Managers can and will help employees with family responsibilities Essay

Managers can and will help employees with family responsibilities. It's not the job of governments.' Evaluate these claims - Essay Example Technology itself has become a double edged weapon. On the one hand technology is connecting the world together and on the other, weapons of mass destruction are creating a feeling of insecurity amongst individuals, resulting in more scepticism and animosity. Slowly and surely, with the passage of time, individuals are realising that co-dependency and mutual assurance are the traits that will lead to progress and a general sense of well-being. Therefore people are now adopting a more lenient attitude towards each others and are making a deliberate effort in assisting one another. These qualities are now being promoted by countries through globalisation and even in countries relatively untouched by globalisation like the third world nations, policies such as progressive moderation are being encouraged, which talk of more moderate schemes. However in implementing the unified world vision of the world coming together, that most government dignitaries seem to be sharing these days, the government of all countries finds itself to be too engaged. They now need this burden to be shared. This is where the companies are coming in. The higher staffs at workplaces, like Managers, are now personally taking an interest in their employees. They are as sisting their employees in their personal responsibilities such as that of their families. Managers are in a position where they can help their employees with their family responsibilities and are doing so. Whether the personal affairs of an employee’s family is the government’s job or not is a debatable issue however we are noticing a responsive attitude on the part of the Manager. In human resource management related workplaces, Manager’s specifically cater to the needs of their employees. For instance The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency guideline states in its Office of Personal Management, that:’ The

Developments of West End Musical Scene

Developments of West End Musical Scene Discuss the recent developments in the west end musical scene; this should include an analysis of the mega-musical mania, the trend to create new musicals based on existing songs (song migration) and stage transfers of successful films. From Sophocles through William Shakespeare to Eminem, writers have sought to use the rhythms of language to accentuate the story they are seeking to share. The pre-Caxton society relied on an oral tradition to deliver stories of fact and fiction. Cultures spanning the entire globe and all ages of civilization have instinctively adopted musical storytelling; it is prominent in various forms even now – be it around a camp fire, at a tribal ceremony, an inner city playground or on a West End stage. In todays world, language and music are at our fingertips. They are both instantaneous. And they can be married in a second. Technically, music is intricate. Most writers will say the same about language. But in an inspired moment they can conjoin and express something wonderful both sonically and linguistically. The act of constructing such a moment can be the end result of many less fruitful moments – but there is always the chance that it could just happen instantaneously. Our logistical minds tell us that it just is not possible; that we would never be able to express ourselves beautifully and eloquently in musical form. And yet the compulsion to try and do so has arrested most people, even if only for a quickly aborted solitary moment. So perhaps here lies the fascination with musicals. They show life as we know it happily residing in an alternate reality – where music and language are easy bed partners and everything goes to extremes. Or does it? The West End is one of Londons most popular tourist attractions. It has built its reputation, in tandem with New Yorks Broadway, as the commercial mecca of musical theatre. Las Vegas has the showgirls but Broadway and the West End share the showtunes. Indeed, while their identities are undeniably distinct, the relationship between them is close; same sex twins rather than identical ones. Each has their own nuances of behaviour – the younger twin Broadway hunts that bit more keenly for the next off-beat musical whirlwind; the older West End plays percentages but plays them with palpable success. The term West End was originally coined as a geographical short cut – a way of describing a part of London synonymous with theatre. Since its inception into London vernacular the phrase West End has mutated to describe something meta-geographical. While once upon a time it merely represented an actual place, now it also describes the gateway to an invented world of glitz, glamour and show. The West End may still be the home of theatre, but the kind of theatre that it houses has become very easily classifiable. The listings do not lie. And neither do they try to. The West End is a haven for small ideas done big; big names, big shows, big spectacles, big budgets, big risks. The social and artistic significance of theatre as an art form has not suffered in the time since the West End theatres were constructed. But the immediacy of rival entertainments, chiefly television and film, has undoubtedly provided so comfortable an alternative for the borderline theatregoing public that its popularity has. Ultimately, the publics relationship with theatre has somewhat inverted itself; once the entertainment of the people, theatre has become high-brow, elitist, exclusive even. Or so we are led to believe. Every year the people entrusted with running the countrys theatres are ensconced in attempts to make theatre more accessible. Nicholas Hytner at the National Theatre has incorporated a sponsorship deal with Travelex with the express purpose of enabling its shows to be available to people for as little as  £10 a ticket. Theatrical output is continuing to diversify in new directions. The National Theatre still produces the time-honoured classics that will appease their traditional supporters. But they also invited outside companies including Theatre de Complicite, Improbable, Shunt and Kneehigh to co-develop their new work. Arts Council funding dictates a certain amount of programming for in-house producing theatres throughout the country. It is impossible to equate the artistic worth of a proposed project while it exists solely as an outline on a piece of paper. But it is easier to quantify the greater social import of the same project. Therefore the involvement in various local outreach initiatives including young peoples theatre and new writing programmes serves duplicate purposes. But in doing so it runs the risk of wrestling a certain amount of control from the artistic directors, or at least diluting the intent of their work. But the West End is not really concerned with any of this. The theatres are privately owned and have little social obligation. West End theatre is a notoriously unpredictable money market. Make a big success of yourself and you can eventually buy it up – which is exactly what Andrew Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh have ended up doing. Lloyd Webbers Really Useful Group are the proprietors of twelve of the capitals larger theatres. By January 2006 Delfont Mackintosh will control another seven, and will have begun constructing the Sondheim Theatre – the first theatre to be built on Shaftesbury Avenue since 1931. The long-term plan of Delfont Mackintosh is to refurbish and modernise theatreland. But one cannot help but think that their extreme makeover will be restricted to the facilities and layout – and that the entertainment will remain as traditional as ever. The musical-as-we-know-it grew out of the 19th Century tradition of music hall, which itself was the bastard son of drink and rowdiness. After removing the alcohol from drunken singalongs, and relocating from the pub to theatres, the 1860s saw the popularity of the newly-arrived music hall go from good idea to massively popular entertainment. The humbling beginnings of the musical cannot help but reveal the nucleus of the idea; it was born of accident – of people seeking to have pure, unadulterated entertainment. In that respect, it has no one form; no one philosophy; indeed no real sense of philosophy; no real sense of purpose other than fun, fun, fun! As the musical was developing it was the bastion of popular music of the time. Through Gilbert and Sullivan, Irving Berlin, Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill and Cole Porter, the men and women behind musical were the most revered song writers at work in the Western world. Ten years into the post-war era there was a marked shift. The musical standards that made dry, wry and witty observations about upper middle class were about to be trumped by rock and roll. And John Osbournes 1956 kitchen-sink-drama Look Back In Anger was going to have repercussions outside the world of the well-made play. The birth of transmittable media was only going to swell the amount of music being produced. In the early days of the wireless radio, families gathered to listen to the songs of Ivor Novello or Noel Coward. By the mid-1960s many families had television sets in their front rooms; radio broadcasts were a competitive business; and air transport links had made the world traversable for all those who could afford it. Music was a commodity that could be sent from one side of the world to the other. And in the slipstream of the music were the musicians themselves. Through television and radio, songwriters and musicians had an identity. They became icons – the most celebrated people on the planet. And their music was nowhere near the West End stage. For the first time since their inception musicals were not using the popular music of the time. Rocknroll was being held in musical purgatory by traditionalists unhappy at its low-brow ideals. While cinema was running as fast and far as it could with the concept of the film musical, the stage was seeking to deliver variations on earlier themes. Elvis Presley made numerous musical films – as did The Beatles. In the 1960s the West End was awash with Broadway imports – the influence of Leonard Bernstein, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Loewe and other transatlantic success stories was diluting the integrity of the West End as the older brother of the musical. But the psychedelic overtones of that time were to create musical anomalies; while some composers flirted with the conce pt of rock, others werent afraid to dive headlong into its bottomless pit. After its anti-Vietnam stance and inclusion of group nudity caused outrage on Broadway, Hair opened in the West End in 1968. From being the chosen playground of mild-mannered conservatives, the musical was being politicised – and modernised. Within five years, the Age of Aquarius had been further capitalized upon by Godspell, Oh Calcutta and even Jesus Christ Superstar – which proved to be the foundation on which the new dawn of the musical would be built. Todays twin Godfathers of musical composition for Broadway and the West End carry the bright torch of yesteryear; Stephen Sondheim represents his forefathers fascination with the off-beat, with Andrew Lloyd Webber never straying from the musically conservative beat. There are various factors that dictate the recent successes and failures in West End theatre. But the starting point for every West End production is money – a fact beautifully demonstrated by the plot of one of the West Ends most popular current productions The Producers. Essentially, the capitalist dawn that swallowed up free love has made currency the new leading man in musical theatre. Producers need big ideas and big songs to legislate for big budgets. So instead of trying to predict what people may like and creating a musical story around it, the West End decided to reduce the risk and simply take the music that people already like and create a story around that. In some ways the origin of song migration is old revue style shows – popular hits belted out with no real desire to create an accompanying piece of drama or comedy. Coupled with the screen to stage success of musical films like The Lion King, a producer was now able to weigh up potential West End shows safe in the knowledge that a stable of worldwide smash hits could enable a musical to run for years, even with a bad review. Suddenly the sheer bankability of Lloyd Webber was looking like an outlandish risk alongside the music of Abba, Queen or even (the critically lauded but never supergroup status) of Madness. Negotiations are in process for the trend to continue, with Bob Marley, The Beatles and Elton John just some of the musical legends in line to have their songs shoe-horned into some money-spinning stage extravaganza that makes almost no sense at all. Not that the public really care. They want to go and sing-a-long like the pub dwellers of the 1840s that unknowingly help ed begin the process of musical theatre. And who shall we choose to lead the sing-song? Well, preferably someone famous off the telly, of course. The West End is a remarkably lucrative place. For his unscheduled stint in the opening cast run of The Producers at the end of 2004, Nathan Lane was being paid  £42,000 a week for the lead role as Max Bialystock. It is a clear indication of the simple transaction between moneymen and talent; the star name guarantees the box office receipts. The West End has been flooded with stars – some of whom have no musical pedigree – because celebrity is deemed to have finally overridden talent. The good, bad and ugly (in no particular order) of recent years include David Hasselhoff, Martine McCutcheon and Denise Van Outen. And if you dont want to spend money on star names, then youd better be sure to have some seriously impressive stage gimmicks; Miss Saigon famously had a helicopter, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang got in to hot water when the eponymous flying car failed to take off in previews, and Phantom of the Opera has a plunging chandelier moment that will wake up anyone snoozing in the stalls. So with standard tickets averaging out at around  £40, the theatregoer demands a truly amazing experience. But amazing and original are poles apart – and thats why when the formula is right, all you need to do is repeat it. There are exceptions. The Bombitty of Errors was a rap interpretation of Shakespeares Comedy of Errors, and was a small but perfectly-formed global success. Stomp became a phenomenon through gradual word of mouth and because it is a different kind of spectacle. Jerry Springer: The Opera began life as an idea at a scratch night at the Battersea Arts Centre and grabbed the attention of every newspaper and fundamentalist Christian in the Western World. But such shows grow from humble beginnings and are swept away on public curiosity. As in any art form, there are people willing to take risks because they believe their work has a market. Bombay Dreams and The Far Pavilions identify a recently developed appreciation of Asian music and culture. The off-Broadway hit Batboy continues in the tradition of earlier pacesetters The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Hedwig and the Angry Inch for kitsch rock operas. But some of these are accidental intruders in the world of the West End. They werent sure if they were really invited but came anyway. One group that certainly were invited are blockbuster films; whether they have songs in them or not. Seemingly the films dont even have to have been that successful. The Witches of Eastwick had a successful run in the West End. But more than likely, the film will have a readymade audience. The Full Monty was relocated to middle America from Sheffield to make it a Broadway success. Billy Elliott is well into previews, but the advance word is that it will be a significant hit. Or better still, just take a film with songs already in them – you dont stand to make as much money, but the guarantee of an audience is that much stronger. Mary Poppins has been well-received by most, and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is in its third year. There are currently 36 theatres in the West End of Londons theatreland. As of Monday 2 May 2005, 27 are currently housing a production. 17 of those are musicals. This ratio is fairly consistent – and shows no signs of relenting. Essentially a hit West End musical needs a hook; star name, hit songs, hit movie, famous composer, popular revival. Something that can be reduced to a two-word phrase. If you havent got any of those, then heaven help you. Because the West End public certainly wont.

Louise Erdrichs Tracks Essays -- Louise Erdrich Tracks Essays

Louise Erdrich's Tracks   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Louise Erdrich’s â€Å"Tracks';, the readers discovers by the second chapter that there are two narrators, Nanapush and Pauline Puyat. This method of having two narrators telling their stories alternately could be at first confusing, especially if the readers hasn’t been briefed about it or hasn’t read a synopsis of it. Traditionally, there is one narrator in the story, but Erdrich does an effective and spectacular job in combining Nanapush and Pauline’s stories. It is so well written that one might question as he or she reads who is the principal character in this story? Being that there are two narrators, is it Nanapush, the first narrator, him being a participant in the story, who tells his story in the â€Å"I'; form? Or is it Pauline, the second narrator, who also narrates in the â€Å"I'; form? Upon further reading, the motive for both narrators’ stories become more evident, and by the end of the book, it becomes clea r that one character is the driving force for both of the narrators’ stories. This central character is Fleur Pillager. She in fact is the protagonist of â€Å"Tracks';. Even though she is limited in dialogues, her actions speak more than words itself.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Structurally speaking, Fleur is mentioned in every chapter of the book, either being referred to by the two narrators or being part of the story. In fact, after researching the novel several times, no other character including the two narrators is consistently mentioned in every chapter. In the first chapter, Nanapush tells Lulu, his granddaughter, about the fate of the Chippewa Tribe. He then spends most of the chapter discussing the beginning of Fleur, who is Lulu’s mother, and how he saved her life. In the second chapter, Pauline, the second narrator, begins her story gossiping about Fleur to an unknown listener in detail. Pauline continues to focus her story on Fleur’s life, discussing in length of incidents about her. Pauline’s obsessive behavior becomes more evident when she’s in Argus with Fleur. â€Å"Since that night (in Argus), [Fleur] puts me in the closet, I was no longer jealous or afraid of her, but follow her close as Ru ssell (Pauline’s cousin), closer, stayed with her, became her moving shadow that the men never noticed†¦'; (22).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Therefore, in these two chapters both narrators set the stage for telling their stories on their account of Fleur. Not o... ...med to gain attention by telling odd tales that created damage" (39). Her presence to him is more like a pesky fly that won’t go away. It is this lack of attention by others in which drives Pauline to tell her story.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Looking back at the atom theory stated earlier, if we exclude Nanapush and his story from â€Å"Tracks';, what we have left is Pauline’s obsession with Fleur. In Pauline’s eyes, as well as others, Fleur is good- looking, mysteriously powerful and dangerous. In contrast to her who is â€Å"a skinny, big-nosed girl with staring eyes'; who is also so â€Å"poor-looking'; (15). Pauline notices these differences and in effect becomes jealous of Fleur because of all the attention she receives from people. She sees herself in â€Å"competition'; with Fleur. At first, Pauline just wants to be close to Fleur, but by the end she wants to be â€Å"better'; than her. Within her story, the argument that Pauline is the protagonist and that Fleur is her antagonist could be valid, but if you look at the novel in its entirety, meaning the structure and content, the principal character that emerges from it is Fleur Pillager.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Work Cited Erdrich, Louise. Tracks New York: Harper & Row, 1988

Dreams of Gilgamesh

Dreams of Gilgamesh When looking into the meanings of dreams, a variation of things can be found. Most people believe that dreams are a reflection of people’s inner thoughts and feelings. Most of these feelings are too private to be expressed in the real world and that is why they are expressed in a fantasy type way through dreams. In Gilgamesh, dreams are used as a form of communication between the Gods and humans. Major events are seen through these dreams and fantasies are foretold. In the ancient Mesopotamian culture, dreams play a major role.Dreams foretold the coming of Enkidu, the death of Enkidu, the protection of Shamhat during the battle with Humbaba, and much more. The fact that dreams play such an important role in this story, would lead you to believe that dreams have a significant place in society. The first mention of dreams in Gilgamesh come with Enkidu and the harlot in the wilderness. The purpose of this scene is to show that dreams tell the future. It is imp ortant for Gilgamesh to know that Enkidu is coming because he needs to know that Enkidu is there to bring him no harm.Enkidu was created to be on Gilgamesh’s side, not to challenge him. In the next scene Gilgamesh has a dream but he did not understand the dream so he asks his mother its meaning. â€Å"Mother, I had a dream last night: There were stars of heaven around me, Like the force of heaven, something kept falling upon me! I tried to carry it but it was too strong for me, I tried to move it but I could not budge it. The whole of Uruk was standing by it, The people formed a crowd around it, A throng was jostling towards it, Young men were mobbed around it, Infantile, they were groveling before it!I fell in love with it, like a woman I caressed it, I carried it off and laid it down before you, Then you were making it my partner. †(page 19, tablet I, lines 246-258). This dream is very significant because it foretells the first confrontation of Gilgamesh and Enkidu. The introduction of Enkidu in Gilgamesh’s life is symbolic of someone finding a companion. In another scene, we are given a view into Humbaba. â€Å"Humbaba’s cry is the roar of a deluge, His maw is fire, his breath is death, He can hear rustling in the forest for sixty double leagues. Who can go into his forest?Adad is first and Humbaba is second. Who, even among the gods, could attack him? In order to safeguard the forest of cedars, Enlil has appointed him to terrify the people, Enlil has destined him seven fearsome glories, Besides, whosoever enters his forest is struck down by disease. † (page 25, tablet II, lines 171-180). This is very significant in that it lets us know the nature of who Humbaba is. It’s clear that Humbaba is quite evil according to this passage. Gilgamesh’s dreams make him supremely confident during his attempts to overcome Humbaba.Gilgamesh believes he can prevail against Humbaba. Due to his focus and heroism, Gilgamesh is capable of slaying a horrifying, evil monster like Humbaba. Dreams are a constant motivation for Gilgamesh, and although at times he feels physically incapable of continuing on his quest for everlasting life, his focus on achieving his goal, drives him past any conceivable ability. The dreams all play the same role in this story. They foreshadow what is to come, motivation for Gilgamesh, and they assist in the strengthening of the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.Most importantly, Gilgamesh makes his journey not for fortune or fame, but purely for spiritual knowledge. Often the purpose of his journey is not really what he thinks it is, and the knowledge he’s looking for is not the knowledge he ultimately gains. By killing Humbaba, Gilgamesh discovers that the fame he finds only opens him up to new responsibilities, challenges and psychic wounds. He learns why the goal of the journey of life isn't what he thought it was. He has to go on a second and much more difficul t journey, one with a more spiritual goal.But even though this journey is more spiritual in character, it's still not spiritual enough. His goals are still selfish. Gilgamesh isn't ready to be a king until he wants something not just for himself or for Enkidu but for the whole of Uruk. He also isn't ready to be king until he accepts human limits, embraces his humanity, and decides to seek a goal that makes sense for human beings. The importance of knowing what is going to happen before it actually happens is to build dramatic tension.Even though you may know what’s going to happen next, it doesn’t ruin the story. You may know who Gilgamesh will encounter next, but there will still be questions as to when and why. Also, by knowing a preview of what happens in advance, it helps prevent confusion and makes it more likely you will believe fantastic events in the story if you prepare for such events. It also helps prepare you for outlandish occurrences in the story. Works C ited Stephen, Owen. The Norton Anthology of World Literature. Shorter 2nd. New York: W. W Norton & Company,INC, 2009. 9-33. Print.

Capital Punishment Essay

â€Å"An eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind,† Mahatma Gandhi. When the murders of today are murdered by the government, is that not hypocrisy? Capital punishment is legal in 32 U.S. states. Capital punishment was a penalty for many felonies under English common law, and it was enforced in all of the American colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence. Since 1976 lethal injection has been the primary method, although electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, and by firing squad are still legal and practiced in some states. The death penalty is barbaric and unethical. Innocent lives are being taken away. U.S. tax payer’s money is thrown out the window. Capital punishment laws should be abolished in the entire United States. â€Å"Studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crimes.† (Death Penalty Information Center) As we sit in a jury box playing God, deciding who must live and who must die, we hand out the death penalty to teach society a lesson. We step into the shoes of a God and pass an irreversible judgment to mask our pain or disdain. Why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong? This is hypocrisy. In our judicial system, we do not rape rapists, make drunk drivers stand in front of a speeding car, or chop off the thieving hands of someone who steals. In Muslim practicing countries, the harsh punishment used to deter humans from stealing is to have the thieves hand cut off. This practice does not deter thievery and is considered barbaric and irrational in today’s American society. For some reasons unknown, we resort to a revenge mentality society when man kills man. A family who has lost a loved one due to a murder, will no t find closure from the killer’s death. They will find closure with acceptance and forgiveness in themselves. We cannot take away the life of another who may or may not be guilty of a crime. Consequently, innocent people have been convicted and executed. The wrongful execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can never be rectified. Any error rate is completely unacceptable, when we are talking about life  and death. â€Å"Since 1973 the U.S. has released 144 prisoners from death row because they were found to be innocent of their crimes.† (Amnesty) Wrongful conviction causes range from eyewitness error, to government miscount, false confessions, informants, mishandled evidence, improper forensic evidence, and bad lawyering. Capital punishment is also discriminatory towards minorities, poor, and the mentally ill. â€Å"Africans make up about half of all homicide victims.† Glenn Ford, a black man, was released last month after 30 years on death row in Louisiana’s notorious Angola Prison for a crime he did not commit. As a result of his poverty, Ford was assigned two lawyers to represent him at his capital trial -the lead attorney was an oil and gas lawyer who had never tried a case – criminal or civil – to a jury. The second attorney had been out of law school for only two years and worked at an insurance defense firm. As often happens in capital cases, the prosecutors used their peremptory strikes to keep blacks off the jury. Despite a very weak case against him, Ford, defenseless before an all-white jury, was sentenced to death. (ACLU) Ford is just one of many people who were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in capital and non-capital cases, but were actually not guilty at all. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. Additionally, the death penalty is a huge cost to taxpayers. Sending someone to death row in the United States costs roughly $5 million, because the government takes the burden of paying for both sides. With appeals, and execution costs, death row is around $4 million more than an adult serving life in prison. The Constitution requires and long and complex judicial process for capital cases. The process is supposed to ensure that innocent men and woman aren’t wrongful executed, yet even with that the risk of executing an innocent person isn’t completely eliminated. Death penalty cases consume much additional prosecution and law enforcement staff time because much additional work must be done. Prosecutors must investigate and prepare aggravating evidence for presentation in the sentencing phase of the trial, respond to evidence, file many more motions, and spend significantly more time in court than they would in a non-death penalty case. In addition to these staff costs , prosecutors, like defense attorneys, hire experts and consultants, including consultants to assist with jury selection and witness  preparation. Sheriff’s departments must transport defendants and must provide additional courtroom security for lengthy death penalty trials, extra expenses that add up quickly. Indeed, a study of the federal system found that prosecution costs were 67 percent higher than defense costs in death penalty cases. The same study found that defense costs in death penalty cases were four times higher than in non-death penalty cases. (ACLU) Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the following on June 7, 2010, in his testimony before the Pennsylvania Senate Government Management and Cost Study Commission, â€Å"The death penalty is the most expensive part of the system on a per-offender basis. Millions are spent to achieve a single death sentence that, even if imposed, is unlikely to be carried out. Thus money that the police desperately need for more effective law enforcement may be wasted on the death penalty. Every stage of a capital case is more time-consuming and expensive than in a typical criminal case†¦ There is no reason the death penalty should be immune from reconsideration, along with other wastef ul, expensive programs that no longer make sense.† (Death Penalty Info) Thus the alternatives are more ethical, just, and less costly than capital punishment. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society’s needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an irrevocable punishment. â€Å"Over two-thirds of the countries in the world – 141 – have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice.† (Amnesty) It is time for the United States of America to catch up with the rest of the world and abolish capital punishment forever. â€Å"Death Penalty Facts.† (n.d.): n. pag. Amnesty Usa. Amnesty International, May 2012. Web. 8 Sept. 2014. . â€Å"No Government Should Experiment with Human Life.† American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU, 2011. Web. 08 Sept. 2014. . â€Å"Testimony of Richard C. Dieter, Esq. Executive Director, Death Penalty Information Center to the Illinois House of Representatives Addressing Innocence and.† _DPIC_. Death Penalty Information Center, 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014. .