How Do Critical Perspectives On Crime Differ From Traditional Essay Example for Free

How Do Critical Perspectives On Crime Differ From Traditional Essay Critical perspectives on crime differ from other perspectives in that they focus on ways people and institutions respond to crime and criminals. Critical perspectives are often called social reaction theories. The different theories covered under critical perspectives include Labeling theory, Conflict and radical theory and feminist theory. Labeling theory states that deviance is not the act itself that a person commits; a deviant label will lead us to be more deviant. Labeling theory is one of the most significant perspectives in the study of criminology. Amongst these theories is the labeling theory which is one of the most significant theories studied. Labeling theory adopts a relativist’s definition, by assuming that nothing about a given behavior automatically makes it deviant. While traditional theories accept the accuracy of official labeling such as the arrest and prosecution, Labeling theory challenges the view and says some people’s behavior is more likely to be labeled deviant than others. Conflict and Radical theories take up where labeling theory leaves off. They argue that law is only controlled by the powerful and that they are often preserved by the dominant, unlike traditional theories that promote the law and stress the positive aspects of it. One area inspired by feminist work is often called gender-ratio; it is the study of female rates is so much lower than male’s rates in violent crimes. Within the feminist theories we have victimization, differences in crimes, Gender Differences, Masculinity. A great deal of focus is spotlighted on masculinity of crimes. Researchers argue that in order to reduce crime men must be socialized more and male dominance must be illuminated. It was noted in Chapter 3 that we already do a good job of raising our girls not to be criminals, however how can we implement this into the masculine side of things. Masculinity and crime is the significant focus of the work of gender-ratio issues. The problem according to sociologists is that crime is essentially a male issue and we need to figure out how we get to it being much less of an issue. Most crimes against women are either produced as a crime against a weaker person or a crime because the criminal is the dominant one. It seems to be a double edge sword. Power-Control theory explains the level of female criminality by examining the gender process of families. It highlights the roles played by women and men in perspective to their class. Power Control theory looks at two primary sections, the first is Patriarchal households in which only the father works outside the home and the mother is left at home to care for the children. In this type of household boys learn the masculine roles and girls learn the feministic roles. The other is egalitarian, in which both the matriarch and patriarch works outside the home, therefore the guidance is not there to justify roles which tends to lead to delinquency in both gender children. Although most tests of Power control theory produce mixed results. Feministic theories show us just how unequal women are portrayed in law and society. The main issue with control theory is a mother’s occupational place vs. a father’s occupational place in the family. It focuses on the balance of power and control and how this affects the child’s preferences for risk taking. Criminal law divides murder and non-negligent manslaughter into four subgroups: first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Some of the patterns described in our book include geographic patterns in which is chronicled with data statistics. It focuses on the different regions and shows the highest statistics in the South, with the Northeast and Midwest being low to mid. According to data the highest weapon used in homicides are handguns at 68 % with knives and blunt objects at 13%. Researchers say that the south is the highest percentage of crime due to the high temperature and crowded urban areas. According to our book (P200) an adequate explanation of homicide and aggravated assault must answer the following questions: Why does the United States have a higher homicide rate than any other industrial nation? This is answered by research that provides data that the United States has more inequality than other nations and thus this pro duces more crime. There is a vast difference between the rich and the poor. The other reason or answer given to this is that in the United States more handguns are owned, and since handguns are the major cause of homicides, this also contributes to the higher rates. Within the United States, why are homicide and aggravated assault rates highest in the urban areas? This is best answered with Social  disorganization, anomie and strain theory help explain why crime in general is higher in urban areas; this includes higher populations, denser areas of habitation, household overcrowding as well as dilapidated living conditions. There is also a chance of higher unemployment rates. Why do men commit almost all homicides and aggravated assaults? The masculinity theories were brought up in chapter 9, but this question is answered as this seems to be shaped in adolescence and the need for boys to grow up stronger and better than women who are looked upon as less dominant. Poverty also interacts with masculinity, the competitiveness in families and social groups. Why do African-Americans and other people of color have high rates of homicides and aggravated assault, both as offenders and victims? This question is explained in similar ways to those above. It has been a question full of hard emotions and personal opinions. It could also be construed as a racist or stereotypical question. Because it is such a touchy subject most researchers go about it in explaining how minorities have criminogenic structural and ecological factors which cause their crime rate to be higher. There is social disorganization stress, the stress of being deprived and discriminated against. Also listed are negative family and school experiences along with the peer pressure from other deviant youths that are common in the urban areas. All of these factors separate may not have much effect, but together it proves to be the perfect combination to put African Americans, especially y oung African Americans at a higher risk for crime. For which two types of violent crime are women’s rates of victimization much higher than men’s victimization rates? At what rates are women victimized for these crimes? Describe cultural myths supporting rape and battering that are discussed in the text Rape/sexual assault and domestic violence/violence committed by intimates are at the top of the list for crimes committed against women more than men. (P220) Our book states that women represented 89% of all sexual assault crimes and 79% of aggravated assaults. Many of the cultural myths are involved in overseas and third world countries which see women as possessions or less than worth compared to a man. In India, as well as Pakistan Dowry deaths which claim the lives of thousands of women are committed daily. These deaths are sanctioned as legal or usually overseen by law enforcement with payment. Dowry deaths are committed against  a bride by either a husband or the husband’s family because the bride’s dowry was not paid as it was supposed to be. Wartime rape and batteries is also high in other countries and often overlooked in the judicial system. Some of the myths involved in these victimizations include women â€Å"like† to be raped or they â€Å"ask† to be raped. Our book uses the opening scene in Gone With the Wind to express one of the many portrayals of women enjoying being sexually assaulted , she is whisked up-stairs against her will, and then is shown with a smile on her face in the morning. The other myth is that women ask to be raped by the way they dress or how they behave. This has been an excuse used by many, even today. The blame does not go on the abuser in these cases but looks at how the woman was behaving prior to the sexual assault. For domestic violence and assaults the women is again said to have â€Å"asked† for the beating by antagonizing the abuser. The woman is blamed for saying or doing something to anger the male and therefore deserved the beating or abuse they received. Women are also blamed because they do not leave the abuser when they have a chance to leave, nor do they press charges when they often have the chance to. Women normally do not leave abusive spouses because they are often the sole providers, women have children and often no money to leave or pay for housing anywhere or legal fees to divorce or put restraining orders on abusers.

How Does Stevenson Intend His Readers to Respond to Dr Jekyll and Mr :: English Literature

How Does Stevenson Intend His Readers to Respond to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? What Methods Does He Use to Bring About These Responses? Robert Lewis (later changed to ‘Louis’) Stevenson was born in Edinburgh November 13th 1850, into an engineering family. Although he had been plagued with illness all his life, after inheriting tuberculosis from his mother, he enrolled at Edinburgh University to study engineering, to follow in his successful father’s footsteps. However he abandoned that road of studies and swapped to law, where he ‘passed advocate,’ although he had the education to practise law he did not follow that either, because by this time he had realised that he could and would write instead. To expand his horizons he would visit France in the summer to be within the company of other artists, both painters and writers. And his first publication was called ‘Roads,’ which was within a series of publications, all works about travelling. His first truly successful piece was ‘Treasure Island’ released in 1883, which truly launched his career. Later in 1886 he released ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ which was also a huge success, as it was so controversial and faced things that most people were too scared to write about. This controversial behaviour had begun when he was a young man by denying his faith, much to the surprise of his strongly protestant parents, he ended up leading a bohemian life. Stevenson’s experiences through life greatly effected his works, such as in ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ the scene is set in London, yet based a lot on Edinburgh, the luxurious and grand main city, and the dirty, grimy, back street, underground scene as well. He used this to create an effect on the reader, and to create the response that he wanted. Stevenson used themes throughout the book, and there are a large number of them, running the course of it, that influence greatly the response the reader has to ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’, and also reflects themes running through society at the time. Some of the most prominent themes being the parable of good versus evil, satanical references and religion that intertwines throughout. ‘If I ever read Satan’s signature upon a face, it on that of your new friend Mr Hyde.’ Mr Utterson says that, oddly, to himself about Mr Hyde after refereeing to Mr Hyde’s unnameable malformations; the use of ‘Satan’ means that although Mr Hyde has nothing especially wrong with him facially or physically, his deformity is in his soul, in his evilness. People sense his dark nature and reflect it in how they view him. This gives

Play Hamlet vs. Mel Gibson’s movie version Essay

Performance Analysis of Shakespeare’s â€Å"The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark† My performance analysis is based on Shakespeare’s â€Å"The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark†. This production was directed by Franco Zeffirelli and starred Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, Alan Bates, and Paul Scofield. In this production of Hamlet, the original old English is used. However, I noticed that any dialog that was too difficult to comprehend or too wordy was deleted from the scenes. Some of the scenes had also been altered. For example, In Act 2, Scene 1, the director has Polonius spy on Ophelia and Hamlet, and this is how he learns of Hamlet’s strange visit with his daughter and Hamlet’s madness. In the original text of Act 2, scene 1, Ophelia informs Polonius of Hamlet’s visit and his apparent madness. I believe the director chose to have Polonius spy on them to obtain this information, because the audience would observe for themselves just how mad Hamlet appears. It was also probably done to save time so that the movie wouldn’t drag. In Kenneth Branaugh’s version the movie is contained on two tapes, and his version was a little too slow moving for my taste. The lines 207-0 213 in Act 2, scene2, where Polonius has a lengthy monologue, also appears to have been cut from the script. In that same act the lines where Guildenstern and Rosencranz enter the scene have been moved to Act 3, Scene 1, a point directly after Hamlet’s â€Å"Mousetrap† play. There were also several other modifications to the placement of scenes in this play, including Shakespeare’s famous speech, â€Å"To be or not to be [†¦],† which had been moved to Act 1, scene 2. I believe all of these changes were made due to the advantageous nature of the film media. It was possible for the director to show several shots of different actors and events, shifting back and forth between scenes. This gave the effect of the scenes occurring simultaneously. Since these scenes appeared to have occurred at the same time in the movie, it probably made sense or seemed more effective to the director to move the scenes or acts around to what seemed the most logical point in the film. As a result of these modifications, I felt this version of Hamlet was more fast-paced and engaging. It did not drag. I appreciated this production over the other Hamlet films I have seen, because it was made more interesting through director’s shifting camera technique. The setting and costumes of this play were also historically accurate for that time period. And the lighting was well done -not too dark. As far as the actors go, Mel Gibson  gave an energetic interpretation of the melancholy Hamlet; and Glenn Close was so intense and very believable as Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother. The other actors also performed their parts very well. In summary, I enjoyed this performance more than Kenneth Branaugh’s production, because I felt it was faster paced and more dynamic. I feel this effect was achieved through the director’s technique of shifting the camera between the actors and scenes to give the impression that events were occurring simultaneously. I also fee l Mel Gibson’s energetic performance and Glenn Close’s intense and realistic performance added a dynamic quality, which I have not seen in any other production of this play.

Accounting Equation Paper

The accounting equation which we know as Assets equals to Liabilities plus Equity for a sole proprietorship and for a corporation we know it as Assets equals to liabilities plus stockholders & equity. Assets are company owned, liabilities are what company owes and the difference between the both of them is the owner’s equity, these three things are what the companies are measured by in the financial field. In order to understand them more clearly and how the accounting equation shows a simple way of understanding the three amounts relating to one and another, which are the assets that include cash, account receivable, equipment. Then the liabilities include notes payable, accounts payable and salaries payable. Finally, owner’s and stockholder’s equity includes common stock and retained earnings. The accounting balance sheet is one of the biggest financial statements used by accountants and business owners, these are income statements, cash flow statements, and stockholders equity statements. Balance sheet allows the creditor to see what a company owns as well as what he owes. These are very important things for someone to know for potential investors and others. So as we know, the balance sheet reflects the accounting equation, it shows the reports of company’s assets, liabilities, and owner’s and stockholders’ equity. If a company keeps their records up to date and accurate, the accounting equation will always be in balance, showing that the left side should always equal to the right side. This keeps the balance sheet balanced since all assets are financed either by equity or liabilities and also the accounting equation serves as the basis for the balance sheet. The balance sheet shows that the assets are on the debit side and liabilities and equity are on the credit side, so the accounting equation formulates in a way where the total debits should always equal the total credits. Every accounting equation has its effects on the accounting equation, because every transaction alters the components presented in the equation, in a way that the equation is satisfied after each modification.

Courtship essays

Courtship essays Over time the once universal definition of courtship has become a manifestation of one's personal beliefs and values. The once formal structure of courtship is now an individual meeting process. However there are still some formalities to the process. Every couple has a story of how they met. Many couples are high school sweethearts, others meet through mutual friends. Joe and Eileen Marini met in court. The story begins in the summer of 1975, in the town of Wildwood, NJ. One night after partying at the local dance club, a lively group of young men return to their hotel room to finish off the evening with a few drinks. Once inside, they began acting wildly and someone broke down a door separating the room adjacent to theirs. Inside the second room was a group of young women settling in after a long day of bathing in the ocean. After removing the uninvited guest from their room the girls decided to get some rest and settle the problem the following morning. On the proceeding morning two of the girls went next door to talk over the situation with the guys. When they knocked on the door a young gentleman, who had been absent the night before, answered. His name was Joseph Marini, and the two girls were Cathy Holland and Eileen Carew. The girls sat and discussed what would be done to absolve the situation and the gentlemen agreed to pay for damages. Of course, the owner of the hotel was not as forgiving as the girls. The case was assigned a court date and the fines would be accessed at that time. Following their fiasco the two groups went on their separate ways, except for one lucky meeting. After shopping downtown, Eileen and Cathy returned to the hotel to shower and prepare for the night. In the parking lot they crossed paths with the young man that had answered the door that morning. They began talking and Eileen took the liberty to invite Joe to join them at the dance club that night. On their first date, Eilee...

American Privateers in the Revolutionary War

American Privateers in the Revolutionary War American Privateers in the Revolutionary War Before the Revolutionary War began, the Continental Congress showed little interest in creating a navy for the new nation (Nelson 62). Congress was reluctant to supply the funds to purchase or build ships, purchase supplies, or pay sailors to man the ships. When the Revolution began, however, Congress realized it was important to have American ships patrolling the coasts of the new nation, especially because Britain’s naval force was the most powerful at the time (Frayler). Consequently, the Americans turned to privateering. Privateer ships were privately owned vessels and were similar to pirate vessels. Unlike pirates, privateers were authorized by the government to attack ships belonging to an enemy. Privateering during the Revolution financially benefited both sailors and colonists alike and it assisted the Continental Army by providing supplies. American privateers, commissioned by the Continental Congress and the colonies, played an important role in the development of the United States and the outcome of the Revolutionary War. Beginning in 1775, soon after the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress and individual colonies began commissioning privateers (Konstam 148). In November of 1775, the Massachusetts General Court approved â€Å"An Act For Encouraging the Fixing out of Amed Vessels† (Patton 27). This act allowed citizens to â€Å"equip any vessel to sail on the seas, attack, take and bring into any port in this colony all vessels offending or employed by the enemy† (qtd. in Patton 27). Additionally, it outlined the proper procedure for obtaining commissions and creating prize courts to distribute the captured wealth. The Continental Congress passed an act on March 23, 1776, which formalized the commissioning process and established rules of conduct for privateers (Frayler). The act required owners of privateering vessels to post monetary bonds in order to verify that they would adhere to Congress’s regulations. (Frayler). Applications for commission required the applicant to supply a sum of money as much as $10,000 as a promise to treat captives with â€Å"the greatest humanity and tenderness† (Patton 98). Applicants were charged $5,000 if the vessel weighed less than 100 tons and $10,000 if it was larger (Kuhl 86). In another act, passed on April 3, 1776, Congress issued instructions for the commanders of privateering vessels. The act authorized the commanders to â€Å"by Force of Arms, attack, subdue, and take all Ships and other Vessels belonging to the inhabitants of Great Britain on the High Seas,† and â€Å"by Force of Arms, attack, subdue, and take all ships and oth er Vessels whatsoever carrying Soldiers, Arms, Gun powder, Ammunition, Provisions, or any other contraband Goods, to any of the British Armies or Ships of War employed against these Colonies† (qtd. in Salem Maritime National Historic Site). As Massachusetts’s act suggested, any vessel could become a privateer (Patton 27). Although this quickly increased the number of privateers on the seas, it made it possible for ships of any condition to become privateering ship. When Washington, a large Continental schooner, was captured by the British, the Royal Navy deemed it to be unsuitable for sea or for war, suggesting that not all privateer ships were in the best condition when they were commissioned (Patton 32-33). The physical state of a ship was important, but the size of a ship was equally significant. The largest ship was the Caesar, a 600-ton, 26-gun ship and the smallest was the 8-ton Defense (Frayler). The most prevalent ships were two-masted schooners and brigantines. By early 1776, ships of all sizes were cruising the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and the Canadian coast (Konstam 148). In order to become a privateer, the owner of the ship had to be issued a letter of marque and reprisal. These documents promised that the bearers would not be prosecuted as pirates by their home nation (History Channel). If a ship attacked another ship but did not have a letter of marque, the attackers were considered pirates and could be hung for their crimes (Kuhl 12). Letters of marque provided extra protection to the bearer because it guaranteed that captured privateers would be treated as prisoners of war rather than criminals by the foreign nation (History Channel). The documentation from this time is incomplete, but about 1,700 Letters of Marque were provided on a per-voyage basis to Revolutionary privateers (Frayler). Although letters of marque were supposed to protect the privateers, the promises made by the Congress were never fully accomplished because the British passed the Pirate Act in March of 1777 (Patton 34). Under this act, privateers were regarded as pirates, and were denied both due process in British courts and the opportunity for prisoner exchange. As a result, many captured American privateers were jailed and had only three options to get out: join the Royal Navy, escape, or die. Even before the Pirate Act was passed, the British often treated their prisoners poorly (Kuhl 43). However, it is worth noting that many British citizens disagreed with the poor conditions that American privateers were subject to and many opponents called the Pirate Act â€Å"cruel, persecuting† and â€Å"shocking to humanity† (qtd. in Patton 142). In December of 1777, about one hundred Londoners met together and raised  £1,300 to be allocated to American inmates so they could purchase goods that were otherwise unavailable to them (Patton 143-144). Three members of the House of Lords also contributed money to the cause and charities and churches donated food and other supplies. The risk of capture, imprisonment, or death did not deter sailors and citizens from rushing to become privateers. Men continued to join privateering vessels because of the promise of riches. Although privateers received no pay for their service other than the spoils they stole from British ships, many men signed up to become privateers because they could quickly earn a large sum of money (Konstam 148). Privateering was so lucrative that it was possible for a man to make more money in a month as a privateer than he could earn in another occupation in an entire year (Patton xvii). There is at least one known instance of a sailor, Joseph Peabody, who rose from a lowly deckhand to a privateer investor by participating in just nine voyages between 1777 and 1783 (Patton 115). In August of 1776, John Adams observed, â€Å"Thousands of schemes for privateering are afloat in American imaginations. Out of these speculations many fruitless and some profitable projects will grow† (qtd. in Patton 113). When a ship was captured by privateers, it was usually taken to a friendly port (Kuhl 33). Crews on a privateer tended to be larger than normal because part of the crew was required to board the captured ship and sail it. Goods captured by privateers, called prizes, were usually subject to judgement in an admiralty court (Kuhl 12). The admiralty court decided if the captors were eligible for payment and if they had followed the correct protocols (Kuhl 87). In order to receive payment, the prize had to arrive in port with the correct paperwork and whole cargo; it had to have been captured from an enemy; and the prisoners could not be harmed and their personal belongings could not be confiscated. However, in some cases of extreme need, supplies could be sent to the Army without being invoiced (Patton 120). In the case of the cargo ship Lively, the load of clothing and blankets were sent directly to American troops, and the captors did not receive payment for the supplies, which were estimated to be worth  £25,000. When the admiralty court decided that the crew had followed the correct protocols, the prize would then be auctioned off and the crew would be paid (Patton 121). Once they were paid, privateers tended to equally divided the payment between crew and owners (Kuhl 51). In some cases when the military was bidding on supplies, the public would sometimes refrain from bidding (Patton 121). Although this saved the government money, it lessened the payment that the crew would receive. Once the auction had ended, the winning bidder was usually required to immediately pay five percent of the purchase price (Patton 118). In its infancy, Revolutionary privateering was a disaster. The first privateering ship, the Hannah, would cause numerous problems for Congress (Nelson 87). The captain of Hannah was reluctant to sail far from port so he frequently seized merchant ships belonging to fellow Americans (Patton 30). The first ship captured by Hannah was Unity, a continental transport belonging to a member of Congress. Although Unity had been captured by the British, Hannah’s crew received no payment for the recapture of the transport ship. As a result, thirty-six members of the angry crew mutinied and were punished when the mutiny was eventually subdued (Patton 31). The next seven ships captured by Hannah also belonged to Americans, and damages had to be paid out of Continental funds for the merchandise that the crewmen stole. Another early privateer ship, Washington, captured only one legitimate prize (a load of hay) before being captured by the British after only eight days of service (Patton 3 2). Despite the discouraging beginnings, not all privateering ventures were disastrous. Lee, a small schooner crewed by 50 men, was able to capture Nancy, a transport ship that was four times the size of Lee (Patton 35). Despite Nancy’s size, Lee was able to capture the transport ship because Nancy’s crew was disoriented after sailing through a storm and they had mistaken the Lee for a Royal Navy ship. The British ship was loaded with precious supplies: tons of ammunition, thousands of weapons, and a three-thousand-pound mortar were all seized for use by the Continental Army. The cargo had an estimated worth of  £10,000 to  £30,000. In 1776, the Continental schooner Franklin intercepted the three-hundred-ton British transport, Hope (Patton 44). Hope carried numerous cannons and muskets as well as seventy-five tons of powder, making it the most valuable prize captured during the Revolution. When Hope and the cargo were finally auctioned off, they would be sold for more than $1.5 million (Patton 118). A Salem privateer ship named the Rattlesnake captured more than $1 million worth of prizes in a single cruise (Konstam 148). The Connecticut privateer Defence successfully captured two British transports, George and Annabella, and a third ship within a period of a few days (Kuhl 41-42). The captured ships carried necessary equipment, including tent supplies, blankets, cooking supplies, clothing, and small arms and bayonets (Kuhl 44). Washington immediately demanded that these supplies be sent to the Continental Army stationed in New York. Sailors were not the only people to profit from government-endorsed piracy against British fleets. Many ports, including the ports at Salem, Baltimore, and particularly Boston, benefitted from the privateers that operated off their coasts (Konstam 148). General Washington praised Bostonians for â€Å"the valuable prizes that have been lately brought into your port. We stand in need of all your activity to increase our supplies by these means† (qtd. in Patton 107). Rhode Island benefitted as well, and an estimated  £300,000 worth of prizes were brought into Providence between April and November of 1776 (Patton 91). Sailors of privateer ships often pledged future earnings to creditors as a way to settle debts (Patton 79-80). If the sailor’s earnings exceeded the debt amount, the agreement allowed the creditor to keep the difference. Investors earned money by owning and trading privateers shares (Patton 80). The value of these shares depended on the quality of the ship and the competency of the crew. A sixteenth of a share in a small privateer ship cost  £56 during the war (Patton 91). Manufacturing companies in the colonies profited as well. One cannon company owned by the Brown family in Providence, Rhode Island, sold their cannons for  £35 per ton (Patton 88). Congress ordered sixty twelve- and eighteen-pound cannons for their privateering vessels and a former member of Congress ordered twenty-six cannons (Patton 89). However, because many of the guns manufactured by the Brown’s company were set aside for private ships who would pay in advanced and pay extra for weapons, customers like Congress had to wait a long period of time for their guns to be produced (Patton 90). Although privateers helped the American cause by supplying the Continental Army with goods and weapons, privateering had a downside: privateers were owned by individuals, rather than the Navy or government, so they were not obligated to fight enemy ships (Nelson 285). While this helped maximize profits for the privateers, it limited their usefulness in the war. However, targeting merchant vessels did help the Revolutionary cause by applying financial pressure to English merchants (Kuhl 51). The Americans knew that if they harassed the British merchants enough, the merchants would in turn pressure Parliament and the king into ending the war. The popularity of privateering also decreased the number of men fighting in the Continental Army (Patton 124). Naval sailors were especially attracted to privateering, and they frequently deserted the Navy. While the Continental Navy offered many of the same benefits as privateers (such as a doubled prize share for the first sailor to spot an enemy vessel and a tripled share for the first sailor to board an enemy vessel), privateers had no regulations against cursing and did not require sailors to attend a religious service twice a day (Patton 78). As a result, the government began to place embargoes on the privateering industry (Patton 124). Before a privateer or merchant ship could leave its home port, the town had to fulfill the military manpower quotas for the town. Unsurprisingly, businessmen openly protested the embargo. John Adams opposed the embargo as well, stating, â€Å"I am sorry the embargo was ever laid. I am against all shackles upon trade. Let the spirit of the peo ple have its own way† (qtd. in Patton 124) As the Revolutionary War progressed, the success of the privateers began to dwindle. In 1777, British Parliament authorized their own anti-American privateers (Patton 107). Parliament had been initially been reluctant to authorize anti-American ships because it would acknowledge America as a legitimate country. As a result of Parliament’s decision, more than a thousand loyalist ships were launched from Britain and the West Indies and another one hundred warships launched from New York. Some estimates claim that admiralty courts in New York were inundated with up to 2,600 requests for privateer commission and letters of marque (Patton 147). It is difficult to calculate the number of American privateers killed, but records show that 832 Continental seaman (not including privateers) had died at sea during the Revolutionary War (Patton 111). During the Revolution, American privateers had captured more than three thousand British merchant ships (Konstam 148). Other sources state that eight hundred vessels that were commissioned as privateers have been credited with capturing or destroying about six hundred British vessels (Frayler). The British lost an estimated  £6 million annually as a result of privateering during the war (Patton, 43). Maritime diminution in the West Indies alone by mid-1777 were calculated at  £2 million (Patton 135). Additionally, American privateers caused an estimated $18 million (a little more than $302 million today) worth of damage to British ships (Frayler). In fact, shipping losses caused by privateers were a part of the reason in Britain’s decision to surrender (Konstam 148). Privateering was initially a disaster but many ships were very successful in capturing British vessels. Although privateering was dangerous, it was an extremely profitable venture that many Americans benefitted from. Sailors benefited by quickly earning money, merchants supplied weapons and other necessary items to privateers, and investors could earn money by trading stock in privateer ventures. Most importantly, privateers helped supply the Continental Army with captured British goods, such as clothes, blankets, weapons, and gunpowder. Privateers, regardless of their successes and failures, played a crucial role in the development of the United States and the outcome of the Revolutionary War.

Sociology. Active Listening Steps Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Sociology. Active Listening Steps - Essay Example I was so happy because she got that same award when she was in grade 4. I told her we should pray about it and hope she gets the award. A week after, my daughter came to my room crying. I was watching TV at that time so I turned it off so that I could find out why she was crying. I wanted to give her my 100% attention. I asked her the reason why she was crying. I listened intently to her and looked at her straight in the eye. At the same time I was hugging her too. She told me that she did not get the award. At that instant, I felt the pain that she was feeling. I held her hand and asked her if she asked her class adviser why she did not get the award. She said she inquired and was informed that she was however, the second in contention. Her class adviser told her that she could have gotten the award if only she participated more in class recitations. Her teacher said that she should be more assertive next time. My daughter felt really bad. I felt sorry for her but at the same time I knew that I had to talk to her about it. I hugged her tightly and wiped her tears away. I just embraced her for a few minutes without saying a word. I wanted her to feel my love and concern for her. At the back of my mind, I was trying to gather my thoughts and trying to think of the right words to say so I could pacify her and make her still feel good about herself.