What extent did Augustus establish a monarchy between 31BC and 19BC Essay Example

What extent did Augustus establish a monarchy between 31BC and 19BC Essay Example What extent did Augustus establish a monarchy between 31BC and 19BC Essay What extent did Augustus establish a monarchy between 31BC and 19BC Essay Essay Topic: History Light in August The key component of monarchy as a political system is generally considered to be the rule, usually in this period absolute, of one person over a state for the duration of their lifetime. It also contains an inherently hereditary nature, with the holder of the office not being elected or appointed through a political process, but named by their predecessor as heir. Rome of the first century BC, however, boasted a strong tradition of proud Republicanism; a tradition with which the concept of monarchy seemed wholly incompatible. Despite the virtual collapse of the Roman Republic in the foregoing years of military demagogues and civil war, and the systematic murder of vehement Republicans such as Cicero under the Triumvirate, the concept of hereditary rule was still widely regarded with hostility following the Battle of Actium. Memories of Julius Caesars adoption of quasi-monarchical powers in Rome loomed large, and the civil war had left the concept of monarchy indelibly associated with the eastern despotism and excess of the reviled Cleopatra. Such different systems of government are seemingly irreconcilable, being as they are inherently antagonistic. Yet Augustus Caesar, one of the most consummate politicians of the ancient world, somehow managed to achieve what had eluded all his predecessors; the establishment and maintenance of sustainable political dominance in Rome. Throughout his long period of rule, Augustus was careful to cloak the reality of his power in Republican phraseology and custom, yet, in bequeathing the Roman world a legacy of hereditary rule in many ways akin to monarchy, he simultaneously destroyed the very fabric and ideals of the Republican tradition. Following his victory over Antony at Actium, Caesars young heir, was, by his own admission, in complete control of affairs1 in Rome. At this point, Octavian enjoyed power similar to that of his adoptive father. Yet, although the true foundations of his pre-eminence his imperium over a vast army, granted in 43BC,2 his triumphant emergence from the civil war, and his command of unparalleled financial resources- had been established, Octavian was in no sense a monarch at this point. His regime lacked stability, especially since his position may have had little constitutional validity. His official term as triumvir had ended in either 33 or 32BC, and there is little solid evidence that he was ever granted additional extraordinary powers, although this possibility cannot be discounted. The Res Gestae inevitably points to the rather ambiguous universal consent,3 as the foundation of this dominance, which, given that Octavian had defeated the unpopular Antony and that all hopes of the peace Rome desperately craved now lay with the young man, may actually contain a grain of truth. Whether universal consent was the sole basis of his power or not, support was likely to have a finite duration, given that Octavians dominance was redolent of the political systems most despised, monarchy and dictatorship. The precedent of his adoptive father, however, loomed large, and Octavian, a consummate politician, was all too aware of the probable peril of riding roughshod over Republican sentiment; assassination. He recognised that, for his power to be sustainable, it would have to develop a basis acceptable to the Roman conscience. This is not necessarily proof that Octavian held any genuine desire to fully revive the Republic; whilst Suetonius asserts that twice Augustus seriously thought of restoring the Republican ystem,4 the princeps actions reveal any such intention, if it did ever exist, quickly evaporated. Octavian, despite his propagandist assertions to the contrary in the Res Gestae, was in all probability interested in maintaining and sustaining his power; in translating Caesars dream of permanent, stable family dominance into the realm of the possible and achievable. To do this, he had to create a monarchy veiled in Republican terminology and tradition, and establish himself as a mo narchical figure acceptable to the Romans. Dio leaves us in little doubt as to Octavians motives, claiming that he was eager to establish the monarchy in very truth. 5 In terms of establishing a stable political system in which his own power was accepted, Octavian used two main tactics. Firstly, he had to secure a constitutional legitimacy for his continued dominance, and, as Suetonius claimed, take great trouble to prevent his political system from causing any individual distress,6 particularly to the conservative political classes. Octavian, as quoted by Suetonius, was eager to build firm and lasting foundations for the Government of the State. 7 Secondly, and just as importantly, he had to secure his personal popularity amongst the Roman people, and cultivate a new, acceptable image of monarchy far removed from popular images of tyranny and despotism. In terms of achieving a new constitution, Octavian realised that he would have to tread exceptionally carefully, given that resistance to overt displays of power was strongest amongst the conservatives of the Senate. Ever the shrewd politician, Octavian quickly realised that, paradoxically, the best way to obtain sustainable personal power was to appease the elite by posing as the defender, rather than the destroyer, of the Republican tradition. Octavian, once known for his ruthless ambition, suddenly and seamlessly metamorphosed into the saviour of Roman liberty, an image which he would cultivate until his death. The settlement of 27BC was the striking culmination of this tactic; Octavian appeared before the senate and resigned all of his extraordinary powers. The Res Gestae alludes to the event only briefly, but, given its propagandist purpose, understandably implies that Augustus was acting benevolently as he transferred the republic from my power to the dominion of the senate and people of Rome. 8 The ambiguity of this statement conceals the true nature of the settlement, which Dio more accurately paints as a clever trick to have his supremacy ratified by the Senate9 and the Res Gestae fails to mention the vast provincia that Octavian, now rewarded with the cognomen Augustus, received in return. Suetonius, who also addresses the settlement only peripherally, informs us that Augustus kept for himself all the more vigorous provinces;10 these were Gaul, Spain (excluding Baetica), Syria and Cyprus, over which he gained proconsular authority for a ten year period, in addition to Egypt, which he administered as virtually his own private kingdom. Suetonius and the Res Gestae, however, both neglect to mention that Augustus retained control of all the legions (although Dio to an extent implies this in saying that Augustus took the more powerful11). In addition, Augustus continued to stand for, and was elected to, the consulship. This was an unprecedented move, as no previous public figure had held both consular and proconsular authority concurrently. Undoubtedly, the settlement was not a service12 to Rome as Augustus implied, but an enormously clever manipulation of the Senate that simultaneously gave Augustus vast powers within the Republican system, legitimised his position, and won him mass acclaim. The claims in the Res Gestae that after this time I possessed no more official power than others who were my colleagues in several magistracies13 are strictly true, but what is omitted is the fact that Augustus had an unparalleled accumulation of magistracies. Dio even dates the foundation of the monarchy to the settlement of 27BC, claiming In this way the power of both people and senate passed entirely into the hands of Augustus, and from this time there was, strictly speaking, a monarch14 Arguably, this statement needs to be qualified on two grounds. Firstly, Augustus did not have absolute legal power; he still ultimately accountable to the law. Additionally, many facets of the Republic were restored, albeit in a modified form the Senate regained control over the more peaceful provinces, and all magistrates performed their traditional functions. Secondly, the settlement did not instantaneously establish a monarchy; it merely provided the constitutional basis for, and therefore enhanced the legitimacy of, Augustus dominance within the Republic. Further enhancements were made to the political settlement in 23BC, when Augustus renounced the perpetual consulship and gained instead all the components of tribunician power, in addition to imperium maius over the other consuls that was valid even with the boundary of the pomerium. This settlement is alluded to neither in the Res Gestae (Augustus simply mentions that he was awarded tribunician power15) or in Suetonius, whose coverage of constitutional matters is sketchy. Dio mentions that Augustus was granted tribunician power, but only vaguely implies a political purpose in saying Augustus resigned the consulship n order that as many as possible might become consuls16 The reason for these changes is unclear; one interpretation is that Augustus wanted to make his power even less overt, perhaps as a result of a conspiracy against his life in 24BC (although Dio dates the conspiracy to 22BC, the year after the settlement,17 which may suggest that it occurred as a response to the settl ement), another is that referred to above by Dio, namely, that he realised his monopoly of the consulship was infuriating other politicians as it limited their possibilities of advancement to the position. Although the second settlement ostensibly reduced Augustus power, depriving him of his consular imperium, and probably, therefore, his imperium within Rome itself, it transpired that the period of 24BC-19BC was key in the establishment of the principate. To what extent Augustus anticipated the constructive effects of the settlement is difficult to gauge, but given his immense political acumen, it cannot be discounted that the settlement was a highly calculated move. To the politically unsophisticated masses, this settlement indicated Augustus resignation from Roman politics. Fortuitously for Augustus, this resignation coincided with damaging floods and food shortages, which the superstitious interpreted as negative omens. In consequence, there were demands for Augustus to accept the dictatorship or the perpetual consulship,18 a clear validation of his continued dominance. Augustus refused, claiming that I would not accept any office inconsistent with the custom of our ancestors. 19 He thus managed to simultaneously emerge with an enhanced reputation, and with popular support that could potentially be used as leverage to force the senators into acquiescence. Any loss of power, too, seems to have been temporary, for Dio indicates that in 19BC Augustus gained [authority of] consul for life,20 although he did not formally hold the post. This is not mentioned in the Res Gestae, but, given that the constitutional basis of Augustus dominance is largely ignored, this is unsurprising. Between 31BC and 19BC, Augustus established the legal foundation of his predominance extremely successfully. His tactic of acting inside the Roman constitution had allowed him to amass considerable power whilst avoiding offence to Republican sentiment. He had, indeed established the legal foundations of a new position that, although strictly a composite of constitutional positions, allowed him to gradually assume monarchical authority. Augustus choice to omit mention of his legal powers, or potestas in the Res Gestae means that it is easy to underestimate their importance, but by 19BC his legal rights were indeed great; not only did he have proconsular authority over half the empire and control of most of the legions, but his imperium maius enabled him to intervene even in senatorial provinces, whilst the consular imperium he may have received in 19BC gave him legal pre-eminence in Rome itself. Although tribunician power was primarily symbolic, giving Augustus an image as defender of the people, it did allow him to propose legislation and veto the laws of the Senate. Despite these successes in establishing increasing dominance, there were still key differences between the constitutional powers of Augustus and the powers usually associated with monarchy. Augustus ultimately did not enjoy absolute power, as he was accountable to the constitution and the law. Indeed, many of his special rights, namely his proconsular authority over his provincia, were officially only granted for periods of five or ten years, although they would never be revoked. What is paramount, however, is that although Augustus recognised the importance of having his position ratified in constitutional terms, largely in order to secure the acquiescence of the governing class, he did not intend to have his authority continuously scrutinised in terms of legal minutiae. Augustus potestas, or legal powers, clarified his role and legitimised his pre-existing dominance, but Augustus never intended for them to provide an exhaustive description of his role or to limit his powers. Instead, Augustus hoped that, with success and popularity, he would evolve into a monarchical figure acceptable to the Romans, and would be able to issue commands without people inquiring by virtue of what statute he was acting. This unofficial influence, or auctoritas, was a key component of Augustus power. Augustus auctoritas was largely derived from his unparalleled achievements, and, fortuitously for the princeps, these continued to occur after 31BC. Augustus exploited the true foundations of his power, namely his military success and enormous wealth, plus his considerable political skill, to gain triumphs for the Empire. Between 31BC and 19BC he achieved more success in the provinces, pacifying Gaul and Spain and annexing Galatia and Lyconia. In 25BC the Temple of Janus was closed, which, as is mentioned in the Res Gestae, symbolised that victories had secured peace through land and sea throughout the whole empire of the Roman people. 21 Military success was combined with striking munificence; in the Res Gestae Augustus highlights that between 31BC and 19BC he gave 700 sesterces to each of the Roman plebs, that after the war he gave 1000 sesterces to each of his soldiers, and that in 23BC he bought grain to help ease the food shortages. 22 This was in addition to his lauded building programme; by 19BC his immense spending on public works had begun. The inevitable result of such achievements was popularity amongst both the masses and, increasingly, the Senate, and as more people concurred with Augustus dominance his auctoritas further increased. Interestingly, Augustus chose to highlight his auctoritas rather than his potestas in the Res Gestae, which contains the implicit assumption throughout that great successes merited great rewards and influence. Indeed, whilst barely mentioning his imperium and omitting his provincia totally, Augustus confidently asserts that he excelled all in influence. 23 His choice to emphasise his unofficial power rather than his potestas was again politically expedient, reinforcing the image that Augustus was not the destroyer of the Republican tradition, but a great man who had been rewarded for service to his country. The latter image was far more acceptable to the conservative nobility, who, as a result of the peace and success that Augustus had heralded, and also due to the memories of the functi oning Republic becoming more distant, were increasingly prepared to collaborate with Augustus and accept his diluted version of monarchy. Allied to his pursuit of personal popularity, Augustus also attempted to reduce the instinctive Roman hostility towards one man having overt control through creating an image of hereditary rule far removed from previous notions of tyranny and poor government. A skilled propagandist, Augustus presented himself simultaneously as a benevolent patriarch, a skilled general who actively championed the liberty of the Republic24and added to its glory, and a great statesman. He also manipulated his position as the divi filius of the deified Caesar, and encouraged, particularly in the provinces, the development of an imperial cult. To propagate these images, Augustus employed subtle yet pervasive propaganda. Coins were minted and statues built in praise of Augustus achievements, and poets such as Horace and Virgil were encouraged to write in praise of the princeps and the Empire. Commonly ascribed to him were the virtues of, as he writes in the Res Gestae, courage, clemency, justice and piety,25 and even the cognomen Augustus was suggestive, meaning revered one. Although the amassing of auctoritas continued until his death, by 19BC Augustus had certainly started to evolve into a monarchical figure who boasted the support of the Roman people and had largely overcome resistance to his rule. Whilst Augustus longevity and continued success would allow his power to further increase, by 19BC he had, as Suetonius claimed was his aim, built firm and lasting foundations for the Government of the State. 26 His next concern was to ensure that these foundations which I have established for the State will abide secure. 27 This appears to be a veiled reference to his wish to appoint a successor, which is perhaps the best proof that Augustus aim was always to develop hereditary monarchy in Rome. Even before 19BC, Augustus was preoccupied with the issue of the succession, particularly during his serious illness of 23BC. Although Dio asserts that Augustus did not, to be sure, appoint a successor,28 he, perhaps surprisingly, states that all were expecting that Marcellus would be preferred for the position29 (Augustus seemed to instead prefer Agrippa). The latter quotes suggests that even as early as 23BC, there was a growing acceptance of hereditary rule, one of the most important precepts of monarchical government. By 19BC, the precepts of monarchy, only recently anathema to proud senators and politicians, were beginning to become the undeniable realities of a Roman political system increasingly dominated by one individual, Augustus Caesar, who had carefully yet systematically undermined the values of the Republican system he had purported to protect. Whilst Augustus did not officially possess monarchical power and was ultimately subject to the law and constitution, his skill in amassing numerous offices, powers and honours, combined with his popularity and unparalleled auctoritas, meant that his authority was increasingly unchecked. Even after only 15 years of rule, Caesars heir had skilfully laid the foundations for a monarchy distinctly Roman, a monarchy cloaked in Republican phraseology and custom, yet which would consign the Republic itself forever to history.

How and when the orginal 13 colonies was founded Essay

How and when the orginal 13 colonies was founded - Essay Example Massachusetts was next, founded in 1620, followed by New Hampshire, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and, finally, Georgia, which were founded in 1623, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1638, 1653, 1663, 1664, 1664, 1682 and 1732 respectively. Thus, Virginia was first of the colonies to be founded, and Georgia the last. Of course, during this time other colonies were also founded, which now are part of Canada and West Indies, however, this paper shall only talk about the original thirteen colonies established in what is now the United States. Originally, there were many different European countries from where all these immigrants came to establish these colonies, and there were many a war fought as a result of disputes of land and property, however, soon only England and France had the most presence here. The people who originally came here in the newly founded colonies wanted to be free to practice their own religion, and wanted to be independent from their respective governments (mostly European), to form their own form of government and be free to trade as they wanted to. Originally, most of the people who came over were basically running away from religious persecution, however, later on a lot of people came to work here and to make money. Those who came here to work normally came alone, without their families and worked in shipyards and ironworks. Those who came here to make money also bought plantations, and such people brought their families with them so that they could settle here and start their lives here. There were many laws made that reflect on the mindset of the people who came to settle here in the new colonies. The Pilgrims and the Quakers, for instance, had come from England to flee from religious persecution that they faced back in England, that is why, when they came

Impacts of black codes,Jim Crow Laws and segregation on african Essay

Impacts of black codes,Jim Crow Laws and segregation on african americans in the United States - Essay Example Racism was so much deep rooted in an American’s heart that the enactments of anti-slavery laws and the relevant amendments in the US Constitution were merely to redirect a racial mind to find alternatives of white superiority over the Black. Indeed the amended Constitution provided the legal safeguard to the Black, barring the practice of slavery at the state level as well as, to the extent the state could interfere into the public affairs. But it could do nothing to bring about the changes in the culture and the society that intrinsically nourished the racial hostility against their former slaves. Forced by the Constitution and laws, the Americans, especially the Southern States could not but embrace their former slaves, always whispering into their ears, â€Å"You are a black and you must feel it† (Haws 34). This act of reminding the Black that they were inferior to the White and subjects to the White Grace was being done perfectly by Black Codes, Segregation and the Jim Crow Laws. The â€Å"separate but equal† policy in the South is emblematic of the Whites’ failure to assimilate the minor black community into the mainstream of the society. Reconstruction: the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments The racial Segregation and the Jim Crow laws, in a single phrase the â€Å"separate policy† of the south was essentially the South’s reaction to the 13th, 14th and the 15th constitutional Amendments during the Reconstruction in the post Civil War Period. Reconstruction’s primary goals were to establish the Black rights by withering out Slavery and to reintegrate the South with the nation. But the Southerners took it as a Northern insult aggravating the injury of the Civil War. The Reconstruction started with President Lincoln’s affirmative actions for a race-blind, equal and reunited America. While Lincoln followed a more moderate course to establish black people’s right and to reunite the South, the Radical R epublicans â€Å"opposed it on the ground that Lincoln reconstruction plan had freed the slaves without paying much attention to establishing their socio-political, economic and other rights† (Stampp 78). What the North feared the most was that the Government should play a more active role in introducing the people of races to the newly imposed freedom through educational, economic and other sector developments. As a result, by passing the Wade-Davis Bill in 1864 Republican dominated Congress declare that Southern States should be run by military governors and, Secession and Slavery would be outlawed with the consent of the fifty percent of a state’s voters. Eventually the Congress also passed â€Å"the 13th Amendment and established the Freedmen’s Bureau in order to provide the formers slaves and black communities with the opportunities of education, employment, medical service, and economic facilities† (Carter 67). With the reelection of the Democrats i n 1968, the Oval Office under Johnson’s Presidency followed the same path that Lincoln started immediately after the Civil War. But President Johnson’s lack of foresight and wholeheartedness severely affected Reconstruction. Eventually, the Congress voted for the 14th Amendment of the US constitution to provide legal safeguard to Black people’s civil right in 1866 and the 15th Amendment to protect the black’s right to vote in 1870. But along the passage of time, the reconstruction zeal began to wane. Indeed the different political scandal, corruption of the reconstructed governments, economic aftermaths, etc aggravated the waning of Reconstruction. The South’s Response to the 13th Amendment: Black Codes To the North’s surprise, the South began to impose unofficial and legislative restrictions on the black’s rights. Both theoretically and legally by the 13th Amendment of the

Threats ISIS poses on the US Essay Example for Free

Threats ISIS poses on the US Essay They arent just threatening they are also following through have killed multiple americans Are known to be even more extreme than al qaeda   if isis isnt killed and destroyed it will only recruit more and become stronger Isis could attack in revenge if U.S does anything We still have not detected direct potting towards the U.S. ISIS hasn’t made a direct threat towards the U.S. other than the brutal murders. The ground troops should not come from the U. S but ground troops are necessary. The ground troops should come from the places that are the most threatened by ISIS. We have no threat yet. Hello, this is a letter concerning troops being put into Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS. We have proven to ourselves in the past that this is not an easy job. We will not be able to go in there and wipe the terrorists out with ease. For instance, during the war on Al Qaeda we sent over 806 billion dollars and have had troops deployed for 12 years. We didn’t plan on being in Iraq and Afghanistan for that many years but the Taliban weren’t easy to take down. ISIS has proven to be even more organized, powerful, and more secretive than the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They have taken over large parts of Iraq and Syria in a matter of months and have spread into other countries. It will be a large expense to put ground troops into both countries and maybe more if they spread. We will also waste a lot more money if we send ground troops in. Continuing airstrikes would be more reasonably cost wise and would decrease the loss in life. In the 12 years we fought the Taliban we lost 6,639 troops, mostly ground troops. If we go into Iraq and Syria with ground troops like we did with the Taliban we will lose more troops than necessary. There have only been 2 Americans killed so far and sending ground troops in will only cause more deaths than need to happen. As long as we protect our borders without deploying ground troops we will be safe here.

Essay on The Awakening and A Dolls House -- comparison compare contra

Comparison of  The Awakening and A Doll's House        Ã‚   The Awakening, a novel by Kate Chopin, and A Doll's House, a play by Henrik Ibsen, are two works of literature that can be readily compared. Both works take place in the same time period, around the late 1800s. Both works feature a woman protagonist who is seeking a better understanding of herself. Both Edna and Nora, the main characters, display traits of feminism. Both Edna and Nora have an awakening in which she realizes that she has not been living up to her full potential. Awakening and growth is one of the main themes in both of the works. Throughout the works, each woman has a close female confidante who symbolizes the traditional role of women and society's views of that role.    Edna Pontellier is the 28-year-old protagonist in Kate Chopin's novel, The Awakening. The novel takes the reader through nine months of Edna Pontellier's life during which she is struggling between society's expectations of a woman's behavior and her own passions and desires. The story takes place on Grand Isle, an island near New Orleans, as well as in the city of New Orleans.    One summer Edna, her husband, Leonce, and their two children vacation on Grand Isle. During the vacation, Edna meets many people, one of whom is Adele Ratignolle, a woman who becomes her confidante. Adele embodies all the characteristics of nineteenth century society. She stays at home with her several children, is expecting another, and is a devoted wife. Another important person she meets is Robert Lebrun, the flirt of Grand Isle, who awakens Edna's sensual side. Edna and Robert fall in love. When Robert realizes his affections, he decides that he cannot stay in Grand Isle, so he goes to Mexico.... ...ndercurrents, female companions, and strong ideas about feminism. The works were written in the late 19th century when these topics were shocking and controversial to society.    Works Cited Chopin, Kate. The Awakening. The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Nina Baym et al. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1985. Clurman, Harold. 1977. Ibsen. New York: Macmillan. Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll House (1879). Trans. Rolf Fjelde. Rpt. in Michael Meyer, ed. The Bedford Introduction to Literature. 5th edition. Boston & New York: Bedford/St. Martin's Press, 1999. Martin, Wendy, ed. "Introduction." New Essays on The (Awakening. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 1988. Rogers, Katharine M. Feminism in Europe. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1982. Templeton, Joan. "Is A Doll House a Feminist Text?" (1989). Rpt. In Meyer.   

Policy Development Essay

Domestic violence can be described as any form of deliberate coercion, bodily harm, sexual assault, or any other form of violent behavior committed by an intimate partner. Domestic violence has plagued all walks of life despite the age, race, religion, or background. Violence against an intimate partner is frequently followed by psychological abuse and controlling behavior relating to the methodical blueprint of power and control. Domestic violence comes in many forms but not always seen by the naked eye. Domestic violence constitutes forms of physical abuse, psychological abuse or even death that can be seen by other family members possibly causing a continuous cycle of abuse for generations to come. Facts and Statistics It is hard to grasp the notion that somewhere in the world every nine seconds a woman is being beaten or assaulted. On average, 85% of victims of domestic violence are women and 1 in every three women will endure some form of domestic violence in their natural life. Sadly enough only one fourth of all victims who have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner will actually report it to the police, implying that official statistics will never justify the full scope of the problem. The average age of a female victim who is at the greatest risk of harm by an intimate partner is between 20 to 24 years old. Domestic violence is the primary source of harm to a woman over all other possible harmful circumstances she will encounter. As if domestic violence isn’t already difficult enough for women to endure in an intimate relationship, if she has a male child who witnesses these assaults he is now two times more likely to abuse his partner or children as an adult passing along the cycle of abuse for our future. Statistics have shown that 30% to 60% of intimate partners who assault also assault their children. Intimate partner homicides that are reported to police make up  approximately one third of female homicide victims and 70% to 80% of those victims had a previous assault history. A very small amount of victims actually seek medical treatment after an assault but yet a vastly larger number of approximately 18.5 million victims seek mental health treatment following an assault. Separation isn’t always the ultimate solution to the problem. Over 70% of women who were injured during a domestic violence assault were assaulted after the separation (Safehorizon,  2014). Stakeholders Law Enforcement Often time’s victimization in cases of domestic violence is conducted behind closed doors causing law enforcement to become the first line of defense for victims of domestic violence. If the response of the police is extremely insufficient it has a negative impact on the victim making them less likely to use the criminal justice system in the future. There are typically three types of police responses to domestic violence: non-intervention, mediation, and arrest. The initial typical police response to domestic violence was the non-intervention way as police felt that domestic violence was a private matter best kept at home. The second approach is mediation which promotes crisis intervention including separating both parties, reconciliation, or social services referral. This method was designed to keep domestic violence out of the criminal justice system however, it proved to be ineffective. Now a more practiced policy to domestic violence is the arrest of an offender as a pres umed or mandatory response. Domestic violence cases are different in the sense that the offender can be taken into custody under a warrantless arrest as these types of misdemeanors do not have to occur in the officer’s presence. Legal changes have been made where officers now arrest the primary aggressor instead of the old dual arrest practices affecting the victim more than the offender. It has been shown that an officer is more often than not the victim’s last resort to alleviate the problem as they typically chose other routes as to not affect their livelihood. In all domestic violence situations officers shall make an arrest when an offense of violence has been presented, treat these acts of domestic violence as criminal, never disregard protection against domestic violence based upon race, religion, sexual orientation, immediately report  all cases of family violence, and receive training on domestic violence required by law (Erez,  2002). Due to the fact that domestic violence affects a large number of people, it is plausible to say that leaving the abuser is not as easy as people may think which would ultimately stop the abuse. Since this is true, law enforcement must approach domestic violence as serious as they approach any other significant crime by providing time, resources and attention. Given that law enforcement is spending a ton of time focusing on domestic violence, it is important for these agencies to establish a domestic violence policy that indicates reports will be completed on each domestic violence call regardless of whether or not an arrest was made. The most significant and respected service a law enforcement officer can provide to a victim is an arrest of their abuser (Klein,  2009). Prosecutors Prosecutors play a very important role in the prosecution of abusers within the criminal justice system in hopes of providing harsh judgments preventing reoffending and better protection of victims. If prosecutors fail to prosecute the bulk of domestic violence cases conducted by law enforcement an internal examination into their practices, policies, and priorities should be conducted providing an explanation as to why fewer prosecutions are being processed. They should not allow victims who are unwilling to prosecute their abuser stop them from proceeding on with the case. If a vast number of victims are willing to sign an affidavit of non prosecution, it is certain that prosecutors and law enforcement must come up with a better a way for victims to trust them so more cases are prosecuted. For prosecutors to gain a more successful prosecution rate, they must enhance victim cooperation and involvement by concentrating on the victim’s fears of being abused again or testifying i n court without fear of retaliation. In the event that a defendant possesses serious risk to the victim during trial, prosecutors must take all measures to protect the victim to effectively prosecute the case. It has been insisted upon by the judge that prosecutors report to the court any defendant’s negative actions such as reoffending, threatening or intimidating the victim so that potentially other charges can be added while the original case is still pending. While still being compassionate towards the victim, prosecution must base it case  on the law and penalties of the law versus the individual preferences of the victim as they tend to become more lenient during the course of the trial fearing retaliation in the future. Prosecution must also notify the defendant of this process so they don’t believe this is based upon the victim’s requests. Prosecutors must work hand in hand with law enforcement to obtain all the evidence associated with the case as well as identify and include all witnesses involved. Domestic violence can be deterred if prosecution sufficiently concentrates on the abuser risk by inflicting harsh sentences such as supervised probation and incarceration while revealing the defendants prior criminal and abuse history in hopes to prevent reoffending (Klein,  2009). The ideals that lawmakers had on prosecution or adjudication for domestic violence is consequently not being enforced. Legal representatives may become doubtful about the irregularity of violent behavior, or disbelieve the seriousness of the complainants, can either enforce the law firmly for prosecution purposes, or at the same time be understanding of the physical aggression that could be considered efficient punishment for the victim’s marital infidelity. Legal representatives are prone to characterize domestic violence as a civil matter for a ruling in divorce courts versus criminal courts. The prosecution and adjudication phases are substantial for offenders ultimately deciding their guilt or innocence, establishing a criminal record and providing a punishment. These phases are significant for the victim as well as they begin to trust the criminal justice system again (Erez,  2002). Judges Judges can ultimately be the final step in the adjudication process of domestic violence abusers so their role is extremely crucial in the protection of the victim. Merely handing down a guilty verdict does not guarantee reoffending of the abuser so judges should concentrate more on invasive sentences that include incarceration especially for those who are repeat offenders and those with an extensive criminal history. Even though judges should be open-minded when it comes to the views of the victims regarding punishment, he must enlighten all parties involved that he is compelled to hand out the most appropriate sentence pertaining to this case regardless of whether or not the victim agrees. Regardless whether the  defendant turns himself into the court for a domestic violence case, he should be treated as seriously as the offender arrested on scene as it has been shown that the typical offender flees the scene of the incident prior to officer’s arrival where a warrant is la ter issued for their arrest. Judges should hand down sentences that reflect the offender’s prior criminal history as those are signs of possible reoffending regardless if it reflects prior domestic violence offenses. In the event a defendant offends while pending another court case for domestic violence, judges may take that into account for purposes of bail, civil orders, and sentencing. Affidavits filled out by the victim don’t fully describe the abuse suffered by the victim or the fear of future abuse as this document is solely based upon the incident at hand. It is extremely valuable for the judge to further investigate this case by asking the victim more questions as well as examining the prior arrest history of the offender to have a better grasp on the whole picture relating to the abuse. Judges may issue protective orders to the victim but unfortunately this is only a strong piece of paper and it does not prevent abusers from reoffending. Judges should make every effort to house a user friendly courtroom, safe environment for all parties involved, be compassionate to the victims, and yet stern with defendants once some sort of abuse has been brought forward. When judges are able to represent the courtroom in this manner victims concerns are validated and the defendant’s behavior is shown to be unacceptable (Klein,  2009). Public Opinion Most people are in agreement that someone should step in when an abusive domestic violence situation arises, but they don’t agree on what their involvement should be, or the responsibility of the victim to reduce the violence by removing themselves from the abusive relationship. Even though people have the same opinion about domestic violence being a criminal act, they are not essentially on the same page that police should regularly arrest the offender or use other corrective authority versus using other alternatives. This apparent apprehension may be the outcome of people’s uncertainty concerning the applications of criminal sanctions. One theory is they believe offenders warrant the penalty of arrest or jail, yet another theory is they are often practical about the efficiency of the punishment  actually putting a stop to the aggressive actions or the probability the penalty will ultimately protect the victim. A more promising effect is possibly that of rehabilitation and victim or community focused changes. Nonetheless, such changes like offender treatments, education, and victims ultimately leaving the relationship continue to be a rare result (Carlson,  2002). Reform Recent reform within the prosecution and adjudication process of domestic violence includes the issuance of protective order as well as special legal defenses for battered women who have killed their abuser. At one time civil protection orders were only obtainable through a pending divorce, recently they have been pushed through legislation for battered women who are not currently involved in a divorce proceeding. The main objective of domestic violence reform has been aimed at the prosecution process as it has been found that too many cases, misdemeanors, were falling out of the criminal justice process during different stages. Through the years, domestic violence has become one of the most talked about policies and is in constant reform as ideals are continuously changing. Historically very little action by the police and prosecutors has been done regarding domestic violence and without a more serious offense, prior record of offender, possible weapon use, injuries, or physical evi dence most cases won’t see the inside of a courtroom. The most effective way to present a domestic violence case before the court is to have the victim’s cooperation but yet most prosecutors predict that victims will sign an affidavit of non prosecution ultimately dismissing the case altogether typically causing prosecutors to hesitate before filling a case. Prosecution efforts should be based upon the victim’s safety not the conviction of the offender. It should also be an approach to getting the word out to the offender that the abuse is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Prosecutors have recently found a way to prosecute domestic violence offenses even when the complainant does not want to pursue charges. They have implemented victim advocacy programs within the prosecutor’s office in hopes to boost victim retention within the process. Another approach is the evidence based prosecution, which is the idea of gathering all significant evidence to build a case against an  offender without the victim. Many peo ple believe these practices take away from the victim’s freedoms of determining their course of action (Erez,  2002). Another reform is that of the battered woman syndrome which has been employed in hopes of fixing past practices of disregarding the difficulty battered women face when she wants to defend herself in court, or the necessity to apply principals of law, or self defense that were not particularly appropriate for issues relating to abuse. This tactic has been used as a legal defense for women who battered or killed their abuser after they have suffered many years of abuse and responded by causing harm or death to them. Often times these cases are from battered women who harm their abuser without first being irritated due to the psychological state of mind the victim has suffered for many years (Erez,  2002). Domestic violence has plagued all walks of life despite the age, race, religion, or background. Without the constant fight by all stakeholders within the criminal justice system for the victims of domestic violence, no real solution to the problem can come of this resolve. Constant and continuous reform is necessary to maintain the safety and security of all victims preserving their trust with the criminal justice system.  

Smoke Ring Cannon for Air or Water Instructions

You can make a smoke ring cannon that shoots smoke rings in the air or even in water. A smoke ring cannon is a simple science project that uses easy-to-find household materials to illustrate fluid vortex formation in a fun way. What Is a Smoke Ring Cannon? This is a tube that you fill with smoke that has a hole at one end. You squeeze the tube and the smoke escapes through the hole as a smoke ring. This works great with smoke bombs, but you can make smoke rings in fluids besides air. Try filling the smoke cannon with colored water (use tub tints, food coloring, or paint), fill a tub or sink with water, and make smoke rings in the water. Smoke Cannon Materials Potato Chip Tube (I used a plastic one, but the cardboard ones work fine.)Knife or ScissorsSource of Smoke Make and Use the Smoke Cannon Eat the chips.Cut a hole in the center of the bottom of the potato chip tube (mine is about an inch across).Remove the lid of the tube.Covering the hole with your hand or lid, invert the smoke cannon over a source of smoke until it is full of smoke.Seal the tube with the lid.To make a smoke ring, gently squeeze the tube. You can make a super-sized smoke cannon by using a much larger cylinder, such as a bucket or trash can. Cover the open end of the trash can or bucket with heavy plastic sheeting, which you can secure with tape or a bungee cord. Thump the plastic surface to form the smoke rings. Disclaimer: Please be advised that the content provided by our website is for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. Fireworks and the chemicals contained within them are dangerous and should always be handled with care and used with common sense. By using this website you acknowledge that ThoughtCo., its parent About, Inc. (a/k/a Dotdash), and IAC/InterActive Corp. shall have no liability for any damages, injuries, or other legal matters caused by your use of fireworks or the knowledge or application of the information on this website. The providers of this content specifically do not condone using fireworks for disruptive, unsafe, illegal, or destructive purposes. You are responsible for following all applicable laws before using or applying the information provided on this website.