The Concept Of Imprisonment And Human Rights Criminology Essay

The Concept Of Imprisonment And Human Rights Criminology Essay The terms prison and imprisonment are used interchangeably in a way that the existence of the first term is a mandatory precondition for the existence of the latter one, or vice-versa. In other words in criminal justices process, the first term prison refers to the place where in the latter term imprisonment is to be taken place; and imprisonment indicates the limitation of inmates liberty. However, different terms are used by different countries and legal systems to explain terms prisoner, prison and imprisonment. For example in the US different states use different terminologies like inmate and prisoner; correction and imprisonment interchangeably.  [1]   Of course some legal systems use detention instead of imprisonment and detainee instead of prisoner.  [2]  Hence, these above discussed facts show that there is no uniformity in the use of terms in the criminal justice system of different states. However, after the establishment of the United Nations organization (UN) and the regional organizations states are adopting uniform usage of terms through the ratification of binding and normative treaties and standards. In order to avoid ambiguity during the writing and reading this research paper, the writer will use the term prison to mean a place where individuals deprived of personal liberty as a result of conviction for an offence serve their conviction  [3]  emphasis added. Likewise, the term prisoner will be used to refer to an individual deprived of personal liberty as a result of conviction for an offence.  [4]  Finally, the term imprisonment will be used to mean deprivation of liberty as a result of conviction.  [5]  However, readers should be aware that the term inmate to mean prisoner may be used in some parts of this research paper. Evolution Indeed, crimes as a source of social evil emerged from the biblical times; however with the change of socio-economic situations its nature and techniques also changed; in line with this, the modes of control and punishment used by the state changed.  [6]  Therefore, prisons as we know today are result of recent developments compared to the age of commission of crimes. From these facts one can understand that before the coming of the contemporary prison system there were other modes of punishment against wrongdoers. To borrow the words of Thorsten Sellin; [s]societys offenders have been dealt with in many ways. Until recent times, historically speaking, punishment was harsh; criminals were exiled, enslaved, tortured, mutilated, and executed. The use of imprisonment as a method of treating the offender is relatively new, dating back no further than the last quarter of the 18th century. Of course, jails, lockups, and places of detention of various kinds have been in existence for hundreds of years. But it was only 200 years ago that they were used for anything other than places of detention for offenders awaiting a harsher kind of punishment.  [7]   During the Roman Empire, prisons were used to detain offenders pending trial or execution and to punish defiant servants.  [8]  Hence, it was not used to imprison convicted individuals like the practice today. The English prison was used for the same purpose with Roman ones in the 9th and 11th centuries. However, unlike the contemporary situation, all costs incurred during the stay of a prisoner in the prison, including salaries for sheriffs, would be covered by the prisoner himself.  [9]  To rectify the rising of petty offences in Europe, prison labor was introduced in correction centers in the sixteenth century.  [10]  This new system was aimed at rehabilitating prisoners so that they can serve the society after release. Latter on transporting prisoners from Europe to colonies, which was aimed at engaging them in the farm lands in America and Australia was introduced.  [11]  This system ended together with the end of colonialism in the Northern America and Australia . In America the concept of prison is related with the Quakers, a protestant religious sect, who were highly concerned about the cruelty and harshness of the then system.  [12]  As a result of their concern about the redemption of the souls of the criminals they came up with the idea of the penitentiary, a place of separation where criminals could think upon their evil deeds and repent.  [13]  Though it is debating, there is a view that prisons as a means of social institutions emerged in Pennsylvania in the last part of the eighteenth century.  [14]  In general the need to reform young offenders, the detention of those politically in disfavored and banishment constituted to the 19th century prisons. Function of imprisonment From the historical point of view imprisonment has had different objectives at different times. As mentioned above, prisons used to serve as a place where detainees awaiting trial or execution stay. In this case its purpose is aimed at keeping the individuals until conviction or execution. It is widely known that the purpose of imprisonment is firmly related with the objective of criminal punishment. Accordingly, the best way to discuss about the function of imprisonment would be to look in light of the objectives of criminal law. However, looking at the historical point of view on the treatment of prisoners is of worth. Typically, inmates in ancient times were put to death or used as slave labor force, but, in most of these cases, a period of incarceration or detention was preceded. When they were not otherwise engaged in labor they were held in remote and hostile surroundings, making escape virtually impossible and these drastic sanctions and inhuman treatments continued until the coming of 18th c Enlightenment.  [15]   The 17th c colonial jails and earlier various confinement and detention facilities hardly resembled the institutions that the term prison implies today. That is because such places were solely for the purpose of detention and confinement with no pretence of rehabilitation or reformation and such places were called penal institutions or penitentiaries.  [16]   However, following the coming of 18thc Enlightenment, prison officials began to develop the ideas of reformation and rehabilitation programs to their inmates. For instance, during the 1800s; New York prison officials developed two major systems of prison organization.  [17]  The first system was introduced in 1821 and under this system; prisoners stayed in solitary confinement at night and worked together during the day and it emphasized silence. That is to mean prisoners could not speak to, or even look at, one another because prison officials hoped that this silence and isolation would cause inmates to think about their crimes and reform. However this system failed without fully achieving its purpose partly because the rigid rules and isolation drove inmates insane. The 2nd system, however, was different both in methods of admission and treatment. It was opened in 1876 as a model person for offenders between the ages of 16 and 30 and this system made use of flexible sentences and allowed inmates to earn early release for good behavior and, moreover, it offered physical exercise, military training and an educational program which generally used education as a means of rehabilitation.  [18]  But the institution did not fully achieve its high expectations, largely because it judged inmates on their prison behavior and conduct instead of on their actual fitness for release. Further improvement and modification have been made in the 1900s. For instance, in the 1930s prison officials began to develop rehabilitation programs based on the background, personality, and physical condition of the individual inmate and this approach made rehabilitating and reforming programs more meaningful.  [19]  This is indication of well-developing system that laid the foundation for cotemporary rehabilitation and correction systems. But despite such efforts attempts to rehabilitate and reform inmates could not bring the desired results largely because of poorly trained staffs, lack of funds, and ill-defined goals. An extension of these rehabilitating and reforming process further strengthened and enlarged in 1960s and many people in the field of corrections felt that inmates could be helped better outside prison. As a result, community correctional facilities and halfway houses were established in 1960s and inmates lived in these facilities just before release and received counseling to help them adjust their life outside prison.  [20]  Following the emergence of rehabilitation and reformation programs, modifications of the various prison terminologies became feasible. As mentioned above, in the past, prisons were called penitentiaries or penal intuitions. Now days, however, the popular name is correctional institutions or correctional facilities. Similarly a modification is made from the term guard to correctional officers and these modifications in nomenclature emerged with the professionalism of the field of corrections during recent decades and the desire to modify the harsh images eluted by the terms prison and guard. In the past and still now, there has been a lively debate regarding the purposes for establishment of prisons and sending inmates in to these institutions. Some commentators argue that prisons are established only to imprison convicted criminals.  [21]  That is to say their purpose is to punish convicted law-breakers using imprisonment as a means of retribution. Indeed as Edward Kaufman said, retributive purpose of imprisonment is necessary for the society, however it is considered as barbaric now days.  [22]  He further mentioned that; [I]imprisonment for retribution may drive a delinquent further along the road of crime through forcing association with criminal elements and increasing rage toward and alienation from society. Permitting brutal retribution may stimulate brutal responses not only in the individual but in society as a whole, as in riot control and war.  [23]   Based on the above stated reasonable pitfalls, it is fair to suggest that retribution as a purpose should be supported by rehabilitation to halt further wrongdoings in the community. Others insist that their main purpose is to deter offenders from committing further crimes after they are released and to deter those potential law-breakers from committing crime in the future.  [24]  That is to mean the purpose of these institutions is to present convicted offenders from relapsing in to crime after their release by taking lessons from their first incarceration and the existence of prisons as penal institutions will make potential law-breakers to be refrained from committing crimes as well. However, there is an idea that sending someone to prison might not deter him/her from committing crime inside the prison compound.  [25]  The same problem can be deducted from the third objective of imprisonment incapacitation which is aimed at halting possible commission of crime by the individual prisoner by putting him in prison. Therefore, the deterrence and incapacitation objectives of imprisonment lonely cannot realize the aimed purpose of deterring or incapacitating unless it is supported by other mechanisms like rehabilitation. Still others advocate that inmates are sent to correctional institutions to be reformed or rehabilitated.  [26]  That is to say during their stay in the institutions they will come to realize and learn the wrongfulness and hazardous effects of committing crime and will further learn skills which will help them to be a law abiding and productive citizens when they are released. In practical terms, the purposes for the establishment of prisons could be interpreted as a combination of the above reasons and, therefore, they are established for more than custody and control. Now days, the concept of rehabilitation is being claimed as a right based on different international and regional treaties and standards. This is aimed at striking the balance between the two seemingly contradicting duties of prison centers humane treatment of prisoners and its punitive nature to maintaining peace and security. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), under its article 10 deals on human treatment of prisoners. It further states that [t]he penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation.  [27]  As per this provision, states parties have the obligation to employ rehabilitation as a main purpose of imprisonment in their criminal justice system. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules (UNSMR), which interprets the rights of prisoners under the International bill of rights, states that; [t]he purpose and justification of a sentence of imprisonment or a similar measure derivative of liberty is ultimately to protect society against crime. This end can only be achieved if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure that upon his return to society, the offender is not only willing but able to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life.  [28]   In a similar way of expression, under its general comment No. 21, the ICCPR human rights committee has stated that no penitentiary system should be only retributory; it should essentially seek the reformation and social rehabilitation of the prisoner.  [29]  Similar way of expression is used in different regional treaties and standards.  [30]   Generally, the above discussed arguments together with the biding and normative international and regional treaties tell us that rehabilitation is the main purpose of imprisonment in todays criminal justice system. Accordingly, it imposes obligation against states in general and prison centers in particular to use rehabilitation tools for their prisoners. But, this does not mean the other purposes of imprisonment will be totally disregarded they will rather use them side by side. Prisoners rights: Do Prisoners have a right? Some people believe that inmates should have no rights for the reason that any rights that they once had were forfeited, while they were incarcerated as part of the price they had to pay for their crimes.  [31]  Of course, rights namely human rights and freedoms are not absolute and, thus, they may be subject to limitations so as to protect the rights of others and the interests of the society. On the other hand, the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), dictates that, All persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights. However, equal enjoyment of rights might not be practicable due to various grounds where imprisonment is one among these. The above stated arguments and other factors pose the question do prisoners have rights once imprisoned? Researches show that, many people are of the opinion that imprisonment results in forfeiture of rights of prisoners in general.  [32]  Sometimes this assertion is confirmed by court decisions. In the famous price v Johnston  [33]  case the US Supreme Court declared that lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of privileges and rights. Indeed history tells us that prisoners were facing the worst punishments in prisons because it is believed that they forfeit their rights. But what about human rights, which follow human beings where ever they go? Are prison center unreachable for human rights? Is it an exception to the universal application of human rights? The above decision of the US Supreme Court is a reflection of the belief of the then society. However, after the establishment of the UN and adoption of the UDHR, SMR, ICCPR and other regional Treaties the perception that imprisonment forfeits rights changed. This is because issues related to the rights of prisoners were included in all the International and Regional Human rights Treaties and Standards. Indeed the concept of regulating the rights of prisoners in the international level was raised during the League of Nations. For this reason the then Penal and Penitentiary commission has prepared rules on the treatment of prisoners which was approved by the League of Nations Assembly in 1934.  [34]  These rules were finally inapplicable and latter on revised by the UN secretariat and finally approved by the UN ECOSOC as Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR) in 1957.  [35]  These standards are now implemented through many regional and domestic legislation s and standards to gain binding status. Particularly, Europe through its European prison Rules and the US the 1962 model penal code and standard correction rules of the 1973 are considered as Bill of Rights for prisoners.  [36]   It is after such an international effort of the UN and other regional organizations that courts began to pronounce that rights follow human beings. The same court of the US (the Supreme Court) in the coffin v Reichard case decided that -a prisoner retains all the rights of ordinary citizen except those expressly or by necessary implication taken from him by law.  [37]  This decision was a stepping stone for further realization of rights of prisoners in the US and all over the world. In strengthening the above decision of the Supreme Court, Justice Blackmun said, Fundamental rights follow the prisoner through the walls which incarcerate him, but always with appropriate limitations.  [38]  But the main point that has to be asked is what are the limitations and how one can know what his rights are and what are not in prison. Justice Blackmun said that the court shall use a Balancing test of protecting the interest of the individual and restricting them for different reasons. The UN general assembly in the adoption of the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners has declared the same and urged states parties to apply the standards and international or regional treaties where they are party to. As mentioned above determining what rights of prisoners will be limited during their imprisonment is crucial. There are some people who argue that the rights that are limited and retained by prisoner during his imprisonment could be easily identified by the purpose of punishment intended.  [39]  Form this proposition we can easily understand that except for rehabilitation, most of the other purposes of imprisonment discussed above results in forfeiture of most of the rights of prisoners. Basically, Richard L. Lippke suggested certain criticisms against those who said prisoners forfeit their rights during imprisonment. He said that, in practice it is only state officials who can impose penalties on prisoners, however if their rights are forfeited during imprisonment it is not clear why any ordinary person cannot impose same.  [40]  The other problem identified is the duration of forfeiture, which according to Lippke is difficult to know for the reason that; [M]any criminals violate their victims rights only briefly, though they do them great harm in the process. If we tie the duration of forfeiture to the time it takes victims to recover, the problem is that some victims may never recover from brief, but devastating, right violations. Yet not all right violators can justly be punished indefinitely, not even all serious right-violators who do their victims permanent or irreversible damage.  [41]   The third problem is related to breadth or scope of the forfeiture. Accordingly, this poses a question Does someone who punches another person in the nose forfeit the relatively narrow right to not be punched in the nose, or the broader right to bodily autonomy? For him both the narrower and broader approaches are problematic since the narrower gives dubious ground for officers where as the broader approach authorizes forfeiture of rights which can be claimed not violated by the prisoner.  [42]   Now it seems fairly clear that prisoners retain their rights except those deprived specifically by law and due to their deprivation of liberty. However, there is well known perception and practice that the retained prisoners rights is less stringent than ordinary persons rights, therefore can be overridden for the benefit of less weighty ordinary persons rights.  [43]  It is not clear why a state discriminates between its citizens based on status, in this case prisoner and ordinary citizen despite its prohibition in different treaties including the UDHR. Rights retained Identifying rights retained is highly related with the purpose of imprisonment that we deserved to attain. Most obviously, this involves severe curtailment of their rights to freedom of movement for some period of time. We might also have to curtail their rights to freedom of association and intrude upon their privacy, though to what extent in each case are matters that require further substantive analysis. Prisoners would fully retain other moral rights. These might include rights securing interests in political participation, freedom of speech and conscience, control over labor, subsistence, health care, visitation with family and friends, and access to culture and entertainment. Pp 134 Incapacitation It is hard to see how more extensive restrictions on the rights of prisoners will reduce threats to the rights of others in ways that are clearly greater in magnitude than the direct burdens such restrictions will impose on inmates. Pp135 Keeping prisoners locked in cells most of the time with few opportunities to exercise their autonomy or to maintain or develop social and labor skills may marginally reduce crime within prisons in the short-term. However, such an approach seems a prescription for disaster in the longer term if our aim is to reduce crime. The vast majority of prison inmates will eventually be released from prison, most sooner rather than later. 136 (If prison life is better than life outside prison (an unlikely proposition in any case), the solution might be to improve the living conditions of the least advantaged members of civil society). It should be apparent that rehabilitative crime reduction considerations point us away from harsh prison regimes toward those that impose moderate or minimal deprivations on offenders. Prisoners are unlikely to become better functioning members of civil society if they are kept under conditions that deny them access to education, meaningful work, mental health treatment, and ready access to the family members and friends who care about them.. 138 retribution Retributive logic demands that serious offenders suffer losses or deprivations commensurate with their crimes. In all probability, penal confinement will always satisfy that demand. Thus, the only point of contention among retributivists will likely be about precisely which rights must be maintained and facilitated if prisoners are to retain the capacities vital to moral personality. Pp 141 More intriguing is Edgardo Rotmans claim that prisoners have a moral right to rehabilitation (Rotman 1990, 10-13). Rotman interprets this right both negatively, as a right not to be allowed to deteriorate in prison, and positively, as a right to improvement in such things as work skills and mental health while in prison. His primary argument for this right is that deprivation of freedom is the sine qua non of modern legal punishment. Freedom is the highest value and its loss is what offenders appropriately suffer. The other things (mostly bad, unfortunately) that happen to them in prison are not part of punishment, so prisoners should be protected from them. Moreover, many offenders come from socially and economically deprived backgrounds, and this requires the state to not only prevent them from deteriorating while in prison but to actually improve their lives. Pp 143 critics Even if we grant that freedom is the highest value in modern societies, it does not follow that its loss, or its loss alone, is all that offenders should suffer However, the detention or incarceration of prisoners does not mean that all the rights they have are lost as a result of such detention or incarceration. That is because certain rights like the right to respect inherent human dignity and human ways of treatment, the right to food and health care, shelter and Freedoms like freedom of thought, belief and so on are fundamental to human existence and they are inherent entitlements that come to every person as a result of being human. As a result, inmates under detention or imprisonment have such and the like fundamental human rights and freedoms and retain these rights with the exception of those that have been lost as a result of deprivation of liberty. Following the declaration of the UDHR in 1948, states have developed considerable number of human rights instruments including the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (BPT), Standard Minimum Rules of the Treatment of Persons (SMR) and other instruments specifically dealing with the rights and human treatments of prisoners at the national, regional and international level. These basic principles and minimum standard rules form part of customary international law, which means that they are binding, regardless of whether a state has ratified international treaties concerning these instruments. Moreover, states have undertaken obligations under international and domestic legislations both to promote and protect the wide variety of human rights in general and that of prisoners in particular.

Economic progress in Russia in the years 1981-1982 Essay

Despite frequent changes in policy, Russian and Soviet governments were spectacularly unsuccessful in securing sustained economic progress in the years 1881-1982’. Assess the validity of this statement. Between 1981 and 1982, Russia underwent huge changes, particularly the in economy. Russian history is well known for its frequent changes in policy as the country faced revolutions, changes in regime, changes in leadership and not to mention its involvement in various conflicts. As a result, Russia’s economic policy was subject to major change apart from three key areas, industry, agriculture and the tertiary sector. These three areas of the economy remained a constant in its ever changing climate; however, many historians still argue that Russia’s economy was unsuccessful and poorly managed despite its frequent change in policy. Thus begs the question, ‘To what extent is this true?’ The Tsarist regime, for many Russians, was a period of economic instability as agriculture was seen as a secondary concern. Growth rate was not structured and growth rate fell considerably between the late 1890’s and 1905.[1] Meanwhile, other economies expanded leaving Russia struggling to catch up and some historians see agriculture as a reason for Russia’s economic decline. For example, Carol. S. Leonard argued that Russia’s grain production per capita GDP was lagged far behind that of America in 1913.[2] This argument shows how agriculture in Tsarist Russia wasn’t dealt with effectively and as a result, the economy suffered. On the other hand, some historians have pointed out that agriculture in Russia during the late Tsarist years were not so destructive. One argument maintains that actually, Russia’s agriculture grew and developed quite substantially pre- revolution. For example; from 1890 to 1913, cereal production per capita increased by 35%[3]. Although this evidence is hard to ignore, it is also difficult to turn a blind eye to the contrasting evidence which suggests that agriculture suffered under the late Tsarist regime and consequently, affected the economy as a whole. For example: â€Å"There was very little investment in agriculture in Imperial Russia and this lead to small yields and economic volatility when prices rose and fell†¦lack of investment in agriculture frequently caused grain prices to rise which caused famines†[4] Overall, although agriculture grew slightly during the Tsarist regime, ultimately it suffered greatly as did the Russian people. Looking at agriculture alone, Russia’s economy looked bleak however; industry had slightly more success during this time so perhaps the economy was not so bad after all. S J Lee puts forward a simple statement: â€Å"The periods of most rapid growth were in the reign of Nicholas II (1894-1917) as a result of the economic reforms of Sergei Witte (1892-1903)†[5]. This is easy to see, when one considers that in 1914, Russia produced 35 million tons of coal, ranking Russia fifth amongst the main producers.[6] Building on Lee’s argument, there seems to be a lot of evidence pointing to Sergei Witte as the main reason for Russia’s industrial boom. Upon taking office, Witte raised massive amounts of capital by securing a loan from France and raising taxes and tariffs and interest rates.[7] However, it is the development of Russian railways which Witte is perhaps most remembered for. Under his guidance the railway network grew from around thirty one thousand km to around fifty three km worth of track.[8] With Witte at the helm, Russia’s industry continued to develop with growth rates comparing well next to those of the United States and Germany. Witte has often been credited with modernizing Russia to such a great extent that its industrial boom continued long after he left his post as Finance Minister in 1903. For example, in 1913, Russia’s steel production stood at 4.9 million metric tons next to France’s 4.7 million, with coal and iron not far behind.[9] On the other hand, Witte’s industrialization policies were not always so successful. For example, between 1890 and 1899, Russia’s industrial growth stood at 8.0% whereas between 1900-06, it reduced to 1.4%[10]. His aims of modernizing came with a heavy cost and it was consumers who had to pay the price. Taxes were raised but only for the lower classes, indeed the wealthier classes were spared from taxation although their money was needed for private capital. Tariffs also caused problems as, although they protected Russian industry, they added to the cost of living.[11] Whatsmore, although some historians have credited Witte’s decision to seek loans from foreign investors, some remain critical. This is because the interest added to the loans had to be paid in a secure medium meaning, in order to pay off their debts, Russia was forced to export grain regularly, including during the famine of 1891.[12] Overall, although Witte made huge strides in modernizing the Russian economy, he was not entirely faultless. Industry picked up, but there were still issues and it was the common man who had to pay. The economy still suffered, although, arguably, not as much as it would have done without Witte. However, the tertiary sector also contributed to the economy. Although some historians critique Russia’s dependence of Western investors, these ties had corresponding benefits in the shape of trade. [13] Business also boomed within Russia with eight large banks emerging in 1899 which owned more than half the total bank capital. This provided free access for foreign capital, controlling important branches of the Russian economy, including the fuel and metallurgical industries. [14] Moreover, according to Robert Service, domestic industrialists and banks were thriving too.[15] This argument can be supported by the growth in towns and cities between 1897 and 1914. For example; the population in St Petersburg grew from 1’300 thousand (1987) to 2’100 thousand (1914)[16]. This shows that the economic growth had a positive impact on society and the country was doing well under the Tsarist regime. However, although to the naked eye Russia seemed to be doing well, their growth wasn’t so great. Compared to the other Great powers of the period, Russia was lagging far behind. Between 1894 and 1913, Austria-Hungary had a 79% increase in national income whereas Russia was lagging far behind with only a 50% increase[17]. This clearly demonstrates that Russia’s overall situation was not so great and actually, Russian people did suffer. When Lenin came to power in 1917, he brought with him a change in regime and economic policy including the introduction of war communism. War communism aimed to socialize the economy through state involvement. Rural areas were subjected to grain requisition which was forcibly removed by the military.[18] This inevitably was unpopular and caused much suffering and peasants who stored their crops were often wrongfully prosecuted. It was not just agriculture which suffered. Factories were nationalized by November 1920 and were geared towards war production.[19] Additionally, private trade was banned and rationing was introduced on consumer goods including food and clothing. War communism was, effectively a self destructive policy. Grain requisitioning meant more than three million people died of starvation by late 1922.[20] Moreover, money lost its value and people got by through a system of barter. Inflation shot up and multiplied 1917 costs by four million in 1922. Additionally, in comparison to the growth in city population during the Tsarist regime, people fled the cities. For example; in December 1920 the population in Petrograd fell by 57.5%[21] Lenin knew that it was time for a change. War communism caused more harm then good so Lenin came up with an alternative, the ‘New Economic Policy’ (NEP). Peasants were allowed to sell grain for profit and they paid tax on what they produced rather than giving it up[22]. Things also changed industrially and in the tertiary sector. Businessmen could own small or medium sized businesses however large firms were still state owned.[23] The NEP basically gave the people of Russia freedom and Lenin hoped that it would boost economic growth as well. However, in 1924, Lenin died and Stalin came to power. Stalin also brought new ideas and his own ways of modernizing the economy. In November 1927, Stalin introduced his policies of industrialisation and collectivisation with the aim of modernising the economy. They were supported by a series of five year plans, the first (1928-32) aimed to improve living standards and the second (1933-37) and third (1938-41) aimed to highlight and thus, amend, Russia’s weaknesses[24]. Industrialisation was relatively successful as by the late 1930’s many workers conditions had improved and they had acquired better paid jobs and unemployment was almost non-existent. Accounts from the time support this view: â€Å"Good progress was made†¦4’500 new factories, plants, mines and power stations were commissioned, three times as many as the first Five-Year period’[25]. On the other hand, industrialisation was harsh and lateness for work often led to employees getting the sack. Many prisoners also paid the price by working on the grand engineering projects and working in appalling and dangerous conditions. For example; around 100’000 workers died building the Belmor Canal[26]. Collectivisation was ultimately unsuccessful and peasants were in a worse position than ever before. The concept of sharing farms and thus, sharing salary meant there wasn’t enough money to go around and crop production fell too. For example: â€Å"†¦Grain shortages, combined with continued forced procurements, led to rural famine†¦Ã¢â‚¬ [27] However, some people benefitted from collectivisation such as Bertha Malnick: â€Å"We have more than 600 hectares†¦our farmers have built 70 new houses for themselves during the last few years†¦Ã¢â‚¬ [28]. However, it is reasonable to conclude overall that collectivisation was unsuccessful given the various sources which provide figures of those who died or badly suffered during Stalin’s reign. Stalin died in 1953 and Khrushchev took over. Khrushchev focused on DeStalinisation, distancing the USSR as far away from Stalin as possible. Khrushchev was keen to adopt a different economic policy with the aim of building on the country’s previous economic growth and amending its weaknesses and one way he did this was by abandoning the five year plans and starting a new, seven year plan (1959-65) which aimed to take advantage of newly discovered mineral resources and fit in with industry[29]. Khrushchev pumped a lot of money into agriculture and overall 40% of investment was put into the neglected eastern regions of the USSR[30]. However, the seven year plan had similar flaws to the previous five year plans such as mistakes in resource distribution. Living standards got worse, the opposite to what Khrushchev had hoped to achieve. For example; only five in one thousand citizens owned a car and in 1963, the USSR was forced to import grain from the capitalist west to compensate shortages.[31] There were successes during this time such as the rise in foreign trade however this can’t compensate for the huge failures experienced during this time. Khrushchev made an honest attempt to improve the economy however his plans backfired and once again the country was left to clean up an economic mess. Eventually, Khrushchev was removed from power and in his place came Brezhnev who did little to change the economy. The era of Brezhnev has often been described as ‘a period of economic stagnation’ but some historians believe that this is not fair. Like Khrushchev, Brezhnev wanted to focus on improving agriculture and living standards in Russia. Historians Gwyneth Hughes and Simon Welfare support this view saying: â€Å"†¦After the terror of Stalin’s reign and the chaos of Khrushchev’s, the Soviet Union was in for a period of stability, and that meant everyone kept their job and their perks for life.†[32] Brezhnev allowed farmers to work on state own plots which motivated them to produce as much as possible in order to sell the surplus[33]. This, in theory, should have been beneficial and shows that Brezhnev was trying to improve the economy through new methods however, he was not so lucky. In 1975, the USSR suffered another poor harvest meaning Brezhnev had to increase foreign exports to keep everyone fed. This was just another disaster in Russia but Brezhnev did little to help. His aim to improve agriculture and living standards meant he neglected industry and production rates continued to rapidly fall[34]. However, arguably his biggest flaw was his inability to change the already ridged economy. Brezhnev had new ideas but couldn’t fight the system and by the end of his reign, Russia had made little improvement. Historian Dmitri Volkognov best sums up the Brezhnev period saying: â€Å"If Lenin and Stalin, and to some extent even Khrushchev, were able to enliven the moribund ideology of Communism, it was quite beyond Brezhnev†¦Ã¢â‚¬ [35]. In conclusion, between 1881 and 1982, Russia experienced much hardship especially surrounding the economy. After analyzing this one hundred year period it is hard to deny that the statement ‘Despite frequent changes in policy, Russian and Soviet governments were spectacularly unsuccessful in securing sustained economic progress in the years 1881-1992’. The economy under the Tsarist regime had its faults and during and after the 1917 revolution, it was widely believed that the country’s economic situation would improve. However, from Lenin to Stalin and Khrushchev to Brezhnev, it seemed that no leader was able to sustain a long-lasting and successful economic policy. The economy grew as quickly as it declined and it has taken many years to make any significant progress since. Therefore, this statement is valid. ________________ [1] Heinemann Advanced History: The Modernisation of Russia 1856-1985 [2] Agricultural Productivity Growth in Russia 1861-1913. From Inertia to Ferment by Carol. S. Leonard [3] The Penguin History of Modern Russia by Robert Service [4] www.historymadefun.co.uk/Tsarism [5] Overview from Russia and the USSR: Autocracy and Dictatorship (questions and answers in History) by Stephen. J. Lee [6] Stephen J Lee [7] http://www.slideshare.net/russeltarr/tsar-nicholas-ii-and-industry [8] The Industrialisation of Russia by M. Falkus [9] http://www.portalus.ru/modules/english_russia [10] M. Falkus [11] A2 History OCR: A Russia and its Rulers 1855-1964 [12] A2 History OCR [13] S. J Lee [14] A History of the USSR [15] Penguin History of Modern Russia [16] M. Falkus [17] The Making of the Revolution, 1881-1905 [18] From Years of Russia and the USSR, 1851-1991 by Evans and Jenkins [19] Evans and Jenkins [20] The Russian Revolutions 1914-1924 [21] Evans and Jenkins [22] The USSR, Germany and the USA between the wars [23] Russia and the USSR 1905-1941 [24] The USSR, Germany and Russia between the wars [25] A Soviet view of the second five year plan from History of the USSR by Y. Kukushkin [26] Stalin and the Soviet Economy [27] European History 1848-1945 by T.A Morris [28] Everyday Life in Russia by Bertha Malnick [29] AQA A2 History Triumph and Collapse: Russia and the USSR 1941-1991 by John Laver & Sally Waller [30] Russia 1855- 1964 Flagship History by D. Murray and T. Morris [31] The Soviet Economy 1917-80 by S J Lee [32] Red Empire. The Forbidden History of the USSR by G. Hughes and S. Welfare [33] www.ibguides.com/history/notes.ccom [34] Years of Russia and the USSR, 1851-1991 [35] The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire by D.Volkognov

The Importance of Life Essay Title Samples

The Importance of Life Essay Title Samples If you do the references of this type, you should set the author's last name facing his very first name that shouldn't be shortened. So be attentive to the way you set the very first name and only the previous name of the second author. The author starts with a rather in depth story of an event or description of an individual or place. Even if there was, it would be far less satisfying to simple stumble upon success without needing to overcome any kind of challenge or hardship on the way. It may be argued that there wouldn't be any success if we didn't have ambition to drive us forward. Perhaps the most important advertisement for having ambition comes from thinking about the option. One reason that having life ambitions is vital, is that having ambition is likely to naturally give you the capacity to develop the attributes that are critical to becoming successful. The easiest means to success is via education, get all of the information needed today to be the very best, do not depend solely on a single source of information but gather as much as you're able to. Once you are conversant with the system, you can use it in order to document any sort of source, for any kind of paper, in any area. At times, the best method to learn and understand new information is via seeing and understanding work which is already completed. The best method to do so is to use vivid details that show as opposed to say. Education plays a critical part in shaping successful individuals. Each student wants the maximum grade. There'll be struggle, there'll be bad days. Consult your parents to spell out the rear row to you. The location of an internet work should incorporate a URL. Education is a significant medium of acquiring essential knowledge and abilities. So, it is a necessary means of eradicating the unemployment problem. Our education is actually worth investment. The essay is composed of your own personal views on the topic and an explanation of your position. In that case, your essay wants a title. When you would like a well-written essay that resembles the example philosophy essay on the website, you will need to understand how to start it. The sample philosophy essay will direct you about what to do. What's happiness, nevertheless, is an altogether different and a lot more complicated question. It is something that can extend to an entire population. While it isn't feasible to find a person to write you a paper at no cost, it's possible to acquire the philosophy of religion essay topics written for you cheaply. It's time to proceed, and discover out everything required for the reflective essays. Most students struggle to discover a perfect headline, but with a couple easy suggestions from using this post, you can forget about frustrations, save some moment, and generate a catchy and informative headline to intrigue readers. Keep reading to learn! If you wish to understand how to write MLA essays the next tips can help you. The three expert help will help to how to choose a title for an essay. With our custom made essay offer, you can be guaranteed to find any sort of essay help you are searching for. Explore the list of the chief tips explaining how to select a very good title for an essay.

Make Paper Chromatography With Leaves

You can use paper chromatography to see the different pigments that produce the colors in leaves.  Most plants contain several pigment molecules, so experiment with many species of leaves to see the wide range of colors. This is a simple science project that takes about 2 hours. Key Takeaway: Leaf Paper Chromatography Chromatography is a chemical purification method that separates colored substances. In paper chromatography, pigments may be separated based on the different size of the molecules.Everyone knows leaves contain chlorophyll, which is green, but plants actually contain a wide range of other pigment molecules.For paper chromatography, plant cells are broken open to release their pigment molecules. A solution of plant matter and alcohol is placed at the bottom of a piece of paper. Alcohol moves up the paper, taking pigment molecules with it. Its easier for smaller molecules to move through the fibers in paper, so they travel fastest and move the furthest up the paper. Larger molecules are slower and dont travel as far up the paper. What You Need You only need a few simple materials for this project. While you can perform it using only one type of leaf (e.g., chopped spinach), you can experience the greatest range of pigment colors by collecting several types of leaves. LeavesSmall  Jars with LidsRubbing AlcoholCoffee FiltersHot WaterShallow PanKitchen Utensils Instructions Take 2-3 large leaves (or the equivalent with smaller leaves), tear them into tiny pieces, and place them into small jars with lids.Add enough alcohol to just cover the leaves.Loosely cover the jars and set them into a shallow pan containing an inch or so of hot tap water.Let the jars sit in the hot water for at least a half hour. Replace the hot water as it cools and swirl the jars from time to time.The jars are done when the alcohol has picked up color from the leaves. The darker the color, the brighter the chromatogram will be.Cut or tear a long strip of coffee filter paper for each jar.Place one strip of paper into each jar, with one end in the alcohol and the other outside of the jar.As the alcohol evaporates, it will pull the pigment up the paper, separating pigments according to size (largest will move the shortest distance).After 30-90 minutes (or until the desired separation is obtained), remove the strips of paper and allow them to dry.Can you identify which pigments are pr esent? Does the season in which the leaves are picked affect their colors? Tips for Success Try using frozen chopped spinach leaves.Experiment with other types of paper.You can substitute other alcohols for the rubbing alcohol, such as ethyl alcohol or methyl alcohol.If your chromatogram is pale, next time use more leaves and/or smaller pieces to yield more pigment. If you have a blender available, you can use it to finely chop the leaves. How Leaf Paper Chromatography Works Pigment molecules, such as chlorophyll and anthocyanins, are contained within plant leaves. Chlorophyll is found in organelles called chloroplasts. The plant cells need to be torn open to expose their pigment molecules. The macerated leaves are placed in a small amount of alcohol, which acts as a solvent. Hot water helps soften the plant matter, making it easier to extract the pigments into the alcohol. The end of a piece of paper is placed in the solution of alcohol, water, and pigment. The other end stands straight up. Gravity pulls on the molecules, while alcohol travels up the paper via capillary action, pulling pigment molecules upward with it. The choice of paper is important because if the fiber mesh is too dense (like printer paper), few of the pigment molecules will be small enough to navigate the maze of cellulose fibers to travel upward. If the mesh is too open (like a paper towel), then all of the pigment molecules easily travel up the paper and its difficult to separate them. Also, some pigment might be more soluble in water than in alcohol. If a molecule is highly soluble in alcohol, it travels through the paper (the mobile phase). An insoluble molecule might remain in the liquid. The technique is used to test purity of samples, where a pure solution should only produce a single band. It is also used to purify and isolate fractions. After the chromatogram has developed, the different bands may be cut apart and the pigments recovered. Sources Block, Richard J.; Durrum, Emmett L.; Zweig, Gunter (1955). A Manual of Paper Chromatography and Paper Electrophoresis. Elsevier. ISBN 978-1-4832-7680-9.Haslam, Edwin (2007). Vegetable tannins – Lessons of a phytochemical lifetime. Phytochemistry. 68 (22–24): 2713–21. doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2007.09.009