Tutor profile: Jasmine L.
How does Mary Shelley's Frankenstein warn us against the perils and promises of technology?
In today’s day and age, technology is progressing to a point where many leaps in innovation can be made but also many mistakes. In Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus, is a cautionary tale, a story of tragedy. The novel approaches science and progress as a dangerous practice. The novel serves as a warning of the perils that new ideas hold and how if a maker is careless with his creation it can lead to consequences. As technology progresses, creators and people with a passion for science must remember that their actions have consequences. One tends to think of what would have happened differently if Victor had simply kept care of his creation and taught him the ways of the world. He may have not become so isolated, alone, and angry at his maker. The monster himself says, “I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on” (152). The monster understands his fate and by the end of the novel, he realizes that his only choice is to be a monster. But then at what point does care turn into control? This brings up an interesting point about helicopter parents. On one hand you want to protect your child and make sure no harm comes to them. However, too much control can lead to children lashing out or rebelling on purpose to anger their parents. On the other, you want your child to revel in their successes or be responsible for their mistakes. However, with no direction whatsoever (which is what Victor chose to do with the creature) leads to the creature having to figure out life and purpose on his own. In this day and age, we are very close to giant leaps into the future of technology and science with things such as gene splicing or cloning. While this could help eradicate many health defects, we must also consider the consequences of possible mutations or mishaps. Victor and his own creation share many direct parallels as they both are just men, men of curiosity and men of science. They are both outcasts, although they were both social outcasts on accord of Victor’s doings. Victor from a young age rejects many of society’s rules and steers away from traditional science and more towards dark magic like alchemy. Also both men lose everything though they had a shot at redemption. Victor is directly responsible for the successes and for the failures of the wrench. The wretch above all, is looking for answers. Why was he created? What is his purpose? The wretch also is searching for a type of companionship or acceptance, which he isn’t receiving from society because society turns their back on those who are different from themselves. I feel sorry for the wretch. First of all, the wretch didn’t ask to be created and yet was forced into this world. Then, he was rejected by most of society and labeled as an outcast just based on his physical appearance. Walton is like the wrench in the regard that he often felt himself distanced from society (however he did so by choice). Both Walton and the creature also have an innate fascination with light and with life, as it is shown through the scene where the creature sees fire for the first time. The novel approaches science and progress as an almost danger. The novel serves as a warning of the perils that new ideas hold and how if a maker is careless with his creation it can lead to consequences. As technology progresses, creators and people with a passion for science must remember that their actions have consequences. In this day and age, we are very close to giant leaps into the future of technology and science with things such as gene splicing or cloning. While this could help eradicate many health defects, we must also consider the consequences of possible mutations or mishaps.
Is a drug court effective alternative to incarceration?
During President Nixon’s administration drugs in America became a nationally recognized issue as his policies launched a so-called “War on Drugs.” Nixon was quick to label drugs and their users as “public enemy number one.” Policies were quickly pushed through resulting in “increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants” (drugpolicy.org). The system experienced an overload of drug offense cases, many of them non-violent, entering the prison system despite no previous criminal record. Of these inmates, “approximately half meet DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence or abuse” (Kearly). In an attempt to remedy this, the first drug court emerged in Miami, Florida in 1989. Since its inception, drug courts have spread to all 50 states, with now an “estimated 2400 drug courts in the United States in 2012” (Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie). The goal of a drug court is simple: create an alternative to incarceration for drug offenders and hopefully lower recidivism rates for drug crimes. le drug courts are met by large support for their work in treating addiction personally, they are also criticized by some for being an ineffective strategy to aid in a national health issue. Drug courts may seem like a beneficial alternative to incarceration, however, the policies and procedures of drug courts in the United States make the implementation of drug courts problematic in practice. In reality, they may hinder the underprivileged groups they wish to help. Society at large, still treats drug addicts as criminals, providing harsh sanctions for relapses and little support to help ease an addict off of a substance.
Subject: Political Science
Should the United States have a death penalty?
Sociologist Max Weber theorized that the success of a state hinders on physical force. Weber emphasized the importance of the state having a monopoly on such a force, using it to ensure order or keep peace. Robin Wagner-Pacifici establishes state legitimacy through "a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate violence." A state may consider the death penalty just, due to its use of physical force to end terror and regain peace. Arguments against the death penalty are also, in part, rooted in philosophy and morality. Do people deserve to die for their crimes? Do we deserve to kill? This debate remains a large part of the arguments against the mere existence of the death penalty, but in practice, far more important issues arise pertaining to the judicial nature and effectiveness of capital punishment. The death penalty system must be reexamined when it creates injustice and inequality in the legal system based on social status, or cannot act as a deterrent of crime.
needs and Jasmine will reply soon.