NJ state police and blacks on the NJ turnpike Essay

NJ state police and blacks on the NJ turnpike - Essay Example There are at least two operative definitions of the practice knows as racial profiling: The first is what is termed as ‘hard profiling’, which puts an individuals race as the only consideration in the minds eye of the officer in making a preliminary assessment of suspicious criminality. When a police officer views a black person or other minority, and the officer does not have anything else to substantiate criminality, he pulls the black person over for a pat down on the hope that he may either Find a weapon or drugs in his possession. The second form is referred too as ‘soft racial profiling’, where the police officer uses race as one of the reasons, among others which have been previously detailed to him as stereotypical of drug dealers or couriers. The New Jersey State Troopers for example, have intelligence that Jamaican drug posses have a fondness for Nissan Pathfinders as their vehicles of choice when transporting marijuana along the Northeast Corridor. The controversy surrounds racial profiling on the New Jersey Turnpike as practiced by New Jersey State Troopers was focused almost exclusively on highway stops. Where the police were stopping a disproportionate share of black and other minority drivers for traffic violations, but the prevailing argument states that the stops were specifically carried out as a means of drug interdiction. Of course in many instances, the driver may have committed an infraction, but there might, and usually were others within the specific cluster in which he was traveling, who also committed a similar violation. But it was their lucky day for the others, because a minority was in the vicinity. 2 New Jersey State Police and Blacks on the New Jersey Turnpike We will take a look into a court case which led a Superior Court judge to conclude in 1996 that the New Jersey State Police had a policy of 'selective enforcement' by targeting blacks for investigation and arrest. Some of the finding were as follows; "The ruling followed one of the states longest evidentry hearings-six months of testimony and 200 exhibits, many of them statistical surveys of drivers and traffic stops on the southern most 26-mile stretch of the New Jersey Turnpike. Judge Robert Francis found that troopers looking for drug suspects had pulled over an inordinate number of black drivers over a three year period simply because of their race. The survey determined that some 98 per cent of all the drivers along the stretch of the turnpike were going over the speed limit of 55 miles per hour, giving the police latitude to stop virtually anybody. The survey found that while 13.5 per cent of the drivers on the stretch of the highway were black, 46 per cent of those halted by the police over a 40- month period were black" According to the public defender, Fred Last, who helped design the survey, said, "They were pulling over blacks out of proportion to the population of the turnpike" (Last). Judge Francis agreed, saying, "The statistical disparities are indeed stark", the judge added, "utter failure" of police commanders to monitor the arrests or investigate the many claims of institutional discrimination, manifests its indifference if not acceptance" (Francis) One striking result of the survey, which the judge noted, was that the troopers using 3 radar tended to stop black drivers at near their rate in the highway population, while the

Frye Art Museum in Seattle Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Frye Art Museum in Seattle - Essay Example ..Through different approaches that include product pricing, promotion, marketing, and circulation, Lui seeks to investigate, understand and discuss value – particularly the complex characteristics of value in art – as well as the rules, mechanisms, and politics behind the creation of value.† (introduction to Liu Ding’s Store) It is in light of this intellectual context that Liu Ding’s presentation will have to be viewed. And this politico-economic context adds richness and meaning to what would otherwise be dull, unimpressive works. For example, a prominent painting in this exhibition is that of a huge python whose body is not yet fully painted. By showing only the head and tail of the giant snake, the painter is prompting the viewer’s imagination to fill in the space. This feature opens up the scope for interpretation as well. Moreover, this artistic angle underscores the role of synthetic imagination in the discourse on aesthetics. Coming t o the politico-economic angle, the exhibition shows how method, planning, schedule and intermediary stages supplement the production of works of art – a fact that is often shadowed by the beauty of the finished product. Another painting under the theme of ‘unfinished paintings’ is the Die Svende, which is an elaborately decorated frame enclosing nothing. Far from the conventional, Liu Ding’s exhibition can prove to be either thought provoking or disappointing, based on the taste, refinement and patience shown by the viewer. Ties That Bind: American Artists in Europe is another exhibition in the Frye Art Museum. This exhibition, though, is quite conventional, in that, it showcases portraits and landscapes representing classical styles that evolved in 18th and 19th century Europe. When the dust settled after the end of the Civil War in 1865, many American artists ventured across the Atlantic to learn, assimilate and master the flourishing artistic culture in Continental Europe. Europe at the time was witnessing a peaking of artistic, cultural and intellectual expression, and American artists sought the excitement and stimulus of such an atmosphere. The result is a whole era of artistic production that adapted European techniques and traditions to American talents. William Merritt Chase’ Portrait of a Lady against Pink Ground (ca.1886) is one of the paintings on display. According to Chase’ experience â€Å"each sitter presents some new phase of personality that one has never done before. There is constant variety; constant study in my work† (from accompanying note). Seen in this vein, the portrait in discussion captures the bohemian attitude in the pose and posture of the lady (Miss Virginia Gerson). John Singer Sargent’s Mrs. Frederick William Roller (dated 1895) is similar in theme adapting a mature style of portraiture that captures â€Å"the interior life of the sitter against the backdrops of finely ar ticulated spaces† (from the explanatory note accompanying the painting). The elderly lady Mrs. Roller, dressed in a black gown, standing in the backdrop of an architectural frame, makes quite an impression. The impact on the viewer is heightened by the skilful depiction of the curves of her dress and in the attention to detail given to the room setting. The fact that Mrs. Roller is shown with minimal jewelry and accessories is a testament

Flag State Jurisdiction On The High Seas International Law Essay

Flag State Jurisdiction On The High Seas International Law Essay This essay will focus on the internationally recognized right of hot pursuit and the rights and duties that lay upon the coastal states pursuing ships (pursuing aircrafts will not be included here). Since article 23 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas (1958) has been revised into article 111 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the following text will therefore mainly refer to the latter convention. It is important to notice that both conventions reflect international customary law in this area. This gives the conditions that are set up in the conventions a wider significance, since not only the states that have adopted the conventions are bound by the right of hot pursuit stated there. The focus will be on the following questions: What is the nature of hot pursuit and what are the international legal conditions that have to be fulfilled in order to exercise it? What is the objective of the right of hot pursuit? To answer the latter question, the focal point will be on what function the hot pursuit actually fill since it at first sight could be seen as a way for the coastal state to extend their sovereignty and jurisdiction to include foreign ships on the high seas, something that in general is supposed to be reserved to the flag state. Hot pursuit is not the only exception to the flag state principle. As will be seen below, piracy, slave trade, unauthorized broadcasting and major pollution incidents are other examples of exceptions to the flag state principle, but, given the limited scope of this essay, there would not be much said about each exception if all of them were included in this essay. 1.2. Purpose and disposition The purpose of this essay is to clarify the international recognized conditions for a state to exercise the relatively extensive right of hot pursuit and to critically examine the objectives of this right. Since this is a rather far-reaching right, being a derogation from the general rule prohibiting any interference by a state with non-national ships on the high seas, it is important to examine the original objectives behind hot pursuit and what function it actually fills. Since this is a rather far-reaching right that is limiting the jurisdiction of the flag state on the high seas (and in a way therefore also affect the freedom of the high seas), The essay will have the following disposition: First, the freedom of the high seas will be described in short together with the principle of flag state jurisdiction (section 2), to give a sufficient background to the reader. Thereafter, the circumstances which serve as prerequisites for the exercise of hot pursuit will be examined. 2. Jurisdiction on the high seas 2.1. The freedom of the high seas an overview Ever since the eighteenth century the high seas  [1]  have been open to all states, with no state able to claim sovereignty over any part of it. This concept, called the freedom of the high seas, was developed as opposed to the closed seas-principle which was claimed by Portugal and Spain in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, leading to a division of the seas of the world between the two powers in 1506.  [2]  However, the high seas are nowadays subject to res communis and the general rule is that states cannot in principle control the activities and the whereabouts of other states on the high seas.  [3]  The freedom of the high seas has been traditionally established in customary international law but the first draft of codification was formulated in the Resolution on the Laws of Maritime Jurisdiction by the International Law Association in 1926, which declared that no state may claim any right of sovereignty over any portion of the high seas or place any obstacle to the free and full use of the high seas  [4]  . The principle of the freedom of the high seas was eventually also declared in the Geneva Convention on the High Seas (1958) as well as in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the first hereinafter referred to as GCHS and the latter as UNCLOS). These conventions clarified international customary law and made it easier to comprehend. Some articles in the conventions will be brought into light in the text below in order to give a clear and fuller view of the subjects presented. Some of the key-principles regarding the high seas are stated in article 2 GCHS and article 87 and 89 UNCLOS, which affirm that the high seas are open to all states and that no state may validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty. Furthermore, article 87 UNCLOS states that the freedom of the high seas includes inter alia the freedoms of navigation, overflight, laying of submarine cables or pipelines, the construction of artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, fishing and scientific research. However, these freedoms are to be exercised with due regard for the interests of other states and for the rights under the convention with respect to activities in the area (meaning the International Seabed Area  [5]  ). Worth noting is also that the high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (article 88, UNCLOS). 2.2. Flag state jurisdiction Thus, the high seas have relatively far-reaching freedoms for all states, but there must however be some kind of maintenance of order and jurisdiction so that these freedoms do not get violated and used in a wrongful way by any state and so that wrongful acts on the high seas do not go unpunished. The main rule is that the state which has granted to a ship the right to sail under its flag (the flag state) has the exclusive right to exercise legislative and enforcement jurisdiction over its ships on the high seas.  [6]  It is accordingly the flag state that enforces the rules and regulations of its own municipal law as well as international law.  [7]   The general principle that the flag state alone may exercise jurisdictional rights over its ships was elaborated in the Lotus-case (1927) where the Permanent Court of International Justice held that vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the state whose flag they fly  [8]  .  [9]  The flag state-principle is nowadays also stipulated in article 92 UNCLOS (and article 6 GCHS), where it is stated that ships must sail under the flag of one state only and that they will, as a general rule, be subject to that states exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas. Each state sets up its conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for registration of ships and for the right to fly its flag. This was declared by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the M/V Saiga (No.2) case, where one concluded that the determination of the criteria and procedures for granting and withdrawing nationality to ships are parts of the flag states exclusive ju risdiction.  [10]   The nationality of the ship depends accordingly upon the flag the ship flies, but there must be a genuine link between the state and the ship.  [11]  The requirement of a genuine link was intended to counter the use of flags of convenience (often operated by states such as Liberia and Panama) where states grant their nationality to ships looking for favorable taxation and work- and social agreements.  [12]  However, if a ship sails under the flags of more than one state according to convenience, the ship does not have any nationality in a juridical point of view and may therefore be boarded and seized on the high seas by any state. This is to be compared with ships that do have a flag, which (as a general rule) only can be boarded and seized by its own flag state on the high seas.  [13]   Worth mentioning is that there are also some duties and responsibilities attached to the flag state jurisdiction, such as the obligation to legislate to make it an offence to break or injure submarine cables and pipelines under the high seas. Furthermore, the flag state also has to provide for compensation in case such an offence occurs and to adopt and enforce legislation dealing with assistance to ships in distress in compliance with international duties regarding safety at sea.  [14]   When it comes to warships and ships owned or operated by a state where they are used only on governmental non-commercial service, the exclusivity of the flag state-principle is applicable without exception. As can be read in articles 95 and 96, UNCLOS, those ships have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of other states than its flag state.  [15]  Though, the principle of flag state jurisdiction on the high seas is not absolute. It is subject to some exceptions in which third states may share enforcement or legislative jurisdiction (or both) together with the flag state. In the following, the focus will be on the exception of hot pursuit, but some other exceptions worth mentioning are: piracy, unauthorized broadcasting, slave trade, drug trafficking and major pollution incidents.  [16]  The right of hot pursuit is however different from the other exceptions to the flag state principle, since the right of hot pursuit derives from jurisdiction under the territorial (+ EEZ a nd continental shelf?) principle whereas enforcement related to slave trade and piracy (for example) derives from jurisdiction based on the universality principle.  [17]   3. Hot pursuit an exception to flag state jurisdiction 3.1. Historical background and objective When a foreign ship has infringed the rules of a costal state, the right of hot pursuit makes it possible for the state to pursue and seize the ship outside its territorial sea in order to ensure that the ship does not escape punishment by fleeing to the high seas. This principle limits the freedom of the high seas and represents an exception to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state on the high seas, since it makes it possible for the coastal state to follow and seize a ship registered in another flag state and in this way extend its jurisdiction onto the high seas.  [18]   The right of hot pursuit is an act of necessity which is institutionalized and restricted by state practice. It emerged in its present form in Anglo-American practice in the first half of the nineteenth century.  [19]  In England there was an old rule of fresh pursuit where the role of the pursuer was played by a mere individual, unlike todays hot pursuit where the pursuer must be played by a person in his official capacity or by a member of a certain authority (see below).  [20]  The principle has now been recognized in international customary law for a long time. The Im alone-case, 1935, can lead as an example, where it was stated that warships or military aircrafts of a state are allowed to engage in hot pursuit if a foreign ship has violated that states laws within its internal waters or territorial sea and to make an arrest on the high seas.  [21]  The Hague Codification of 1930 served as an evidence of general recognition of the right of hot pursuit by states when i t provided the basis for the draft article adopted by the International Law Commission which later on became article 23 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas of 1958.  [22]   The objective of the right of hot pursuit is to make it possible for states that are exposed to delicts made by non-national ships to bring the escaping offenders before its jurisdiction. In this way the high seas may not provide a safe haven for ships having committed a delict within a states maritime jurisdictional zones. Hot pursuit could be seen as contrary to the exclusive principle of flag state jurisdiction on the high seas, but seen in the light of the high seas, it is not reckless to conclude that the right of hot pursuit is in accord with the objective of order on the high seas.  [23]  Moreover, the right of hot pursuit has a preventive function derived from the psychological effect of the increased disciplinary rights that the violated coastal state is entitled to. The psychological effect is not to be underestimated since it could prevent wrongdoers to undertake illegal activity, knowing that they may be pursued, arrested and punished by the authorities of the state w hose laws have been violated.  [24]   Pursuit onto the high seas does not offend the territorial sovereignty of any state and it involves no intrusion into foreign territory since there is no sovereign to the high seas, except the state of the flag. To let the flag state principle stand in the way for effective administration of justice when a ship has committed a delict in another states juridical maritime zones has been seen as disproportionate, hence hot pursuit has become an international right for coastal states, regardless of the flag of the ship. Furthermore, the right of hot pursuit is a right of necessity since the coastal state would not be able to enforce its laws and regulations against fleeing ships without being able to pursue them.  [25]   3.2. Legal status As mentioned above (section 2.1.), the right of hot pursuit was codified and recognized by states in the Hague Codification in 1930, which led to the development of article 23 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas (1958). The provisions on hot pursuit in article 23 GCHS was thereafter essentially reproduced in article 111 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), comprising the new developments in the international law of the sea, such as the generated rights followed by the establishment of the new jurisdictional zones of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone.  [26]  Since article 111 UNCLOS is a renewed definition of the right of hot pursuit, it is the definition stated in UNCLOS that is the most updated and will be in focus below. Article 111 UNCLOS has the title Right of hot pursuit and contains eight paragraphs, in comparison to article 23 GCHS which only has seven paragraphs. (See the appendix for the full and exact wording of article 111 UNCLOS). Article 111 declares the coastal states right to engage in hot pursuit and lays down a number of cumulative conditions under which this right may be exercised. These conditions have been set up in order to avoid abuse and incorrect exercise of hot pursuit by the coastal states, such as situations where the wrong ship is pursued by accident. The specific conditions are also of great importance when it comes to upholding the freedom of navigation on the high seas and to ensure that the coastal state have enough evidentiary material to support a hot pursuit before exercising it.  [27]   4. International conditions and the nature of hot pursuit 4.1. General conditions (ta bort?) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has emphasized that the conditions laid down in article 111 UNCLOS are cumulative, which means that each one of them has to be fulfilled in order for the hot pursuit to be lawful.  [28]  The basis for the exercise of hot pursuit is specified in paragraph 1 of article 111 UNCLOS which notes that such pursuit may be undertaken when the authorities of the coastal state have good reason to believe that the foreign ship has violated its laws and regulations. The violation must be made within one of the costal states maritime zones, such as its internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or its continental shelf. Furthermore, the laws and regulations that were violated must have been enacted in accordance with international law.  [29]  Thus, article 111 UNCLOS makes it possible to pursue a foreign ship onto the high seas, but with respect of international law and the principle of state sovereignty, the pursuit must cease as soon as the ship enters the territorial sea of its own flag state or any other state. Otherwise, the pursuit would end up in a violation of another states sovereignty.  [30]   4.2. Involved vessels As can be seen in article 111 (5) UNCLOS, the coastal state may only exercise hot pursuit through the use of certain ships and aircraft having a connection to the governmental authority of the state. Warships and military aircrafts, together with other specially authorized government ships or aircrafts which are clearly marked and identifiable as such, are the only vessels that are required to exercise the pursuit.  [31]  This limitation to vessels vested with governmental authority ensures that the pursuing state cannot avoid its state responsibility for actions made by its pursuing ships acting on behalf of the coastal state. It is not the specific authority to pursue that is of importance; it is rather the general authority of applying laws and to take necessary measures in this regard. This guarantees the responsibility of a state for the actions made by its ships operating under the government. A states official connection to military aircrafts or warships needs not to be ma nifested since this connection is self-evident, thus, other pursuing vessels need to be specifically authorized by the state to exercise these measures.  [32]   Commercial ships in government service as well as private ships are subject to the jurisdiction of the coastal state and can be pursued if there is good reason to believe that a violation of the laws have been made. However, it is not in accordance with international law to exercise hot pursuit against other states warships. These, together with other non-commercial ships operating under a foreign government, are generally immune from the jurisdiction of any state other than the flag state. Although these ships are excepted from a coastal states right of hot pursuit, this does obviously not mean that they do not have to follow the laws and regulations of the coastal state. The only immunity warships enjoy is the immunity from enforcement jurisdiction of the coastal state, so the flag state might have to answer for the violation made by one of its governmental ships. Furthermore, the coastal state may pursue and arrest warships and non-commercial ships in foreign government service in self-defense.  [33]   4.3. Offences The right of hot pursuit arises whenever the offending ship has violated a law which has been validly enacted for the purpose of the zone where the offence has occurred  [34]  . In order to be entitled to hot pursuit, the coastal state has to have good reason to believe that the foreign ship has made such an offence, or as it is stated in article 111 (1) UNCLOS: violated the laws and regulations of that State  [35]  . The article states no predefined offences, so what kind of offences does this actually refer to? There is in fact no limit of how severe the delict must be in order to entitle the state to hot pursuit. The coastal state is entitled to undertake hot pursuit as soon as any local law or regulation has been violated, no matter how trivial. The wording in article 111 UNCLOS allows hot pursuit whenever a law has been violated, no matter what the character of the offence is.  [36]  There has been a view that the right of hot pursuit should arise only in respect of certain kinds of offences which could be considered as quasi-international offences (such as security offences), but the predominant view at the time of the Geneva Conference was that there should be no catalogue restricting the right of hot pursuit to offences of a certain character.  [37]   The seriousness of the offence should however be taken into account by the coastal state before starting a pursuit, so that the freedom of navigation is not hindered for minor offences.  [38]  This would otherwise result in a disproportionate exercise of power.  [39]  Furthermore, international comity and goodwill can be seen as important reasons why a coastal state should not exercise in response to trivial offences. Naturally, this principle of comity does not legally bind the coastal state to behave in a certain way, since it is not a principle under international law. In general, states are however anxious to submit to this principle of comity, since it is in their own best interest to show respect to other sovereign states. A state that does not act hospitably to other states and pursues their ships without good reason may be subject to the same abuse when its own merchant fleet navigates in other states territorial seas. Except taking comity into account, states decisio n to exercise hot pursuit is also based on the practical reality that states are not likely to find minor offenders worth the trouble of pursuit. Besides, ships guilty of trivial offences are unlikely to risk the dangers of flight in the hope of avoiding arrest for a minor delicts. Although such flight could indicate that the ship has been engaged in a delict that is much less trivial than the coastal state first suspected.  [40]   The nature of the offence entitling the state of hot pursuit is related to the competence to enact laws for the different maritime zones. In the territorial sea this competence is unlimited (except for the right of innocent passage), but regarding the contiguous zone or other zones of extraterritorial jurisdiction, the states competence to make acts offences is restricted since these are zones of limited jurisdiction. The right of hot pursuit arises when an offence has been made within one of these zones, but it is provided that the offence is made against laws which international law allows to be enacted for the purposes of that zone.  [41]   Article 111 (1) UNCLOS sets up the condition that a state must have good reason to believe that a ship has violated the states laws and regulations. This good reason standard prevents states from pursuing a foreign ship solely based on the suggestion that an offence has been made by it. However, this condition does not require that the coastal state has actual knowledge of an offence. The proper interpretation of this good reason condition lies somewhere between suspicion and actual knowledge of an offence. In regard to this, the mere flight of a vessel could be sufficient to justify hot pursuit, since it could give the state a suspicion that the ship is trying to flee from the consequences of an offence made by it. Even though the state originally lacked good reason to believe that the ship had made an offence, this suspicious behavior could be enough to live up to the good reason standard.  [42]   Offences that are not attributed to the foreign vessel itself do not lay ground for hot pursuit, for example when an offence is committed by a passenger. The coastal states jurisdiction is towards the ship only, the passengers and crew remain under the jurisdiction of the flag state as long as their actions are not attributable to the ship itself. Robert C. Reuland states that the delict must have been committed under the color of the ships authority  [43]  in order to give rise to hot pursuit. Finally, when it comes to offences, one can conclude that there are two main conditions that have to be fulfilled in order to give right to hot pursuit: first, the state must have good reason to believe that an offence has been committed and second, the offence must be attributable to the ship itself.  [44]   4.4. Commencement and cessation Article 111 (1) UNCLOS states from which maritime zones a state may commence hot pursuit under international law; namely when the foreign ship (or one of its boats) is within the pursuing states internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea or contiguous zone.  [45]  It is only when the offence is committed within one of these zones that the coastal state may undertake hot pursuit. However, in comparison to article 23 GCHS, article 111 (2) UNCLOS is more extensive and stipulates that the right applies mutatis mutandis to violations of legislation applicable to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf (including safety zones around continental shelf installations).  [46]  The right to begin hot pursuit while the foreign ship is within the contiguous zone is limited to the enforcement of certain rights, that is to say if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.  [47]  Robert C. Reuland mentions that a lthough a states legislative jurisdiction within the contiguous zone may not be limited to the four purposes set out in both sea conventions, such laws should nevertheless be limited to the protection of the states territory and territorial sea. It follows that hot pursuit may not be commenced from the contiguous zone for violations of laws that do not reasonably comport with the littoral states legislative competence with respect to this zone.  [48]  . Whether pursuit may start while the ship is in the continental shelf or in the exclusive economic zone is more directly an aspect of the question whether the violation was made against legislation relation to these zones, than in the case of the contiguous zone. The offence is more directly related to the regime of the zone.  [49]  The state may enact laws consistent with the sovereign rights in these zones, for example relating to protection of fisheries etc in the case of the exclusive economic zone. Similarly, the violatio n of any law enacted by the coastal state that is consistent with the states sovereign rights over the continental shelf may give rise to the right of hot pursuit.  [50]   The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the pursued ship enters the territorial waters of its own or a third state.  [51]  To continue therein would result in a violation of that states sovereignty and that is accordingly offending international law.  [52]  This general rule may however be put aside where hot pursuit in another states territorial sea is permitted by treaty.  [53]  It is important to mention that the general rule of cessation at the territorial sea of another state does not apply to other maritime zones beyond the territorial sea, so the pursuing state may actually pursue the foreign ship into the exclusive economic zone or even the contiguous zone of another state. Such zones are to be considered as high seas when it comes to hot purs

Homicide Trends, Prevention, Intervention in Atlanta Essay -- Social

Introduction Homicide has been in existence since the beginning of time. People kill each other daily. In the United States, you are ten-times more likely to be murdered on the day you’re born than any other time in your life (CDC, 2002). For that reason, today’s research suggest that homicide events should not be considered single incidents but as underlying indicators of changes in social and economic conditions including: race, poverty, and social isolation (Parker 2004) and the distribution of handguns (Ludwig & Cook, 2003). Yet, a vast majority of criminal homicides offer very little understandings. In 2010 there was 12,996 homicides in the United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010). Ninety-three of those homicides occurred in the Atlanta area (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010). For that reason, the heightened incidence of criminal and violent behavior in recent years has become a major concern across the Atlanta area. Several things are thought to be factors of homicide. Some factors include race, demographic, poverty, and the social organization of people. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009), â€Å"blacks are disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. In 2010, blacks in Atlanta represented 54% percentage of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) but 86% percent of the homicide victims (Atlanta Police Department Uniform Crime Report, 2010). Hence, one of the most consistent findings reported in the criminology literature is that African Americans in the United States are involved in criminal homicide both as offenders and victims at a rate that significantly exceeds their numbers in the general population (Bartol & Bartol, 2007). Nevertheless, in many case... ...rected patrols, and the guns for tickets within high crime areas of The City of Atlanta, homicide rates will decrease Summary This paper has demonstrated how the analysis of homicide patterns in Atlanta could be use to develop and recommend interventions for communities impacted by increase homicides. However, the success of any of the recommended interventions depends upon the good relations between the police and citizens of Atlanta. Also, since most homicides are impulsive not forethought, it is unlikely that the strategies impose would mitigate the homicide rates. It is possible, although difficult to envision, that all strategies against homicide would alter behavior of offenders and thereby reduce violent situations. Conversely, by reducing the number of persons carrying firearms on the streets of Atlanta homicide will coincide be reduced as well.

Final Lab Report Sample

Date Performed: July 30, 2012 EXPERIMENT NO. 10 COMPOSITION OF POTASSIUM CHLORIDE ABSTRACT The aim of the experiment was to look for the percentage composition of the elements present in the decomposition of potassium chlorate (KClO3) and to find out what the residue after heating was. After performing the experiment the researchers found out that there were about 66. 14% of potassium chloride (KCl) in KClO3, and they also deducted that the residue was actually KCl. _____________________________________________________________________________________Introduction Total mass of the Element/Compound   (Part)Total mass of Compound (Whole) ? 100 The formula above is the formula used to determine the percentage composition of an individual element in a compound. In this experiment, the researchers are both going to solve for the theoretical percentage composition and the experimental percentage composition of elements/ ions. The theoretical percent composition is solved using a known for mula compound and an experimental percent composition is solved using data identified in the experiment.The goal of this experiment is to formulate a diminutive percentage error as possible, which is solved using the formula below. Theoretical value-Experimental valueTheoretical value ? 100 The compound that they are going to use in this experiment is KCl or potassium chlorate. Potassium chlorate, when heated to high temperatures would form this equation: 2KClO? (s) ? 2KCl (s)+3O? (g) Procedure The experiment was composed of two parts. The first part was for determining the percentage composition of potassium chlorate.First, the researchers made sure that the crucible, which would be used throughout the experiment, was dry, so they heated it on a clay triangle for 2-3 minutes. Next, they let the crucible cool down a bit and then weighed it together with its cover. Then they added 1. 196 g of potassium chlorate into the crucible, placed its lid and then weighed it. After that, they h eated the crucible again on the clay triangle for 8 minutes with its bottom 2. 5-3 inches away from the flame. They heated it for another 10 minutes, that time adding a little bit of distance between the flame and crucible bottom.They allowed the crucible to cool for about 10 minutes. Then they reweighed the sample for 6 more minutes, cooled it and then weighed it again. In the second part of the experiment, they took 3 test tubes, one containing a small amount of potassium chloride, one with a like amount of potassium chlorate, and one that contained a solution obtained from adding distilled water to the crucible, that was used in the first part of the experiment, and heated it for about a minute, and then they added 10 ml of distilled water to each and stirred.In each of the tubes, they added 5 drops of dilute (6 M) nitric acid and 5 drops of 0. 1 M silver nitrate solution, then stirred each test tube and observed carefully. Results and Discussion On the first part of the experime nt, the researchers started off with the crucible with the sample that weighed 37. 184 g. , after the first heating, the mass decreased and became 37. 093 g. , after the second heating, the mass decreased again and became 36. 787 g. , the difference between the two wasn’t less than 0. 05 g. , so they had to reheat.After the third heating, the weight became 36. 779 g. , their difference was within 0. 05 g. so no more heating is required. After calculating, the researchers found out that the theoretical percentage of oxygen in KClO3 is 39. 17% and that the experimental percentage of oxygen they got in KClO3 was 33. 86%. On the other hand they also found out that theoretical percentage of KCl in KClO3 is 60. 83% and that their experimental percentage of KCl in KClO3 was 66. 14%. and that the experimental attempt to get the percentage of oxygen in KClO3 had an error of 8. 3%. On the second part of the experiment when 5 drops of dilute (6 M) nitric acid and 5 drops of (0. 1 M) sil ver nitrate solution were added to the solution of the residue and distilled water, potassium chloride solution, and potassium chlorate solution, all of them turned cloudy with white precipitate in them which indicated that chloride ions were present which lead to the deduction that the residue was actually KCl. 1. Mass of crucible + cover| 35. 988g. | 2. Mass of crucible + cover + sample before heating| 37. 84 g. | 3. Mass of crucible + cover + residue after 1st heating| 37. 093 g. | 4. Mass of crucible + cover + residue after 2nd heating| 36. 787 g. | 5. Mass of crucible + cover + residue after 3rd heating| 36. 779 g. | 6. Mass of original sample=37. 184? 35. 988=1. 196| 1. 196 g. | 7. Total mass lost during heating=37. 184? 36. 779=0. 405| 0. 405 g. | 8. Final mass of residue=1. 196? 0. 405=0. 791| 0. 791 g. | 9. Experimental percent oxygen in KClO3=0. 4051. 196? 100=0. 3386? 100=33. 86%| 33. 6%| 10. Experimental percent KCl in KClO3=0. 7911. 196? 100=0. 6614? 100=66. 14%| 66. 14 %| 11. Theoretical percent oxygen in KClO3=3(16. 00)39. 10+35. 45+3(16. 00)? 100=48122. 55? 100=0. 3917? 100=39. 17%| 39. 17%| 12. Theoretical percent KCl in KClO3=39. 10+35. 4539. 10+35. 45+3(16. 00)? 100=74. 55122. 55? 100=0. 6083? 100=60. 83%| 60. 83%| 13. Percent error in experimental % oxygen determination=60. 83-66. 1460. 83? 100=-5. 3160. 83? 100=-0. 0873? 100=8. 73%| 8. 73%| Conclusion and RecommendationAs seen above, the experimental percent gotten by the researchers wasn’t that far off from the theoretical value, and they ended up with a percent error of 8. 73%. That’s not a high percent error, but in chemistry, where accuracy is very vital, that amount is already considered high. One of the factors that led them to a high percentage error was that they used a different balance for the weighing of #4 and #5 in the table. For further experimentation, the researchers suggest that only one balance would be used throughout the experiment.It is also important to k eep the crucible steady so that spattering won’t happen during heating. Because when spattering does happen, mass lost would no longer be accurate. References * Book: Hein, MORRIS, et al. , FOUNDATIONS OF CHEMISTRY IN THE LABORATORY FOR SCIENCES (CUSTOM EDITION), 12th ed. , Singapore129809, 2009 Appendix 1. Mass of original sample= (mass of the crucible + cover + sample before heating) – (mass of crucible + cover)| 2. Total mass lost during heating= (mass of the crucible + cover + sample before heating) – (mass of the crucible + cover + after 3rd heating)| 3.Final mass of residue= mass of original sample – total mass lost during heating| 4. Experimental percent oxygen in KClO3=total mass lost during heatingmass of original sample? 100| 5. Experimental percent KCl in KClO3=final mass of residuemass of original sample? 100| 6. Theoretical percent oxygen in KClO3=molar mass of O? molar mass of KClO 100| 7. Theoretical percent KCl in KClO3=molar mass of KClmo lar mass of KClO 100| 8. Percent error in experimental % oxygen determination=theoretical value-experimental valuetheoretical value? 100|

Discuss the Influence That Social Networking Plays in Society Today? Essay

How, and to what extent, has it re-defined social relationships and is this generationally specific? Social Networking plays an important role in society today; it will be argued that social networking has redefined social relationships and that this effect is generationally specific (Salman,2009) Social Networking sites such as Facebook have had a profound effect on personal relationships. The twenty first century is an imprisoned atmosphere where the Internet is the most prominent method of communication. Its users will most probably argue that using these social networking sites have had no direct impact on how they interact with others or have any direct affect on their social relationships, that in fact social networking sites had increased their participation in social activities and contact with their friends and family (APS 2010). However, with its increasing popularity and high usage, social networking has become the new way to â€Å"socialize†. In the past people developed social relationships through interaction face to face, by mail, by telephone, and in person, however there have been dramatic changes since the impact of the internet and sites like Facebook. These sites allow people to create online profiles, upload pictures and disburse personal information to their online allies which allows users to proclaim a perception of identity lived through a technological world. â€Å"These sites allow informal, 24 hour communication regardless of physical proximity†. The â€Å"social grid† boasting 175 million users, has been found to be â€Å"positive for social relations† (Kang,2010, p1) but according to the research I have undertaken, I will argue otherwise. To strengthen my argument I will use statistics from a survey that was conducted by The Australian Psychological Society (2010) with a total of 1,834 respondents. Fourteen percent of the survey respondents were male and seventy three percent were female. Thirteen percent of respondents chose not to disclose their gender (APS, 2010). Concerns about excessive use of online social networking were investigated. 0% of the participants felt a need to log on to these sites several times a day and believed that they wasted time on these sites, however 53% had declared that using social networking sites had increased their participation in social activities. (APS, 2010). Further studies into the effects social networking sites had on how people communicate with each other indicated that internet communication may supplement traditional social interaction like talking face to face and making time to see the other person in physical figure. Cyber bullying was also an expression of concern, particularly among children and adolescents with 28% of respondents reporting inappropriate and distressing behaviour whilst online (APS,2010). A few of the tasteless behaviours included abusive messages and harassment which is not only upsetting but can severely affect how someone feels about how they communicate with others and may feel a need to shut themselves out further from society in fear of abuse and confrontation. Some other disadvantages in using online social networking included: concerns about how catching up with friends had become increasingly non existent and a fear that using online social networking would become addictive. A study conducted by Chak and Lueng (2004) concluded that the more a person is addicted to the Internet, the shyer the person is, which will reflect the way that person communicates in the outside world where face to face interaction is significant. With Internet addiction fast becoming a popular enslavement, studies have indicated that some patterns of Internet use are associated with loneliness, shyness, anxiety, depression and self-consciousness. (Chak & Lueng 2004) which in turn will affect your social relationships. Valkenburg, Peter & Shoulten (2006) investigated the consequences of friend networking sites with negative feedback illustrating a decline in self esteem and well being. However, the positive feedback indicated that social networking sites had increased their social self esteem and well being. Although the association between Internet use and subsequent social support is negative, the effect is not statistically significant. People who use the internet more subsequently reported larger increases in loneliness while greater use of the internet was associated with increased depression at a subsequent period (Social Tech Science, 2010). â€Å"Social networking displaces face-to-face time: an hour longer spent on the Internet has been shown to equate to half an hour less face-to-face time in a day† (Social Tech Science, 2010, p1). The explosion in Social Networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook is broadly regarded as an exciting opportunity, especially for youth as they are more inclined to embrace the new technologies that are becoming increasingly available, although a study conducted by Kennedy (2009) found that the fastest growing demographic on Social Networking Sites were women aged 55 and older, and Facebook users older than 35 had doubled by the end of March 2009. This proves that Social Networking really has nothing to do with age but with society wanting to embrace new technologies to enhance their personal and professional lives. The results from the research I have gathered demonstrate that social networking sites do have a profound influence on society and it re-defines social relationships. However, it is not generationally specific. â€Å"In every era, cultures go through numerous changes, and in recent years ours has been more impacted than anything else by social media†. (Gordhamer,2009). Although there is a lot of research to support the argument that Social Networking Sites are the most beneficial form of communication and boosts self esteem and well being, we cannot ignore the body of evidence that suggests the impact social media has on our personal and professional lives.