while they are locked up. Posted by: QuietWayne85 Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Cars are just like loaded guns they can be used to kill If you take a loaded gun and walk around with your finger on the trigger everyone would agree that you might kill someone. At the very least you will be charged with negligent homicide and be imprisoned for 1-20 years. Why should driving a car while impaired be any different? You are intentionally using a potentially fatal machine while you are physically and mentally impaired. People, its a no brainer. Posted by:  handrews Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I believe that a mandatory jail sentence for drunk driving would definitely help to reduce the instances of drunk driving, because it would certainly get everyones attention. As long as the sentence is reasonable by being enough time to get the drunk drivers attention, I believe that it would definitely help to reduce drunk driving. For many people, having to go to jail just one time would deter them from drinking and driving in the future. Many social drinkers would want to avoid a jail sentence, so they might change their ways. I dont believe it would go a long way in helping with repeat offenders, because these people have a problem with alcohol that needs to be addressed. Posted by: R0d0Ferdy Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Stop the Shaming Let those who are addicted get the treatment, counseling, medical attention, etc. , that they need. Jail wont help the addiction. Shaming can cause the defendant to repeat the behavior. Some defendants have serious mental illnesses which require a physicians care. They deserve to get it. Fortunately, most drunk driving incidents do not result in accidents, so its best to allow the defendant the opportunity to get help early on. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Being silly Just get rid of cars, they pollute kill people, animal(all that road kill), Im constantly broke because its $5 a gallon. ever 5 years the damn thing breaks and have to go buy an even more expensive model, car companies discontinuing parts. Put a drunk behind a bicycle probably just fall over. BE SMART DONT DRINK AND DRIVE Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * In 500 years no one will remember anyway Being a true believer in letting each do as they please, no one should be punished for anything they do. The strong will survive, and the weak and lame will die. Simple as that. It would save the cost of government. Live and let live die and let die. Callous statement to be sure. But, life is short. Over the course of thousands of years, it isnt going to matter anyway. If you live to be 90 or 9, youre just a speck in the universe. You wont be missed or thought of at all in 500 years, so who should care. Were all going to die sooner or later, so, it doesnt really matter. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No. The DUI Process Should Focus on Health The DUI Process should be an opportunity to investigate the defendants health and ensure that medical care is received. Many are suffering from serious health conditions including addiction. Addiction has an insidious onset and the drunk driver should not be blamed for being addicted. Treatment should be sought and maintained. Most drunk drivers are unaware they are over the legal limit. Second offenses will be reduced. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No, people get arrested and put in jail multiple times and still they drink and drive. Drunk people dont even consider going to jail when they drive under the influence. When people get behind the wheel that have had too much to drink, they dont think of the consequences, period. Knowing that they might kill someone doesnt deter them, why would a mandatory jail sentence? Repeat offenders are a perfect example. These people know for a fact that they will do time, but they do it anyway. I dont see any way to keep people from drinking and driving unless theres a breathalyzer attached to the ignition key and it is activated once the person [driver] is in the seat, and cannot be tricked. THAT is a good idea. I just thought of it. Posted by: PinkMych Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Mandatory sentences havent proven to effectively lower the rate of any crimes. Mandatory sentences takes the human being out of the situation for both the prosecution and defense. Every scenario has extenuating circumstances that should be taken into consideration before imposing sentencing, mandatory or otherwise. Many of the people who get arrested for driving under the influence need rehabilitation. Our responsibility as a society should be to help people who are sick, and not punish them for doing the things that their sickness tells them to do. Posted by: TownNoam Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No.. but in certain cases then jail is needed For the drivers that have a problem with the abuse of alcohol or drugs you always gotta see how to help them fix that problem first just punishment is not sufficient in their rehabilitation. I dont feel that mandatory jail time is helpful in these cases specially where there was no injuries or deaths involved. In fact it might even make their situations worse if they lose their jobs and family because of incarceration. So in conclusion mandatory jail time should be applied accordingly to the specific case. Intense treatment plans would work better in my opinion. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Preserve Judicial Discretion! Recognize that every person and every situation is unique. Sentencing is more effective when judges are allowed to make case-by-case decisions that factor in the circumstances of the individual. The statistic that the average drunk driver drives 87 times before being pulled over is irrelevant; in America, we are sentenced only for crimes in which we are convicted. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Defendants Need Treatment Some drunk drivers need alcohol treatment. A jail sentence would result in a life-long resentment, no treatment and contribute to perpetuating active alcohol addiction, employment problems, financial problems, etc. Focus on treatment, not punishment. Tougher consequences should be imposed only if there is a serious accident. The majority of traffic fatalities are caused by sober drivers. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No, mandatory jail sentences would not help decrease the instances of drunk driving. Penalties right now are very harsh, and people who are going to drink and drive will do it no matter what the penalties are. No, mandatory jail sentences would not help decrease the instances of drunk driving because penalties right now are very harsh and costly. People who are going to drink and drive are going to do it no matter what the penalties are. The instance of drunk driving have been decreasing recently and it would be very costly for taxpayers to incarcerate more people. People who drink and drive dont think about the penalties before doing so or they wouldnt be drinking and driving now. Posted by: MycCra2ii Report Post LikeReply 0 0 Where it is the culture to drink, no regulations that assume personal responsibility will work, we should focus on taverns who over serve their customers. It is law in most states that bartenders are responsible for not allowing a patron to become too intoxicated, yet it is only enforced if someone dies because of a drunken customer. The bartender is obviously in a situation of being in a conflict of interest, as the more he or she sells, the more they make. If bart enders were more responsible, and it wasnt the culture to drink, we would have far less drunk drivers. Posted by: daveyxh Report Post LikeReply 0 * I disagree with mandatory jail sentences for drunk driving because I think that raising awareness would be more effective. I do think that repeat offenders and those whose impaired driving takes a life or causes sever injury should receive jail sentences, but a mandatory jail sentence for a first offense might cause a life or family unit to be ruined due to a lapse in judgment. I think raising awareness about what constitutes drunk driving is key many people feel that there is a difference between driving drunk and driving buzzed, but in the eyes of the law the difference is not that apparent. I think that learning what constitutes impaired driving would help a lot of people understand when its time to had over the keys. I think that effective public transport could help a lot. Posted by: Shim2free Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Small Chance of Fatality You have a greater chance of being killed by a gun than a drunk driver. You also have a greater chance of being killed by a texter, speeder, or general negligent sober driver, than a drunk driver. The DUI Process takes all the money away from the drunk driver that he/she needs for medical care. Without medical care, theres an increased chance of a drunk driving incident. Alcoholism is a disease that requires care, just like cancer, diabetes or heart disease. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 What’s Popular Now Are atheists being persecuted in America? Should there be routine HIV testing for all adults? Is the Department of Education making too much profit off of struggling students? Are doctors to blame for prescription drug abuse? Should coaches give players equal playing time? From Around the Web Cheapest Car Insurance for Young Drivers Best Gerber Daisy Wedding Bouquets Best Used Cars Under 10000 A Secret Phone Companies Dont Want You to Know Rare Discovery Could Extend Your Life by 30 Years ? * - - Comments (0) - * - - Replies (0) - No comments yet. Leave a comment (Maximum 900 words) Related Opinions Are you proud to be an American? * Should developed countries cancel debt of developing countries? * Is Africa on the rise? * Does Republican equal conservative? * Should Republicans change their stance on the Violence Against Women Act? * Could momentum in the political world for gay rights actually limit momentum in the legal world? * Should the government help homeowners with underwater mortgages? * Should Republicans give up their fight against Planned Parenthood? Copyright  © 2013  Debate. org. All rights reserved. Home  |  About  |  Blog  |  Feedback  |  Privacy  |  Terms  |  Help  |  Site Map

Discrimination Within The Death Penalty Essays - Capital Punishment

Discrimination Within The Death Penalty Hutchinson, Death Penalty, 1 ?They [prisoners sentenced to death] are almost all poor, usually white, often high school dropouts. Most have never killed before. Most are from the South? (Benac). Introduction: Opponents of the death penalty have said that capital punishment does nothing to deter crime. There is some critical information that is important to know before going more in depth on this discussion. The purpose of this paper is not to discuss whether capital punishment is effective in deterring crime nor does it present any ethical arguments regarding it. It is to discuss whether it is used in a universally just and fair manner. Presently, approximately 3, 565 prisoners are living on death row. The costs for death penalty cases are enormous, possibly soaring in to the millions. (National Association?) ?Since 1973, over 160 children [defined as anyone under the age of 18] in the U.S. have been sentenced to die? (National Association?). It is possible that ten percent of death row inmates are mentally retarded. ?Approximately 90% of those whom prosecutors seek to execute are African-Americans or Latino? (National Association?). Considering all of the above facts, there are obviously some distinct problems with the manner in which the death penalty is imposed. In particular, class differences along with race can drastically affect the manner in which death penalty cases are handled. Costs: Lower class people get a worse defense than wealthy people. The costs for a capital defense case can add up quickly: DNA tests, experts, background and psychiatric investigations. Many lower class people have to ?depend upon public attorneys who are not really qualified? (ABCNEWS.com?). There is a bill in Congress that would Hutchinson, Death Penalty, 2 regulate state standards for appointed defense attorneys for capital cases but it is doubtful that this will be a quick solution. There is also a bill in Congress that would guarantee DNA analysis for inmates, both federal and state, after their convictions. (ABCNEWS.com?) The awareness of this problem is even occurring in the Supreme Court. Problems: There have been many attempts to fix what is wrong with capital punishment and sentencing. According to Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackman in the Collins versus Collins 1994 decision, ?the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice, and mistake (Culver). It has to be admitted that race plays a part as well as class since normally the two social aspects go hand in hand. Not only race of the defendant but of the victim have to be considered when understanding the idiosyncrasies of sentencing. While race may be focused on more in the media, class or socioeconomic status controls the reins even more. ?The vast majority of people executed since 1977, when employed, worked in menial or low-paying jobs at the time they committed their capital crimes? (Culver). Not only is income level influential but educational level is as well. The average educational level for prisoners on death row in 1996 was only the 11th grade with 15% of them having less that an 8th grade education. (Culver) Defense: One of the chief concerns in the sentencing phase is that of the defense attorney. Lower class people cannot afford high-profile lawyers or those experienced specifically Hutchinson, Death Penalty, 3 in capital cases. The attorney may not have a great deal of competency when it comes to criminal law. The accused also may not be able to help provide resources for such things as analysis and/or research that would aid in defense. ?The attorney who is inexperienced and who represents an indigent accused of a capital crime is unlikely to command the resources needed to assemble a panel of mental health professionals and verify the extent of the problems maintained by the defense or to persuade a jury of the important absence of other compelling evidence? (Culver). This also helps explain why the mentally retarded do not get fair trials either and, even with the mentality of a child, can end up on death row. The astronomical costs of representation in federal death penalty cases stems from the sever pressure the cases place on the attorneys along with several other factors. These factors may include the following: skill of the counsel, the amount of time the lawyer has to spend on the case,

Monster A critical analysis Essays

Monster A critical analysis Essays Monster A critical analysis Essay Monster A critical analysis Essay Essay Topic: Film Monster is possibly the most powerful film anyone could ever wish to see. In terms of using a punch to deliver its message this film is the Tyson of this cinematic generation of films. This movie pushes the boundaries of thematic content and attempts to do what few films are brave enough to do, i. e. humanise a serial killer. It is the performance, if calling it that does it enough justice, of Charlise Theron, which makes this boundary pushing not only possible, but also successful. This essay will take a look at this complex story and attempt to examine its relationship with the plot, specifically how the plot is constructed and how it distinctly tells this story. In attempting to create a film like monster, the filmmakers are faced with very real challenges. Now every film it can be said, is challenging to make, but a film this complex, this real, and this emotionally demanding is always going to be tricky. The filmmakers are trying to portray a specific message, that is to say monster is very thematic in its story content. It takes a look at the influences in a persons life, which might possibly lead up to that person going so far as to commit murder. The danger with this is that it could come across as though the film is justifying the murders. I feel that Patty Jenkins manages to strike a balance between overly sympathising with Aileen and making us judge her, rather giving some sense of understanding. She does this by showing Aileens human side and by telling her very complex story in a passionate, real, often hard-hitting way. The problem with telling a biographic story is that the real plot might not naturally fit a specific plot structure, but the filmmakers have managed (however accurately, Im not sure) to construct the plot of Monster in an incredibly detailed, thoughtful and emotionally engaging way. While the story itself spans perhaps twenty years, the plot highlights the most dramatic events and constructs them in such a way, in such an order so as to drive home the themes and messages of Monster in the most accessible and poignant way. The first act begins with the young Aileen. Aided by the voice over narration we learn some of the necessary background information, detailing Aileens tragic childhood. We are given clues as to how and why she started prostituting herself as well as her social/economic background. These all lay a strong foundation from which the story and our understanding can be built on. The first few scenes of the young Aileen hook us into the story. We hear about how Aileen dreamed of becoming famous, of rising out of her situation. They also hint toward the tone and mood, i. e. the genre of the film. It is through this clever use of narration that we can closely identify with, i. e. become familiar with her attitude to life, her world and history of dilemmas. We hear how she always wanted to be taken to a new life, and would do anything (anyone) who she thought might help her get where she wanted to go. These words echo with us as we dissolve forward to the life of the adult Aileen, leaving us to fill in some of the gaps, guessing how messed up her life must have got. We enter Aileens adult life with a lonely shot of her sitting by the highway. This is very appropriate as the previous shot was of her as a teenage girl getting into the car of a strange man on the side of a main road. We can guess that this pattern has been ongoing and we pick up with the adult her having just finished with a client. Soon thereafter the plot takes us right into the inticing incident. In a lonely roadside bar we meet Salvie, a lesbian girl who herself has been searching for something, love and understanding. It is this confrontational meeting of Salvie and Aileen which propels the plot forward. It introduces a brand new element into Aileens life, which sets it off on a changed course we later learn that she was contemplating suicide. At first Aileen is unsure of her how she feels about Sylvie, but it is after Sylvie has invited her out that night, that she realises she has potentially found the friend she never had and always wanted. They go out to the ice rink and soon find themselves involved in a passionate love-making session outside. Suddenly Aileen has found direction. She wants nothing more than to be with Sylvie. This leads up to the first act climax and first major turning point. Aileen returns to the highways to ply her trade, in order to make much needed money. A dubious looking customer soon picks her up. Then in a very disturbing scene, he beats and sodomises her. She manages to free herself and using his gun, shoots him, and then drives off with his car and money. This plot point sets the scene for the rest of the movie. Aileen has committed murder. The atrocities committed to her fuel her hatred for men, which will motivate her to continue her murder spree. She also discovers a means to make lots of money. She also has a goal, for the major plot of the movie is surrounding her murders, indeed, the Sylivie/Aileen plot is also a major plot, but the two plots are so intermingled that it is hard to see them as mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, this climax takes us straight into act two, as Aileen Rushes to make her appointment with Sylvie. After some convincing Sylvie agrees to run away with her and spend at least one week with her. There is a lull in the pace as we see a montage of them renting a hotel, going out, living the dream life they had both always wanted. But soon there is a minor set back. Sylvie goes home to get some cloths and is confronted by her aunt who reprimands her. Sylvie manages to not be deterred and passes the test of her character growth (or de-growth) as she chooses to go her own way with Aileen. Then comes another plot point. In an emotional, reminiscing scene, Aileen tells Sylvie how she always wanted to be president and that she was once told that all you need in life is Love and to believe in yourself. This motivates Aileen to go out and look for a real job. She is extremely unsuccessful and the old Aileen resurfaces as she loses her cool with an obnoxious potential employer. Straight thereafter Aileen is picked up by a corrupt cop who forces her into a sexual favour. These two scenes refocus the plot. We can see that Aileen can do nothing but prostitute herself and they also re-affirm her hatred for men, which will drive her onto more murders. By about the half-way point of the movie, Aileen reaches a point of no return. In a previous confrontational scene in which Sylvie accuses her of not providing for them, Aileen had told Sylvie about the first murder, but she agrees to go out and whore for money. The point of no return comes when in a car with the guy; she hesitates, hesitates, then pulls out her gun and shoots him. She is now a murderer. She knows again what her goal is; survival by murder. She feels that she is doing it for Sylvie and indeed shows us that she loves her in her own way. In a powerfully passionate scene and no-return point in the Sylvie/Aileen plot, Aileen tells Sylvie that she loves her and the two make love. The rest of act two involves a few more murders and some set backs in their relationship. Sylvie goes out to the bar attempting to meet new people, and upsets Aileen. They go to funworld and things look on track once again, as they also make plans for their trip to the Florida Keys. All good times must come to an end, and this happens as, in what is in my opinion the act two climax, they have a car crash and end up on the run. Aileen tells her about the murders and they now have a new clearly defined goal, that is to avoid capture. Act three especially the last fifteen minutes are extremely intense and engaging. The story continues as previous but at a more intense and emotionally engaging level. Sylvie in a surprising and lady MacBeth look a like scene, tells Aileen that she just needs to carry on killing as they need to live. In the most extreme depiction of the murders, Aileen kills a John who was very benign and just wished to help her. Then she mistakenly kills a cop. They realise that things are getting out of hand and Aileen sends Sylvie on ahead or home (not sure) so that she can meet up with her later. She is ultimately however picked up by the cops. The film doesnt relent there as we are dragged ever closer by the power mostly of Charlises performance and specifically the parallel editing in the jail scene. Aileen and Sylvie have a phone conversation, and they both profess their undying love. Matching the very subtle, slow camera movement away from Sylvie, is her ever more dubious questioning. It is a very sudden, very tragic moment when the pennie drops and at various times the audience become aware of the betrayal, albeit understandable, taking place. It is even more tragic to see Aileens response as she admits solely to the murders, saving her only true love of any punishment, thus conveying beautifully the films major theme of the desperation love can drive you to. In the final shot of Aileen being led to the electric chair, her narration is heard. The last hard-hitting message comes as, commenting on something she had heard when she was young about reaching your dreams, she says cynically I guess they have to tell you something. Upon first watching it, I failed to realise how structured this movie actually was. But it is through movies like this that my faith in the Hollywood formula is being reborn. This movie is by no means boring, tiresome or old. It is just perfectly structured. From the first frame it grabs you by the collar and engages you in a two-hour ride of emotions. It is an incredibly difficult story to tell. It deals with issues that many feel are better left undelt with and thus does not appeal to everyone. We are not forced to like Aileen. There are constant emotional checks that cause us to examine our sentiments. Indeed we can pity her, but not necessarily forgive or excuse her behaviour. What this movie does do and I feel this was the filmmakers intention is get us to think a little harder about our own life, our treatment of others our place in society and those less fortunate than us. It also makes us think a bit more before judging someones actions, as we dont necessarily understand their background. It makes us question what a monster is, and if indeed a monster is ever a monster or just someone similar to us who has had a life to tough for them to handle. The judgements to these philosophies are left up to the audience to make, but the reason theses themes and questions are put across so powerfully in this story is definitely in large part as a result of the construction of the totally engaging plot.

Effective Speech Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Effective Speech - Assignment Example The opposition to Glenn’s argument is the fact that many people think those who express so much privacy are wrongdoers and have a lot to hide. However, the fact is, everyone has things that they do privately to avoid the judging eyes of the public. There are instincts that make people uncomfortable without privacy. The privacy is required by everyone because it is human nature.He related his topic to me by addressing it directly to the audience that back in our minds we know we cannot do without privacy. We all need to be protected from the judging eyes of many who have opinions that are different from ours. That way I was able to analyze myself and realized that his point was right.His most persuasive evidence was the fact that nobody was ever willing to disclose their private information and security passwords to their emails and other private networks. His unique facts were that when everyone has the mindset that someone could be watching them, they tend to be more obedient and do the right as compared to when people are in private. To support that point, he quoted sayings from re-known people, for example, a quote that says whoever does not move does not notice this change.From Glenn’s speech, I will take away the delivery style to help in strengthening my argument, content, and delivery in my persuasive speech. His good style helps to make sure everyone understands his ideas. He also tries his best to maintain the attention of the audience. He uses the best tone to drive his message home.

Marijuana Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Marijuana - Research Paper Example It contains delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a chemical that effects brain functioning. Marijuana statistics depict that the drug is highly abused in United States. Approximately 69 million people, above 12 years of age have used marijuana at least once. In 2006, according to the survey conducted by National Survey on Drug use and Health (NSDUH) it was the most common addictive drug in America. Around 14.8 million people widely used Marijuana as per the NSDUH survey. It is widely used by young adults in the age group ranging from 18 years to 25 years of age. The data emphasizes college students who at large fall under this category as reported by Centers for Disease Control. (CDH) This is most likely due to the low cost of the drug. The recent statistics illustrates that marijuana was accounted for 16 % of all admissions to health care facilities among which the ratio of males over female was higher (Fernandez & Allison, 2004). Even with such a high popularity, the rate of abuse of marijuana is decreasing. According to the Monitoring Future survey, the rate declined from 6.7% in 2006 to 5.7% in 2007 among eighth graders. Above all, around 74.3% eighth graders perceive the use of marijuana as detrimental for health. However, this drastic fall in the rate is probably due to other drugs that are also easily obtainable. Anyways the hallmark of this decline is that people are abandoning its usage but they might suffer withdrawal symptoms. Comparatively, marijuana has mild withdrawal symptoms than any other drug. The most common symptom is craving for the drug. It is reported that around 75.7% people abstaining from marijuana desperately craved for it. Mood swings are followed by craving. It is estimated that around 50.5% people trying to quit marijuana went through mood swings, petulancy or anxiety while other suffered from restlessness, aggression, nervousness and a lack of concentration. Insomnia