Genetic Engineering: DNA Testing and Social Control :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

DNA Testing and Social Control    Pragmatism is the name of the game when it comes to taking away freedom. The public tends to be against any attempt to curtail civil liberties across the board. It is standard practice, however, to for the government to violate the rights of certain groups in the name of public safety or to fight crime. This is what is happening with the government collection of DNA samples.    The state of New York announced on August 5 that it intends to collect DNA samples from every person in prison, on parole, or in probation in that state for one of a specified list of crimes. Included on this list are murder, sex crimes, drug dealing, and some drug offenses. The samples will be digitized and placed on state computers. Once this database has been establish, police will be able to search it in order to find a match with evidence found at crime scene.    New York is not alone in doing this. All 50 states maintain a DNA database of some type. Mostly though it is only individuals convicted of sex crimes that have their records stored. Eight states sample DNA at a level comparable to the New York proposal. In Louisiana the police actually take and keep DNA samples from any person that they arrest.    Proponents of expanding the use of DNA tests in the legal arena like to point out that these tests will exonerate truly innocent individuals. DNA tests have exonerated some wrongly imprisoned people but it is disingenuous to think this is the real reason for growing use of DNA tests. The real reason for all of this is, of course, to help prosecutors obtain more convictions. It is thus worth keeping in mind that the criminal justice system currently reflects deep class and race biases. Journalist and attorney David Cole argues persuasively in his recently published book No Equal Justice that this is no accident. Rather law enforcement, the legal system, and the prison system operate in a way that insures the disproportionate imprisonment of poor people and people of color. If the government only conducts DNA tests of people convicted of crimes, it will fortify and expand this already unfair process.    Of course one possible way to blunt these biases is to take DNA samples from absolutely everybody. This might seem Orwellian but there is a certain logic to it.

Freedom of Expression on the Internet: Comparison between Canada and the United States :: Free Speech in Cyberspace

I. Introduction â€Å"Congress shall make no law †¦ abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press †¦Ã¢â‚¬  as stated by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution[1]. Most subsequent democracies have adopted this view as well, believing that it is a fundamental part of what makes a democratic system effective. For example, Canada has given their citizens the right to freedom of speech; but like the United States, they have placed certain limitations which restrict its usage. The limitations were put in place because the right to free speech had been abused, especially when considering its use in cyberspace. Freedom of speech in cyberspace is inherently a global issue because the Internet is so pervasive, so Canada and the United States are being extremely cautious by using preventative techniques. After looking at the ethical issues involved, I believe that speech in cyberspace should not be completely â€Å"free† and should be regulated by increasing the security me asures placed on Internet websites. II. Background In order to thoroughly grasp the significance of free speech in cyberspace, it is important to review the basics of free speech in general. Free speech is â€Å"the right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government,† but also the right to listen/read/watch another person’s right to free speech.[2] Although this definition states that the government cannot use censorship, the government has afforded itself some loopholes. The Fourteenth Amendment extends the right of free speech to state and local governments as well as government-run institutions (public schools, colleges, and universities). Private schools are not restricted, yet most choose to adopt the policies of free speech anyways or are mandated to do so by the state governments.[3] The key words to notice here are â€Å"public† and â€Å"private†, as they can easily demonstrate the right to free speech. If the free speech takes place in a public forum, such as in books or at the park, then it cannot be censored. However, if it takes place in a private forum, such as within a private building or organization, then the free speech can be censored. The Canadian government provided a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression in 1981 under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the Canadian courts have used Section 1 of the Charter (provides that all rights are subject to such reasonable limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society) to â€Å"justify various forms of censorship.

Mary Shelley Essay

   I don’t think the reader feels sorry for Victor because if he hadn’t have rejected the monster in the first place he wouldn’t have been in that situation. In the era the book was written, people were beginning to question God’s existence. Should God be the only creator of life? Should the power of science be able to create people? We found out the answer to this in Frankenstein. Victor tried to create the monster using scientific knowledge and succeeded. However, the end result of the monster was horrific. He was lonely, had no friends, and resorted to killing people. This proves science can not create life and make them fit into the human race. Only God can achieve this and that’s the way it should stay. I think the reader sympathizes for the monster because the monster didn’t choose to live, Victor did it for him and he only needed somebody to love. ‘I collected the instruments of life around me that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. ‘ This quote shows he was searching for something to bring the monster to life, and that it was his decision to do this. At different stages in the story, Victor and the monster are both altruistic and egotistic. To start with, Victor is very altruistic. Whilst developing the monster he was very focused and in some way addicted to his creation. He became increasingly tired and unhealthy as he wasn’t looking after himself properly. ‘Sometimes I grew alarmed at the wreck I perceived. ‘ This shows he didn’t even realise how he was treating himself, and he was ‘alarmed’ when he realised. This proves he started off to be very altruistic, thinking of others before himself. At the same time he could be egotistic. He didn’t think of the monster’s feelings, and just focused on achieving his goal, not thinking of the consequences there were to come. Victor claims he was doing it to be ‘useful to my fellow beings. ‘ His mother actually sparked the idea and fame and fortune drove him. So he ended up doing it for himself. The monster starts off to be altruistic as he befriends the family and helps them and generally doesn’t focus on just himself. He makes adult suggestions unlike Victor who has stubborn childish responses. Victor could have offered friendship and love, but does the complete opposite making him extremely egotistic. However as the story continues it all changes dramatically and Victor and the monster almost swap places. Eager to love and to be loved, the creature is not born evil. Society makes the monster become egotistical. As society keeps on rejecting him, he becomes more and more egotistic and doesn’t really care what anyone else thinks anymore. The monster wanted what Frankenstein and so many other humans had and took for granted – a place to belong. Loneliness and isolation motivated the monster to turn to destruction. However, this was through no fault of his own. Victor was the first one to reject him therefore, it’s mainly his fault. When this starts to happen, I think the reader feels sorry for the monster, as he had no other choice but to do this, and become egotistic. On the other hand, Victor becomes more altruistic and begins to think of others. When the monster starts to kill people close to him, I think he realises he needs to do something. Victor does decide to make the creature a bride which was very altruistic, but turns against the idea. Elizabeth, Victor Frankenstein’s foster sister, plays a crucial part of Frankenstein. Since Victor’s mother died, Elizabeth played the ‘mother’ role and was adored. ‘Everyone loved Elizabeth. ‘ At many points in the story Victor is saved by the love of Elizabeth. On Frankenstein’s wedding day, his creature, the monster kills Elizabeth. Her beauty and innocence are greatly emphasized which takes away a lot of sympathy for the monster. When Frankenstein’s father knows that she was killed, he dies a few days later. ‘What then became of me? I know not; I lost sensation, and chains and darkness were the only objects that pressed upon me. ‘ This shows Victor doesn’t want to live anymore and doesn’t take any notice of the world around him. He didn’t have anything to live for, except to get revenge on the monster he’d created. ‘How I have lived I hardly know; many times have I stretched my failing limbs upon the sandy plain and prayed for death. But revenge kept me alive. ‘ So Victor decides to find the monster and searches for him. He tracks the monster ever northwards into the ice. He then freezes to death and dies, and when the monster finds this out he kills himself. At this point you sympathize for mainly Victor as he never got his revenge but also the monster, as he had such a horrific, lonely life. To conclude there are many different times in which the reader feels antipathy and mainly sympathy for the monster in Frankenstein, which shows he wasn’t treated well at all.