Define And Discuss The Term Ethics From Your Own Perspective Coursework

Define And Discuss The Term Ethics From Your Own Perspective - Coursework Example al., 2012, p. 3). Acceptable behaviour is usually dictated by laws and religious norms. General perceptions are that persons who are ethical will usually conduct themselves according to norms dictating what is good and what is right and persons who are not ethical will act in ways that are not good and inherently evil. However, ethics is not merely concerned with acting in appropriate ways, but also concerned with omitting to act in ways that enable wrongdoing or is complicit in wrongdoing (Braswell, et. al., 2012). It would therefore appear that ethics not only demand that ethical individuals act in ethical or good ways, but that they also police unethical behavior. Whether or not this is realistic or fair, does not appear to be a concern. It does appear to be lofty goal for individuals to follow. However, when looked at within the parameters and operations of the criminal justice system the definition of ethics as a tool for moral responsibility and accountability makes sense. As Pollock (1993) informs, ethics in criminal justice studies ensures that those involved in the criminal justice system are able to identify â€Å"ethical issues†, gain empathy with others regardless of where they stand on an issue, and to â€Å"evaluate alternatives to dilemmas using ethical rather than legal or egotistic criteria† (Pollock, 1993, p. 377). Ethics permits all parts of the criminal justice system to be understood and supported as key components of the necessary machinery for engendering social order and social control in a free and open society. Ethics helps criminal justice actors to understand how all parts of the criminal justice system fit together in ordering of society (Pollock, 1993). Ethics in this regard is also important for individuals who make up parts of the social order and the social system. The individual’s ethics education begins at home and is branched out into the community in which we come into contact with others. Thus what we learn at home is inevitably taken into the larger community. Thus when both family and community values are ethical, crime and justice is not only understood but minimized via a collective sense of right and wrong and fairness and justice (Braswell, et. al, 2012). In this regard, ethics is directly connected to criminal behaviour and appropriate responses to criminal behavior. 2. Explain and Discuss Kant's categorical imperative. How appropriate are his views in today's criminal justice field? Kant was of the opinion that consequential theories in evaluating and explaining ethics did not pay enough attention to the issue of duty. Kant also took the position that these theories did not pay sufficient attention to the question of â€Å"basic morality† or â€Å"good will† or the intention to do good† (Braswell, et. al., 2012, p. 16). Thus Kant developed what is referred to as the categorical imperative which is contrasted with the â€Å"hypothetical imperativeâ €  (Braswell, et. al., 2012, p. 17). Hypothetical imperatives make allowances for a â€Å"command that begin with ‘if’† (Braswell, 2012, p. 17). For instance, a hypothetical imperative might function in the sense that an individual may decide that if he wanted to obtain a satisfactory academic outcome, the individual should be more academically prepared. Categorical imperatives are not hypothetical and therefore not prefaced by ‘ifs† (Braswell, 2012, p. 17). Kant formulated a number of aspects of categorical imperative. Two of those formulations are the universalizability

The Content Review of the Website - As You Sow Article

The Content Review of the Website - As You Sow - Article Example The author is credible enough given the method in which the information has been compiled and represented given also that this is a registered charity. Moreover, this information has been derived from official sources so this lends greater credibility to it. The information represented on this page is only partially complete as it covers public limited companies in large part. However, the accuracy of the information is not contestable as the author has included references to his source of information. The author has presented the perspectives of his organization on corporate social responsibility using properly cited official sources including reports and conference proceedings. References to the information are pervasive throughout the document and the author has made it a point to bolster his arguments by presenting references before advancing his argument. The document and the website are both updated given the state of the issues listed. In addition, the website displays current issues from 2012 in its menu which also points to the fact that the website is regularly updated. The current page on corporate social responsibility addresses the issue from a variety of perspectives. The author first defines corporate social responsibility and then relates corporate social responsibility to sustainability. This is followed by a discussion of socially responsible investors and corporate social responsibility. Finally, the author relates global reporting guidelines for corporate social responsibility and the document ends with a link for guides to corporate social responsibility reports and resources.

Vouch for Versace Essay Example for Free

Vouch for Versace Essay Don’t let your clothing wear on your bank account (if you’re a teenager) ‘’ Young people spend too much money on clothes and are too often influenced by brands and designer labels’’ This is in fact the distressing reality my friends. You see how narrow-mindedly we teenagers are perceived. In actual fact at least 7 out of 10 people would agree with that statement. Unquestionably scandalous, isn’t it? Anyone who isn’t a teenager is entitled to spend ‘too much’ money on clothes, or rather, they won’t be deemed as the easily ‘influenced’ youth of today. What is ‘too much’ money anyway, where is that line which, when crossed, says that you have spent too much on your clothes? I’ll tell you exactly where it is- nowhere. That line does not even exist as a fine line, and it just simply cannot be. Many people seem to forget that that it cannot exist due to the fact that we save up money with the intention of using it to buy clothes; I would hardly call that spending too much when that is in fact the only thing we desire to spend on. I have to grant that many people agree with this statement on the valid basis that clothes are not as important as other things that teenagers should be spending their money on, such as school equipment and resources, community, sport and what not. Nonetheless most of that is and should be paid for by parents should it not? After all since education is so vital and imperative shouldn’t your parents provide you with all the resources and equipment you require in order to do your greatest? On the other hand your parents may be paying for all that already, but they may also be funding your regular shopping sprees, especially for all you girls out there! All those accessories and make up products must come up to a hefty sum. Studies show that 68% of teenagers get their parents to pay for their outfits and extra apparel, 43% of these teenagers being girls. This study shows that teenagers obsession with designer labels and clothes in general seems to have had a knock on effect on their parents. Some may even wonder, ‘why do they actually need to dress different? ‘’ I’ll tell you why. We have been mobbed into society’s misconception of teenagers. In fact, we spend money on clothes in order to actually go against these stereotypes that we are time and again stapled with. Many of you would agree with me when I say that by spending money on clothes we are in fact expressing our individuality as young people. What else can we do to overcome these stereotypes that we are stuck with? As far as being ‘’often influenced by brands and designer  labels’’, we do not just go for brands. We are young adults and we are aware of financial issues around us, so why would we waste money continuously to replace our clothes? Would it not be better to spend a fair bit of money on a designer brand that can assure you of its quality? By purchasing designer labels and brands we are essentially saving money in the long run, after all do they not say quality over quantity- or in this case the cost. Just because we take a liking to designer labels does not necessarily mean that we are victims of celebrity peddling. Conversely many people agree that teenagers are most definitely influenced by designer labels and brands, and I agree with this quite a bit because it is in fact a truth, however they are not to blame. Many young people only wear designer brands because their friends are too. They wear it to, well, fit in I guess. Peer pressure plays a huge part in young people’s lives, such as you. You just want to fit in and not become that kid who has no sense of style don’t you? It segregates you; it shows the divide between the rich and the poor, and if you’re lucky it elevates your social status. Furthermore the other way teenagers such as yourselves are influenced into buying only the designer l abels and brands is due to the relentless influence of celebrities who promote these labels and brands in order to generate money for themselves. Nowadays many young people have access to the latest fashion through all media. You and many others can become victims of this celebrity peddling, and sooner or later you can become entangled in this fashion conscious loop. I mean, you’re always going to find something that’s more fashionable are you not? Obviously you’ll want to keep up with the latest style and inevitably you will eventually become a victim just like so many others before you. There is one thing that is a perk of being selective about your clothing. By being discerning about who you buy your clothes from you may just be doing something good. Just imagine, if you bought that t-shirt from Primark then how much would the poor young children who made that shirt after hard labour get paid? Exactly, you know they’ll get practically nothing. Yet by purchasing higher brand apparel you are in fact taking into consideration the ethical side of fashion. You may seem confused by that statement; however, there is an ethical side to everything, including clothes. Many people are picky about the clothes they buy because of religious reasons. Perhaps they need their clothes to be long and cover their body properly, who knows? It is a likely  possibility though that the reason that we teenagers spend a lot of money on clothes is simply because we need, not want them. Sad to say when asked 86 out of 100 people said that they strongly agreed that teenagers spent too much money on clothes even after being given the full picture as to why you pay so much attention and money on your clothing. One person actually said ‘’ Advertisers are exploiting young people and their desire to conform’’. Even after being told how some young people are actually paying these prices to prove to people that they are not conforming because of advertisers, rather, because of society and how they regard teenagers as a whole generation. This was all quite amusing actually, after all, who raised this ‘’Influenced’’ generation .Not me.

Law Essays Certain Selling Arrangements

Law Essays Certain Selling Arrangements Certain Selling Arrangements The introduction of certain selling arrangements has imposed an unnecessary straitjacket on the development of the Keck principle. Not only is the Keck formula too narrow; paradoxically, it is also too broad in that it catches dynamic measures (such as restrictions on advertising) and therefore takes them outside the scope of Article 28 even though they do affect inter-state trade. (C. Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU. The Four Freedoms (OUP 2d ed.) at 149). Discuss Article 28 (ex 30) EC provides that: â€Å"Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States†. Although this may initially seem simple, it has caused substantial difficulties when it comes to measures having equivalent effect when the rules are indistinctly applicable (ie. they apply equally to domestic and non domestic goods). As will be seen, the confusion around dealing with these measures was intended by the ECJ to be halted by the judgment in Keck. This essay will critically evaluate the decision in Keck in order to consider whether it has indeed served this purpose. A definition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions was introduced by the ECJ in 1974 in the case of Procureur du Roi v Dassonville: â€Å"All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.† Although this definition proved helpful to the Court, its application tended not to distinguish between indirectly and directly applicable measures. It was also very broad, leaving many regulations open to examination by the Court. This in turn lead to large amounts of litigation for the Court to deal with. In Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (â€Å"Casis de Dijon†) a narrower approach was adopted. The case concerned the legality of a German law which prescribed a minimum alcohol level of 25% for certain spirits, including cassis. German cassis was above the 25% level, but French cassis was not. Therefore, although the German law was indistinctly applicable, the result of the measure was to preclude the French cassis from the German market. The ECJ applied the Dassonville formula but went on to state that: â€Å"Obstacles to movement within the Community resulting from disparities between the national laws relating to the marketing of the products in question must be accepted insofar as those provisions may be recognised as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating in particular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer.† The case therefore introduced the concept of the ‘rule of reason’ to applications of Article 28 in the context of indistinctly applicable measures. In the Cassis de Dijon case itself it was held that the measure had been enacted in the interests of public health and fairness to commercial transactions, but that it was not a necessary means to achieve these objectives and was therefore in breach of Article 28. The cases concerned the legality of a French law prohibiting the resale of goods in an unaltered state at prices lower than their purchase price. Keck and Mithouard were prosecuted for breach of this law but claimed that the rule was incompatible with EC law. The ECJ considered Article 28 and applied the Dassonville formula. It was stated that the legislation could have the effect of restricting the volume of sales of imported goods as it deprived traders of an important method of sales promotion. The Court then went on to state that:Although the Cassis de Dijon case placed a limit on the very broad approach of the Dassonville formula, it was not without its problems. The application of the ‘rule of reason’ was difficult for domestic courts. The ‘Sunday Trading’ cases demonstrated this when a challenge was made to the legality under Article 28 of national rules limiting Sunday trading. In some cases it was held by the national courts that the rules were just ified, in others that they were disproportionate. As a result of this uncertain approach, a change in the way the ECJ dealt with this problem was clearly necessary. This change came in the form of Keck and Mithouard which â€Å"marks an important turning-point in the Court’s jurisprudence on Article 28†. â€Å"In view of the increasing tendency of traders to invoke Article 30 of the Treaty as a means of challenging any rules whose effect is to limit their commercial freedom even where such rules are not aimed at products from other Member States, the Court considers it necessary to re-examine and clarify its case law on this matter.† The Court then considered the Cassis de Dijon case and the extent to which the application of rules which limited free movement of goods could be justified as in the public interest: â€Å"However, contrary to what has previously been decided, the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States within the meaning of the Dassonville judgment †¦ provided that these provisions apply to all affected traders operating within the national territory and provided that they affect in the same manner, in law and fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States.† It was therefore held that Article 28 did not apply to ‘selling arrangements’ and therefore the French law had not been in breach of the EC law. The decision in Keck has been said to be ‘lacking in principle’, yet it has also been praised for its ‘tendency to cut back on unnecessary intrusions into the laws of the Member States in cases where access to the relevant national market is not at stake’. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the decision is the distinction draw between rules that are to do with the product itself, and rules which relate to the selling arrangements in place for that product. Indeed, it has proved difficult to determine exactly what is meant by ‘selling arrangements’. In Hunermund pharmacists were prohibited from advertising, outside their premises, products which they were authorised to sell. It was held that this was a method of sales-promotion and was therefore outside the scope of Article 28. Moreover, in Banchero defendants to a smuggling charge invoked Article 28 in relation to Italian rules reserving the retail sale of tobacco to authorised distributors. The authorised distributors could only gain such status where the national body which held a monopoly over tobacco production in the country granted it. It was held that the system did not impede access to the national market, was a selling arrangement, and was therefore compatible with Article 28. In contrast, measures constituting requirements to be met, such as a Dutch law prohibiting dealings in gold and silver products not bearing certain hallmarks (Houtwipper) and German laws requiring the labelling of the contents of certain foods additional to those specified under EC law (Commission v Germany) are within the scope of Article 28 as they relate to the goods themselves, rather than merely the selling of the goods. The difficulties in lack of workable definition of a ‘selling arrangement’ are seen particularly starkly when considering the Courts’ approach to the advertising of goods. In Leclerc-Siplec the ECJ held that legislation which prohibits television advertising in a particular sector amounted to a selling arrangement. Therefore, even a complete ban on advertising of certain products will not come within the scope of Article 28 if the ban applies to domestically produced and imported products equally in law and in fact, as the Court held when considering a ban on television advertising directed at children under 12 in Komsummentombudsmannen v De Agostini. This means that the free movement of goods can be seriously hampered and the main provision designed to prevent this will have no effect whatsoever. In this sense, the approach offered by Keck is too broad. However, advertising and other measures intended to increases sales have not always been held to be ‘selling arrangements’. In Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und Vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag Austria had prohibited periodicals from featuring prize draws or competitions. The ECJ formed the view that publishers would use such competitions with the hope of increasing circulation. However, the rule was held not to be a selling arrangement as it concerned the content of the magazine, equating to a requirement to be met. Article 28 applied and the Austrian rule was in breach of it. Although the measure was justifiable under the Cassis de Dijon formula, the provisions of Keck were too narrow to include this scenario. This approach therefore does not solve the problem created by the Cassis de Dijon case of uncertainty in application. Furthermore, in Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH Austrian legislation provided that bakers, butchers and grocers may offer goods for sale on rounds in a given administrative district only if they also traded from a permanent establishment in that district or an adjacent municipality, where they offered the same goods for sale as they did on their rounds. It was that this amounted to a ‘selling arrangement’ but one which did have a differential impact on domestic traders and others. This approach therefore entails an analysis of market access, which was a factor in the pre-Keck jurisdiction, but which was supposedly outside of the Keck approach. The academic reaction to Keck at the time of the decision was in the main critical and it was argued that Keck placed too much emphasis on factual and legal equality at the expense of market access. It was suggested that denying that selling arrangements came within Article 28 as long as they did not discriminate in law or in fact ignored the importance of market access as trading rules could be formally equal yet still operate so as to inhibit market access. Academics have therefore argued for an approach based on market access, with a main advocate being Weatherill. He has suggested that the correct approach should be to focus on market access rather than just factual and legal equality. To this end he has proposed a modified test: â€Å"Measures introduced by authorities in a Member State which apply equally in law and in fact to all goods and services without reference to origin and which impose no direct or substantial hindrance to the market of that Member State escape the prohibition of Articles 30 and 59 [as were].† This opinion was not confined to academics, and was raised judicially by Advocate General Jacobs in Leclerc-Siplec. Jacobs AG felt that advertising could play an important role in breaking down barriers to inter-state trade and was therefore dissatisfied that it should be outside Article 28. He suggested a modification to involve a test of ‘substantial’ hindrance, so that if a substantial restriction on access to the market was acting then it should be caught by Article 28. However, this suggestion was not applied by the ECJ. Further judicial consideration has come from Advocate General Maduro in Alfa Vita where he stated that while Keck was intended to clarify the ambit of Article 28, it had ‘proved to be a source of uncertainty for economic operators’. He went suggested a three point solution: prohibition of all discriminatory provisions, whether direct or indirect; the requirement that any supplementary costs on cross-border activity be justified and; that any measure which impedes to a greater extent the access to the market and the putting into circulation of products from other Member States should be considered to be an MEQR. From the analysis above it may be concluded that although the Court in Keck attempted to resolve the problems of both the broad approach of Dassonville and the difficult to apply Cassis de Dijon, the result has been far from simplistic. Indeed, it is still unclear as to exactly what factors the court will consider when examining the legality of provisions in relation to Article 28. What is clear though, is that the Court is again willing to reconsider the approach and there may yet be a further attempt to restructure the approach to this area of free movement. Bibliography Barnard, C. (2001), â€Å"Fitting the Remaining Pieces into the Goods and Persons Jigsaw?†, 26 ELRev 35 Connor, T. (2005), â€Å"Accentuating the Positive: The ‘Selling Arrangement’, The First Decade, and Beyond†, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54, 1, 127 Craig, P. De Bà ºrca, G. (2008), EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials, 4th Edition, Oxford University Press Enchelmaier, S. (2004), â€Å"Four Freedoms, How Many Principles?†, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 155 Chalmers, D. (1994), â€Å"Repackaging the Internal Market – The Ramifictions of the Keck Judgment†, 19 ELRev 385 Fairhust, J. (2007), Law of the European Union, 6th Edition, Pearson Longman Gormley, L. (1994), â€Å"Reasoning Renounced? The Remarkable Judgment in Keck Mithouard† EBLRev 63 Reich, N. (1994), â€Å"The November Revolution: Keck, Meng, Audi Revisited†, 31 CML Rev 459 Roth, W.H. (1994), â€Å"Casenote on Keck and Hunermund†, 31 CML Rev 845 Steiner, J., Woods, L., Twigg-Flesner, C., (2006), EU Law, 9th Edition, Oxford University Press, pg 374. Weatherill, S., (1996), â€Å"After Keck: Some Thoughts on how to Clarify the Clarification†, 33 CML Rev, 885

Kids Vs Kids :: essays research papers

KIDS VS. KIDS The average child witnesses eight thousand murders and one hundred thousand acts of violence by the time he or she finishes elementary school. In the past fifteen years school violence has become a clear but present danger. It used to be children were involved in fistfights, or other types of squabbles. They may have received a black eye or bloody nose. Now they are armed with not fists but sawed off shotguns and malice. This is a serious issue that needs to be observed and resolved. These need to be taken in to consideration, home environment, society, and school policy. These are the key issues that are causing children to act out so violently. In the early eighties we were not having the problems with school shootings that are happening now. Home environment is the big factor that’s been children are for most of their life; the influences that come from here are powerful. Hopefully parents are teaching their children to be good people, to have compassion for others, but in some cases this is not happening. Society has evolved in the past fifteen years. Things are a little different. More mothers were at home raising their children and not out in the workplace. The Internet was not available to the population until 1989-1990. With out this being monitored for students it could be very harmful. The Internet is full of wonderful information, but also potentially dangerous material. School policy was different because they were not having such violent problems. There were problems in schools in the eighties but not so many, so often. From nineteen eighty eight to nineteen ninety-two the homicide rate increased by fifty percent, assault by forty eight percent, robbery, forty nine percent and rape fifteen percent. At these rapid increasements they crept into schools with a bang. The average home in the nineties is, both parents working forty hours a week, tired and might not be so observant to what their children are doing and learning. The home environment is so important and vital to the solving of this problem. The Internet is available at home, or in most libraries. This needs to monitored especially for younger users. In hope to help eliminate the shootings most schools in the U.S. have adopted the zero tolerance policy. The zero tolerance policy is helpful in keeping order and does not tolerate much else.

Apple Incorporated Company Essay -- Apple Products, Macbooks, Laptops,

Apple is a company that has been round for many years. There are over 55 million people who use an apple product or are considered to have at least one apple product in their home. The apple products range from larger devices such as there amazingly known Mac books which are there computer based system to there much small hand held based device called the iPhone. That device allows a person to make calls all while have the convent amenities that a laptop would have. They also have the very popular iPod as well as Apple TV. They have expanded into an empire that everyone is trying to become as well as beat. As many people know there is history and hard work that has to take place in order for a business to be successful. Many people will refer to the success of apple as the underdog company that made despite the odds. Founder Steve Jobs was a regular person with a dream. He started of building an Apple computer in his parent’s living room and later moved to the garage true to lack of space. Later on in his building career a neighbor of Steve Jobs introduced him to Stephen Gary Wonzniak. Wonzniak was an engineer and Jobs was a market maven and together they have the skills to build and properly promote. The computer they were trying to promote was fairly expensive computer. Jobs was so dedicated to this idea of transforming this computer from what it was to something that is able to be sold to the public he reached out to Bill Hewlett and asked him to donate some parts for a class projects . Unannounced to Jobs Hewlett admired his initiative and gave him a summer at HP assembling frequency counter. In 1975 the first apple computer was created and officially sold to the public. At the time Jobs and his business partners where... ...ir reputation to go down due to more global world. Works Cited †¢ Elliot, Jay (2012). Leading Apple with Steve Jobs: Management Lessons From a Controversial Genius. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com †¢ McDowell, Gayle Laakmann (2011). The Google Resume: How to Prepare for a Career and Land a Job at Apple, Microsoft, Google, or any Top Tech Company. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com †¢ Happy Birthday, Mac. (Apple) http://www.apple.com/30-years/ †¢ O'Grady, J.D. (2008). Recent Titles in Corporations That Changed the World. In Apple Inc... Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood. Retrieved from http://ebooks.abc-clio.com/reader.aspx?isbn=9780313362453&id=GR6244-4 †¢ Lashinsky, A. (2012). Inside Apple: how America's most admired-and secretive-company really works. New York: Business Plus. †¢ USATODAY.COM , Half of U.S. homes own Apple products May 08, 2014

Research on the Effects of Media Violence

Whether or not exposure to media violence causes increased levels of aggression and violence in young people is the perennial question of media effects research. Some experts, like University of Michigan professor L. Rowell Huesmann, argue that fifty years of evidence show â€Å"that exposure to media violence causes children to behave more aggressively and affects them as adults years later. Others, like Jonathan Freedman of the University of Toronto, maintain that â€Å"the scientific evidence simply does not show that watching violence either produces violence in people, or desensitizes them to it. † Many Studies, Many Conclusions Andrea Martinez at the University of Ottawa conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in 1994. She concluded that the lack of consensus about media effects reflects three â€Å"grey areas† or constraints contained in the research itself.First, me dia violence is notoriously hard to define and measure. Some experts who track violence in television programming, such as George Gerbner of Temple University, define violence as the act (or threat) of injuring or killing someone, independent of the method used or the surrounding context. Accordingly, Gerber includes cartoon violence in his data-set. But others, such as University of Laval professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise, specifically exclude cartoon violence from their research because of its comical and unrealistic presentation.Second, researchers disagree over the type of relationship the data supports. Some argue that exposure to media violence causes aggression. Others say that the two are associated, but that there is no causal connection. (That both, for instance, may be caused by some third factor. ) And others say the data supports the conclusion that there is no relationship between the two at all. Third, even those who agree that there is a connection between media violence and aggression disagree about how the one effects the other.Some say that the mechanism is a psychological one, rooted in the ways we learn. For example, Huesmann argues that children develop â€Å"cognitive scripts† that guide their own behaviour by imitating the actions of media heroes. As they watch violent shows, children learn to internalize scripts that use violence as an appropriate method of problem-solving. Other researchers argue that it is the physiological effects of media violence that cause aggressive behaviour. Exposure to violent imagery is linked to increased heart rate, faster respiration and higher blood pressure.Some think that this simulated â€Å"fight-or-flight† response predisposes people to act aggressively in the real world. Still others focus on the ways in which media violence primes or cues pre-existing aggressive thoughts and feelings. They argue that an individual’s desire to strike out is justified by media images in which both the hero and the villain use violence to seek revenge, often without consequences. In her final report to the CRTC, Martinez concluded that most studies support â€Å"a positive, though weak, relation between exposure to television violence and aggressive behaviour. Although that relationship cannot be â€Å"confirmed systematically,† she agrees with Dutch researcher Tom Van der Voot who argues that it would be illogical to conclude that â€Å"a phenomenon does not exist simply because it is found at times not to occur, or only to occur under certain circumstances. † What the Researchers Are Saying The lack of consensus about the relationship between media violence and real-world aggression has not impeded ongoing research.Here’s a sampling of conclusions drawn to date, from the various research strands: Research strand: Children who consume high levels of  media violence are more likely to be aggressive in the real world In 1956, researchers to ok to the laboratory to compare the behaviour of 24 children watching TV. Half watched a violent episode of the cartoon Woody Woodpecker, and the other 12 watched the non-violent cartoon The Little Red Hen. During play afterwards, the researchers observed that the children who watched the violent cartoon were much more likely to hit other children and break toys.Six years later, in 1963, professors A. Badura, D. Ross and S. A. Ross studied the effect of exposure to real-world violence, television violence, and cartoon violence. They divided 100 preschool children into four groups. The first group watched a real person shout insults at an inflatable doll while hitting it with a mallet. The second group watched the incident on television. The third watched a cartoon version of the same scene, and the fourth watched nothing. When all the children were later exposed to a frustrating ituation, the first three groups responded with more aggression than the control group. The children who watched the incident on television were just as aggressive as those who had watched the real person use the mallet; and both were more aggressive than those who had only watched the cartoon. Over the years, laboratory experiments such as these have consistently shown that exposure to violence is associated with increased heartbeat, blood pressure and respiration rate, and a greater willingness to administer electric shocks to inflict pain or punishment on others.However, this line of enquiry has been criticized because of its focus on short term results and the artificial nature of the viewing environment. Other scientists have sought to establish a connection between media violence and aggression outside the laboratory. For example, a number of surveys indicate that children and young people who report a preference for violent entertainment also score higher on aggression indexes than those who watch less violent shows. L. Rowell Huesmann reviewed studies conducted in Australia, Fi nland, Poland, Israel, Netherlands and the United States.He reports, â€Å"the child most likely to be aggressive would be the one who (a) watches violent television programs most of the time, (b) believes that these shows portray life just as it is, [and] (c) identifies strongly with the aggressive characters in the shows. † A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2003 found that nearly half (47 per cent) of parents with children between the ages of 4 and 6 report that their children have imitated aggressive behaviours from TV.However, it is interesting to note that children are more likely to mimic positive behaviours — 87 per cent of kids do so. Recent research is exploring the effect of new media on children’s behaviour. Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman of Iowa State University reviewed dozens of studies of video gamers. In 2001, they reported that children and young people who play violent video games, even for short periods, are more likely to behave aggressively in the real world; and that both aggressive and non-aggressive children are negatively affected by playing.In 2003, Craig Anderson and Iowa State University colleague Nicholas Carnagey and Janie Eubanks of the Texas Department of Human Services reported that violent music lyrics increased aggressive thoughts and hostile feelings among 500 college students. They concluded, â€Å"There are now good theoretical and empirical reasons to expect effects of music lyrics on aggressive behavior to be similar to the well-studied effects of exposure to TV and movie violence and the more recent research efforts on violent video games. Research Strand: Children who watch high levels of media violence are at increased risk of aggressive behaviour as adults In 1960, University of Michigan Professor Leonard Eron studied 856 grade three students living in a semi-rural community in Columbia County, New York, and found that the children who watched violent television at home behav ed more aggressively in school. Eron wanted to track the effect of this exposure over the years, so he revisited Columbia County in 1971, when the children who participated in the 1960 study were 19 years of age.He found that boys who watched violent TV when they were eight were more likely to get in trouble with the law as teenagers. When Eron and Huesmann returned to Columbia County in 1982, the subjects were 30 years old. They reported that those participants who had watched more violent TV as eight-year-olds were more likely, as adults, to be convicted of serious crimes, to use violence to discipline their children, and to treat their spouses aggressively. Professor Monroe Lefkowitz published similar findings in 1971.Lefkowitz interviewed a group of eight-year-olds and found that the boys who watched more violent TV were more likely to act aggressively in the real world. When he interviewed the same boys ten years later, he found that the more violence a boy watched at eight, th e more aggressively he would act at age eighteen. Columbia University professor Jeffrey Johnson has found that the effect is not limited to violent shows. Johnson tracked 707 families in upstate New York for 17 years, starting in 1975.In 2002, Johnson reported that children who watched one to three hours of television each day when they were 14 to 16 years old were 60 per cent more likely to be involved in assaults and fights as adults than those who watched less TV. Kansas State University professor John Murray concludes, â€Å"The most plausible interpretation of this pattern of correlations is that early preference for violent television programming and other media is one factor in the production of aggressive and antisocial behavior when the young boy becomes a young man. However, this line of research has attracted a great deal of controversy. Pullitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes has attacked Eron’s work, arguing that his conclusions are based on an insignifica nt amount of data. Rhodes claims that Eron had information about the amount of TV viewed in 1960 for only 3 of the 24 men who committed violent crimes as adults years later. Rhodes concludes that Eron’s work is â€Å"poorly conceived, scientifically inadequate, biased and sloppy if not actually fraudulent research. Guy Cumberbatch, head of the Communications Research Group, a U. K. social policy think tank, has equally harsh words for Johnson’s study. Cumberbatch claims Johnson’s group of 88 under-one-hour TV watchers is â€Å"so small, it's aberrant. † And, as journalist Ben Shouse points out, other critics say that Johnson’s study â€Å"can’t rule out the possibility that television is just a marker for some unmeasured environmental or psychological influence on both aggression and TV habits. Research Strand: The introduction of television into a community leads to an increase in violent behaviour Researchers have also pursued the link b etween media violence and real life aggression by examining communities before and after the introduction of television. In the mid 1970s, University of British Columbia professor Tannis McBeth Williams studied a remote village in British Columbia both before and after television was introduced. She found that two years after TV arrived, violent incidents had increased by 160 per cent.Researchers Gary Granzberg and Jack Steinbring studied three Cree communities in northern Manitoba during the 1970s and early 1980s. They found that four years after television was introduced into one of the communities, the incidence of fist fights and black eyes among the children had increased significantly. Interestingly, several days after an episode of Happy Days aired, in which one character joined a gang called the Red Demons, children in the community created rival gangs, called the Red Demons and the Green Demons, and the conflict between the two seriously disrupted the local school.Universit y of Washington Professor Brandon Centerwall noted that the sharp increase in the murder rate in North America in 1955 occurred eight years after television sets began to enter North American homes. To test his hypothesis that the two were related, he examined the murder rate in South Africa where, prior to 1975, television was banned by the government. He found that twelve years after the ban was lifted, murder rates skyrocketed. University of Toronto Professor Jonathan Freedman has criticized this line of research.He points out that Japanese television has some of the most violent imagery in the world, and yet Japan has a much lower murder rate than other countries, including Canada and the United States, which have comparatively less violence on TV. Research Strand: Media violence stimulates fear in some children A number of studies have reported that watching media violence frightens young children, and that the effects of this may be long lasting. In 1998, Professors Singer, Sl ovak, Frierson and York surveyed 2,000 Ohio students in grades three through eight.They report that the incidences of psychological trauma (including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress) increased in proportion to the number of hours of television watched each day. A 1999 survey of 500 Rhode Island parents led by Brown University professor Judith Owens revealed that the presence of a television in a child’s bedroom makes it more likely that the child will suffer from sleep disturbances. Nine per cent of all the parents surveyed reported that their children have nightmares because of a television show at least once a week.Tom Van der Voort studied 314 children aged nine through twelve in 1986. He found that although children can easily distinguish cartoons, westerns and spy thrillers from reality, they often confuse realistic programmes with the real world. When they are unable to integrate the violence in these shows because they can’t follow the plot, they a re much more likely to become anxious. This is particularly problematic because the children reported that they prefer realistic programmes, which they equate with fun and excitement.And, as Jacques de Guise reported in 2002, the younger the child, the less likely he or she will be able to identify violent content as violence. In 1999, Professors Joanne Cantor and K. Harrison studied 138 university students, and found that memories of frightening media images continued to disturb a significant number of participants years later. Over 90 per cent reported they continued to experience fright effects from images they viewed as children, ranging from sleep disturbances to steadfast avoidance of certain situations.Research Strand: Media violence desensitizes people to real violence A number of studies in the 1970’s showed that people who are repeatedly exposed to media violence tend to be less disturbed when they witness real world violence, and have less sympathy for its victims. For example, Professors V. B. Cline, R. G. Croft, and S. Courrier studied young boys over a two-year period. In 1973, they reported that boys who watch more than 25 hours of television per week are significantly less likely to be aroused by real world violence than those boys who watch 4 hours or less per week.When researchers Fred Molitor and Ken Hirsch revisited this line of investigation in 1994, their work confirmed that children are more likely to tolerate aggressive behaviour in the real world if they first watch TV shows or films that contain violent content. Research Strand: People who watch a lot of media violence tend to believe that the world is more dangerous than it is in reality George Gerbner has conducted the longest running study of television violence. His seminal research suggests that heavy TV viewers tend to perceive the world in ways that are consistent with the images on TV.As viewers’ perceptions of the world come to conform with the depictions they s ee on TV, they become more passive, more anxious, and more fearful. Gerbner calls this the â€Å"Mean World Syndrome. † Gerbner’s research found that those who watch greater amounts of television are more likely to: * overestimate their risk of being victimized by crime * believe their neighbourhoods are unsafe * believe â€Å"fear of crime is a very serious personal problem† * assume the crime rate is increasing, even when it is not Andre Gosselin, Jacques de Guise and Guy Paquette decided to test Gerbner’s theory in the Canadian context in 1997.They surveyed 360 university students, and found that heavy television viewers are more likely to believe the world is a more dangerous place. However, they also found heavy viewers are not more likely to actually feel more fearful. Research Strand: Family attitudes to violent content are more important than the images themselves A number of studies suggest that media is only one of a number of variables that put children at risk of aggressive behaviour.For example, a Norwegian study that included 20 at-risk teenaged boys found that the lack of parental rules regulating what the boys watched was a more significant predictor of aggressive behaviour than the amount of media violence they watched. It also indicated that exposure to real world violence, together with exposure to media violence, created an â€Å"overload† of violent events. Boys who experienced this overload were more likely to use violent media images to create and consolidate their identities as members of an anti-social and marginalized group.On the other hand, researchers report that parental attitudes towards media violence can mitigate the impact it has on children. Huesmann and Bacharach conclude, â€Å"Family attitudes and social class are stronger determinants of attitudes toward aggression than is the amount of exposure to TV, which is nevertheless a significant but weaker predictor. † Undoubtedly that th e media has an effect on our lives. The debate that rages is whether or not the media has a negative and discernible effect on us as human beings. How much does the media effect out actions, our houghts, our decisions and, in general, our lives? We live in a society which praises individuality and freedom, and therefore to most people it is a scary thought that an outside source, such as the media, has such a large effect on our lives, and therefore it is no surprise that most people do not believe that the media has a strong effect on them. But when it comes to children, the debate becomes more personal. It is common knowledge that children are very impressionable, and that the people they meet, their parents, and teachers can have a huge impact in the lives of Children.I myself can attribute much of my current interests and behavior to the effect my parents had on my when I was a child. Today, though, many children are in poor families (the child poverty rate in America is now aro und 35%), and, as a result, many children often do not have parents that reside at home. Often both parents work long hours, and the children have nothing else to occupy their time except for the media, especially television media. How does what the child sees on TV effect his or her behavior?The real question that faces society is does the increasing amount of violence and sex on TV effect children? My personal opinion is that violence and sex in the media greatly effects a child's development. The amount of sex and violence on TV today dwarfs what was on when I was little. Does a day not pass when their is a story about a child killing another child, or an even younger girl becoming pregnant? When I go an elementary or middle school I am shocked at the types of clothing that the children wear, and the way that they talk and act.Even elementary school children know about things that I did not learn about till I was in High School, and in my opinion things they should not know ab Ki ndergarten teachers in many school across the country, often in poor immigrant neighborhoods, no longer get to deal with innocent, wide eyed six year olds, but instead have to become conflict resolvers between children who see violence and intimidation as the only way to solve any problems. Teachers and Parents cannot compete with television.A study by the Mediascope Institute found that many children have already, by age six, spent more time watching TV than time they will spend talking to their fathers in their entire lifetime. Dean Geoffrey Cowan spoke in class about how the media does not effect everyone uniformly. He said that the effects of violence in the media may be stronger on some individuals than others, but that this effect is still significant. I agree with Dean Cowan, and I want to add that this effect is stronger in younger children than in any other age group.Many students in the class did not seem to believe that the media had a very strong effect on their lives an d as a result seem to assume that this effect is uniformly weak, and unfortunately I believe that it is thinking like that is making it so difficult for us as a society to tackle this problem. Studies have shown that the effect of violence in the media on children can be small, leading to more violent behavior in maybe 15% of children. But other studies have shown that this effect can be greater when children are â€Å"raised by the media†.It is hard to say whether a certain child will become more violent or aggressive due to the media, and I believe that other factors contribute to violence in children, such as problems at home, the influence of peers, or lack of a positive source of morals. But as a society we need to make sure that there are options for children in the media so that they do not have to exposed to so much mature content, and I believe that currently the protections in place are terribly inadequate. The effects of our modern media on our children is somethin g that we will not truly know for many years, if ever.History might give us a clue – the parallels between the advent of todays new media and the advent of books show that we could be in for a paradigm societal change. But no other media absorbed ones life in such a passive, complacent way as television and the Internet do to thousands of children. More research needs to be done in this field, but I believe that it is self apparent to everyone that the media does have a large impact on our lives. We determine our identity in relation to the media – our favorite television show, favorite band, favorite book, all are determined by the media to some extent.Ideally, as adults we would learn the skills to discern the effect of media on our lives and learn to control and to resist its temptations. Unfortunately most children and too many adults have not learn these skills. Everyone agrees that in today’s society, television has a significant impact on us all. How it a ffects children is of primary concern, as it is in childhood that we are given the tools we need to become successful, respectful citizens as adults. How exactly does television impact childhood, and what should we do to ensure that that impact is a positive one?Television is one of the first ways in which children learn about gender roles and stereotypes. Although family and peer groups also teach these roles, it is through television that children are inundated with the sex roles and stereotypes that reflect the ideas of a handful of people in charge of creating and programming this medium. Although these portrayals have broadened in the last ten or so years to include more diversity in gender stereotyping, there are still many television icons that denote negative gender images, such as the Bratz.Bratz are a Saturday morning cartoon and a glut of heavily marketed toys and clothing products that represent tweens and early teens as overly sexualized independent young women with att itude. Although I admire the strength and empowerment they embody, I am also incredibly concerned with the revealing clothing, heavy makeup, and defensive postures the characters all seem to take. I can’t help but wonder what a ten-year-old watching these girls would take away as being the feminine traits that they represent.Will she want to identify with the strength and independence or with the heavy-handed sexuality that she sees? Add to that television’s fascination with glamorous girl icons such as Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton, and what are young girls supposed to believe about being a girl? Boys likewise have macho images to imitate—superheroes and wrestlers and sports heroes. What does that teach them about being male? How does the repetition of these images teach boys how to respect others, cooperate, and engage with those around them?These problems with television’s sex and gender stereotypes can only make it more difficult for these children to develop socially and emotionally. Being taught these gender stereotypes may make it almost impossible for some children to break out of those roles and become comfortable with all their traits and individualities. If a boy is taught by television that men are always strong, what does he do with his own characteristics that defy that stereotype—does he continue to build his nurturing qualities or quash them in an effort to fit in?Do children learn that relationships only work when both people are behaving according to television’s ideas of their gender stereotypes, or do children learn to accept and respect people along the entire continuum of gender traits? If children are lost in this quagmire of conflicting information about who they should be and how they should act, clearly they will not be able to develop the strong self-esteem they need to be successful, either at school or in relationships. There is a strong bond between all three of these developmental area s.There are lots of arguments made that television is a bane to the moral development of children. Violent television, especially, has been examined in over 1000 studies and reviews, and has been found guilty on the charges of increasing fear and aggression in children who watch too much violent. However, in many shows and in children’s programming especially, morality is key, with the entire story line being written around one character’s moral dilemma and the healthy resolution of that dilemma, offering children a way to see how morality works in action in ways that apply to their lives.Cognitively, there is some ambiguity of the impact of television. There is the argument that television is responsible for the â€Å"dumbing down† of America, that television is responsible for shutting down our brains and acting as a tranquilizer. But there are also a great many good educational and instructional shows that teach children interactively in ways that books simpl y cannot, and a perceptive look at television programs today verses those created twenty years ago reveals that shows have actually gotten more complex, with layers of storytelling and subtle nuances that audiences have to work harder to comprehend.Clearly, television is a powerful tool that can alter a child’s ideas about the world. How those ideas change and how the child changes in response demonstrate how the tool was used. Television can be detrimental to childhood; in fact, too much television watching is strongly correlated with childhood obesity. The time spent in front of the television could often be better spent in other ways—with friends, actively playing, or doing homework—and this often has negative consequences for the child, such as poor relationships or worse performance in school content. However, television watching can also be productive for children.Television can offer children the chance to see other parts of the world and other cultures w ithout having to leave home. Children’s educational programs and documentaries can teach them about animals, science, math, reading—just about any subject the child has an interest in. The key to making the time spent watching television rewarding is the manner in which it is done. If parents take the time to choose carefully the programs they want their children to watch, and then sit down and watch the show with them, asking questions to promote understanding, then that time is highly beneficial for the child.However, if parents don’t take the time to choose the child’s programs and just sit Junior down and let the television act as babysitter, then the time spent watching television will not only probably not teach that child new things, but he will also not be participating in the powerful social interaction he craves. In a 2001 article in The Nation, author Maggie Cutler makes the point that although television viewing is a rite of passage for Americ an kids today, parents need to remember â€Å"the rule of the real†: that real life is always more powerful. A real conversation is always better for children than watching one on television.Parents don’t need to go to the extreme of keeping their children from watching television completely; they just have to keep in mind moderation and attention is best. For parents, the question of whether or not to let a child watch television is like the question of whether or not to let a child eat at McDonald’s. There are potentially good and bad effects of each, and both decisions weigh on a child’s health. A cheeseburger and fries every once in awhile won’t do any lasting damage; nor will an hour of cartoons just for entertainment every now and then.However, a menu with little more than that will cause grave damage to a child’s development physically, emotionally, cognitively, and socially. Negative Impact of Television on Children something with pl ay – dough. Since there is no scope for imaginative games in the lives of busy parents television seems to be the most inexpensive way of filling the gap and playing the role of an ideal baby sitter. Watching WWF fights, is on the other hand watching a show full of thumps, knocks, hurting an opponent, and jumping on senselessly. This program clearly sends out the message that ‘fighting is fun'.If children are constantly brought up in front of a television then reading habits are not instilled in them, and they are not encouraged to participate in outdoor activities. Only the world of television is their own private world. Of course when television replaces human companionship there is also a good chance of the child being influenced by it. Young children cannot process the information which they are imparted by the television, same way as adults. They think that whatever they are watching is true and this may lead to the corruption of their minds if too much violence is viewed by them.Parents should take strict action so they can limit the negative impact of television as much as possible. They should set rules as to what should be watched and what should be avoided. Alternative to television should be provided, for example if a parent starts spending more time with the child, reads books with him or her, indulge in creative games and indoor crafts, there is every possibility that the child will start shunning television for the better means of entertainment provided. To end it, I say that parents attitude towards the children acts as the building block of their futures.