Microsoft Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Microsoft - Research Paper Example The corporate office of Microsoft is headquartered at One Microsoft Way, Redmond: Washington, USA. It has subsidiaries in more than 100 countries ranging from Albania to Zimbabwe. The company board of director’s team comprises of ten individuals and it is headed by Steve Ballmer (Chief Executive Officer). The executive team consists of sixteen competent members managing the company operations over the globe. The company operates in the global competitive environment by developing, manufacturing, licensing and supporting a wide array of software products and services for different computing devices. Microsoft businesses have been divided into five segments; Client, Server & Tools, Online Services Business, Microsoft Business Division and Entertainment and Devices Division. The Client segment focuses on Windows Product Family and is recognized as its flagship product since they are globally recognized all over the world (Windows XP, Vista, 7 etc.). The Server and Tools segment sells server products and related services and solutions and its major product in this division include Windows Server, Microsoft SQL Server, Visual Video and Microsoft Enterprise Services. The third segment of Online Service Businesses provides offerings such as email, online information offerings such as Hotmail and MSN Portals. The revenue generated from this segment mainly comes through advertising. Microsoft Bu siness Division includes Microsoft Office Suites and Desktop Programs. The final segment of Entertainment and Devices Division sells hardware and among the most prominent includes; Xbox 360 video game console, Zune digital music and entertainment device. The online services and offerings include Hotmail, Bing, and MSN Portals. Innovation has remained the cornerstone of Microsoft’s success. It has not only sustained itself in stiff competition throughout the globe but

Twentieth and Twenty-First Century Philosopher Biography Project Paper Essay

Twentieth and Twenty-First Century Philosopher Biography Project Paper and Persuasive Presentation - Essay Example Rand supported the Kerensky revolution but denounced the Bolshevik revolution. Because of the latter revolution, fighting erupted and her family relocated to Crimea where she finished her studies. Later in life, her father’s pharmacy was confiscated after the communist victory, a fact that saw a lot of suffering. Rand immensely opposed the Russian way of life, especially their collectivism and mysticism. Instead, she admired and emulated the American culture, and even changed her name from Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum. She studied Philosophy in the Petrograd University and graduated in 1924. Some of her works include The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and We the Living among others. Sadly, Rand passed on in 1982 from a cardiac failure but her work still raises discussions and debates in the world of philosophy. Ayn Rand is recognized worldwide for her philosophy of objectivism. Rand pointed out that peop le can understand the world. She elaborates further that this can be achieved by reasoning and logic. This has elicited controversy since other philosophers have proposed that reality is unclear. They have claimed that reasoning and logic sometimes cannot be depended on, coining it as subjectivism. Rand discounted this claim, citing erosion of self-esteem and confidence as its downsides. Instead, she asserted that reality is what it is and that one can certainly know what is. It is because of this that termed her philosophy objectivism, where one is required to check their premises in case they are not sure about something. This was the philosophy of epistemology. Rand termed objectivism as ‘a philosophy for those living on earth’. Her philosophy, she claimed, was based on man as a hero, with the moral purpose in his life being in pursuit of his happiness. Man’s noble activity, in her philosophy, is to be productive in his achievements. However, she acknowledges the fact that this happiness cannot be achieved by mere whim or wish. Objectivism outlines the principles that one must live with, even in pursuit of happiness. This include, among others, respect for other people’s rights as well as possession of moral integrity. Rand also proposed the capitalism ideology where Laissez- Faire capitalism is the concept introduced by objectivists in the political world. Here, the government is limited in its actions and protection the life of each citizen and his or her property are its functions. The government also ensures that there is no use of force by one citizen against the other. An objectivist, from this description, therefore, is one who achieves in the creation of ideas and art; succeed in businesses and the invention of technologies. This they achieve through their own talents and efforts or trading with other independent minds. Objectivism believes in optimism. There is always that hope that the world is open for everyone’s happiness and thus living fulfilling lives. This she mentioned in her two books, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Even in her high school life, Rand had always objected to mysticism. She believed that all truth was arrived at after a careful analysis of the facts of reality, something that should be done without contradictions. It is a fact that objectivists believe that everyone is free to believe in whatever they want. However, they should not claim that what they believe is the truth without verifying the proofs. This could be

Coases Theorem of Coase and Cattle

Coases Theorem of Coase and Cattle After familiarizing myself with Ronald Coases theory of economic efficiencies in economic externalities, I have discovered that Coases theorem is greatly debated amongst scholars who study law and economics. I have discovered the two schools of legal thought which are torn apart because of their opinion on the validity of Coases theorem. Basically, Ronald Coase declared that when there are no transaction costs, bargaining between neighbors will lead to an efficient outcome, regardless of the laws on property rights. The theorem is saying that when the transaction costs are low and somebody trespasses onto anothers property, in this case, cattle, neighbors are more likely to resolve the dispute by forgiving the trespass or by repaying the trespassed with a small reward. Since he has made it clear that this theory works when transaction costs are low, I agree absolutely with Ronald Coase. Ronald Coases theory that, when transaction costs are minimal, bargaining powers of people will re sult in an efficient outcome is correct. In Robert Ellicksons article, Of Coase and Cattle, he mentions a story about Frank Ellis and Larry Brennan. Larry Brennan lost approximately seven tons of baled hay to Frank Ellis cattle while they were roaming in open range. Brennan could have taken Ellis to court to reclaim a monetary value of approximately $500, but instead, he decided to notify Ellis of his cows wrongdoing. Ellis offered to give Brennan some of the hay that was baled in his barn, but Brennan declined the offer. Instead, Brennan knew that it would be in his favor in the future to have Ellis indebted to him, incase a situation arises where Brennan would need a favor performed. Since the transaction costs were pretty low and there was close proximity between Brennan and Ellis, the situation was resolved with efficiency. This is pretty common in rural areas since people of the small townships and farming communities live by the motto â€Å"live and let live.† The people who repeat this motto know they should p ut up with small imbalances in their accounts because they perceive that their future interactions will provide adequate opportunities for settling old scores. The fourth chapter of â€Å"Economic Foundations of Law,† by Stephen Spurr, has a great analogy of the Coase theorem that relates it to a Pareto-optimal efficient outcome. The example describes a conflict between a cattle rancher and a farmer who have adjoining properties. Since they have adjoining properties in an open range system, the cattle owned by the rancher are more than likely going to wander around within the farmers property—since it is almost impossible to tell which direction or how far cattle are going to migrate in the open range. With the herd of cattle grazing and walking around on the farmers crops, the farmer sustains a loss. However, the Coase theorem would make it simple for the farmer and rancher to come to terms and decide a remedy for the farmers loss. Stephen Spurr says, on page 67, â€Å"The socially optimal number of steers is the number that maximizes total social benefit minus total social cost, that is, the profit to the cattle rancher min us the damage to the farmer.† Essentially, this is saying that damage could be controlled by controlling the amount of head are in a herd of cattle which will in turn reduce transactions costs by reducing the amount the farmer will lose in damaged crops. From the pair of examples above, it is fairly easy to understand the Coase theorem. However, in Of Coase and Cattle: Dispute Resolution Among Neighbors in Shasta County, lies a vast story about a dispute between Frank Ellis, a new cattle rancher, and Doug Heinz, another cattle rancher. Since Frank Ellis was in an open range ordinance, he let his huge herd roam free. Ellis herd consisted of thousands of head of cattle and his property was approximately 15,300 acres, making it easily the largest farm in Shasta County at the time. Ellis hired a group of Mexican cowboys to take care of his handiwork, which included tending to the herd and doing whatever necessary farm tasks were required. Since his herd was situated on an open range, his cowboys â€Å"deliberately crossed the unfenced private lands of others, but also used those lands as free pasture,† as quoted by Ellickson. His exploitation of the laws of the open range sent anger flowing throughout the community, eventually enr aging a man named Doug Heinz. Doug Heinzs farm was situated right next to Ellis property, so the two were technically neighbors. While Heinzs farm was greatly smaller, approximately only 12 acres, Ellis herd was always destroying the fence that Heinz constructed in order to keep other cattle off of his land. When Heinz noticed some of Ellis cattle breaking through his fence, he decided to call Ellis and complain. To make a story short, Ellis sent a few of his cowboys out to retrieve the cattle. Their method of retrieving the cattle ended up destroying more of Heinzs fence and damaging even more of the crops. The cowboys took off more quickly than they came and Heinz never saw any sort of repayment for the damage done to his property. This caused Heinz to protest to the county supervisor and round up signatures on a petition to make the area, coincidentally around Ellis land, closed range. However, Heinzs petition to make the region closed range was never passed and Heinz was never r ewarded for the damage done to his property and had to suffer from more abuse at the hands of Ellis herd. Due to Heinz not receiving just compensation for his trouble, the Coase theorem cannot be applied here. The transaction costs were very high, with most of it coming from the damage done to Heinzs property, and the rest coming from the time that was spent circulating a petition to close the range. A Pareto-optimal resolution was not reached either, which is why Of Coase and Cattle attempts to explain the flaws in the Coase theorem. However, the author of Of Coase and Cattle does not take into account the transaction costs of the Ellis-Heinz conflict. The article also discusses conflicts between Traditionalists and Modernists, both of which are styles that ranchers use to take care of their herd. In Shasta County, California, these two neighboring styles are the scene of many conflict and episodes which convert the open range ordinances into closed range. The open range favoring Traditionalists believe their cattle can roam freely without any interruption in the land because they shouldnt have to fence in their cattle to remain on their property. The Modernists believe exactly the opposite; that ranchers should keep their cattle behind fences to prevent damage to neighboring property owned privately. The Traditionalists follow the practices of cattle ranching that were predominant in Shasta County in the 1920s. Traditionalists in the county believe that a rancher shouldnt fence his property because during the summer months, it would take an inefficient amount of land to make sure a herd as little of 200 cattle would be able to be nourished. Thus, the ranchers would let the cattle roam freely as to find nutrients around the mountainous regions of Shasta County. Just by stating that doesnt paint the entire picture, though. Traditionalist ranchers purchase grazing leases through the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, as well as timber companies. The inefficiency of this is that a Traditionalist with a herd of only 100 cattle would need to lease a forest equal to the area of the city of San Francisco. Traditionalists would also need to construct fences to keep their cattle within the boundaries of the grazing lease areas, but since harsh winter storms and intense summer heat destroy their fences; its obvious that the most cost effective way to combat the phenomenon is to not erect a fence. The Modernists, who are typically younger than typical Traditionalists, see the Traditionalist way of ranching as primitive and out dated. The Modernist view is that their cattle do not belong on other peoples property, and vice versa; other peoples cattle do not belong on theirs. Not only do they wish to reduce the risk of damage done by their herd on anothers property, they also see it easier to administer nutrients, protect their herd from being impregnated by bulls, protect their herd from predators, and to watch over their herd during the dangerous winter months. The fenced boundaries are more of a sign to â€Å"stay out,† which adds privacy and value to the land. However, the cost of fencing off the boundary of an entire property by Californias standards is very costly. The statute that defines a legal â€Å"fence† efficient enough to house cattle calls for three tightly stretched strands of barbed wire stapled to posts situated approximately one rod, or 16 and one half feet, apart. Since Shasta County residents typically use four strands of barbed wire and steel posts instead of cedar, the cost of the fence has gone up. Ellickson gave the quote of the materials necessary to construct a four-strand barbed wire fence in the year 1982 as $2,000 per mile, which doubles if private firms are called in to perform construction. If, for example, Doug Heinz wanted to fence off his property, it would have cost him $18,000 for materials and another $18,000 for labor in the year 1982. A total cost of $36,000 in the year 1982 to enclose ones own property does not seem as efficient as being able to dedicate some of your time to help your neighbor replant damaged crops. Period maintenance on fences may also prove to be costly, especially in the weather of S hasta County. The point of comparing Traditionalists to Modernists is summed up by the first story of Ellis and Brennan. Modernists are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to make sure theyre investment, which could be the herd of cattle or the rest of their property, is slightly protected. The illusion of safety and security is heavily present in their ideology, which always isnt the case. Traditionalists believe they could remedy whatever problems arise by offering their assistance in fixing whatever damage takes place, whether it is to re-fence an area of land or to replant crops that were damaged by stampeding herds. It is much more cost effective to live the way of the Traditionalists. However, there are two sides to every story. One could consider Ellis to be a Traditionalist since he let his herd graze in open range. But, since a typical rancher in Shasta County does not have nearly the amount of cattle that Frank Ellis had, we can consider it an anomaly. Ellis caused thousands of dollars of damage and tallied up huge transaction costs in the effort that it took to circulate petitions by both parties, Ellis and Heinzs. Traditionalists can also solely be blamed for provoking Shasta County to enforce closed range policies in different areas. The stories discussed in Of Coase and Cattle not only prove the Coase theorem to be correct, but also proves Ellickson wrong. Ellickson wanted to prove Coase wrong by performing a tremendous amount of research in a county in California that has its problems when it comes to property law. Ellickson describes many different scenarios, all of which can easily be determined to be efficient or non-efficient. Ellickson simply states that Coase is wrong in his theory, but does not take into account the transaction costs for any of the stories. He may present the costs to each party involved in an incident, but he does not deduct that the costs arent necessarily high or low. To break this down further, we can reexamine Ellis versus Heinz and Ellis versus Brennan once more. Ellis versus Heinz was not Pareto-optimal because the transaction costs involved in resolving the incident were extremely high. If transaction costs arent defined simply in monetary terms, they could be described as stress and time spent on resolving a situation. In other words, transaction costs could also have the same definition as opportunity costs. Ellis herd cost Heinz tens of thousands of dollars that were never repaid, and thousands of dollars to other farmers which were also never repaid. However, the costs dont end there. Heinz and his allies spent a lot of time, grief, and money to go out and find people to sign his petition to get Ellis ranch on a closed range ordinance. Ellis did the same, to spend time to find people to sign a petition to keep his range open. The transaction costs in this example are extremely high since Ellis spent a lot of time and grief in attempt to fight Heinz and vice versa. To make the case even more interesting, Ellis was forced to fence off his land, which didnt benefit him in the long run. Therefore, the Coase theorem doesnt apply to this situation. At the same time though, Ellis versus Brennan resulted in an efficient outcome, since Brennan refused to take up Ellis offer of replenishing his supply of hay. There are a few schools of thought who think Coase was wrong in his theory. But, after reading Of Coase and Cattle, it becomes obvious that Ellickson was incorrect in his thesis that Coase was wrong. He is incorrect for a number of reasons, with the main one being that he doesnt take into account the transaction costs for the conflicts that he reports on. The main element of this paper was about Ellis versus Heinz, which proves that Ellickson was incorrect. When the transaction costs are low, the Coase theorem is 100-percent accurate. Ellis versus Brennan is a good example of that, as well as the quotes from ranchers in Shasta County. â€Å"I dont believe in lawyers [because there are] always hard feelings [when you litigate]† was said by Owen Shellworth, a Shasta County rancher. Another quote, by Tony Morton, states â€Å"being good neighbors means no lawsuits.† It is clear that neighbors would be more willing to settle conflicts on their own when the transaction costs are small. However, if the transaction costs are high, as in Heinzs case, the outcome will be inefficient. Of Coase and Cattle is a great read if you want to learn about property rights, dispute settlements, and the Coase theorems application to modern times. Of Coase and Cattle proves that with minimal transaction costs and defined property rights, the Coase theorem is accurate in predicting outcomes.

Who is to blame for Macbeths Downfall? :: essays research papers

The play MACBETH is filled with suffering. It begins with reports of a bloody battle, an execution of a traitor and Macbeth’s bloodthirsty heroism as he â€Å"unseamed† one of the invaders â€Å"from the nave of the chaps†. In comparison MacBeth’s later actions are even worse as he commits violent crimes against his own people. Much of the suffering in the play is directly attributable to Macbeth. However, the central focus of the play is the suffering he himself undergoes, as he makes his way through his course of evil. Macbeth caused the suffering of many during his dark quest to become King of Scotland. Many innocents were brutally slaughtered as a result of Macbeth’s actions, Banquo, King Duncan, Lady Macduff and her children. However many others experienced mental torment and anguish at the hand of Macbeth. Macbeth’s ambitious wife, Lady Macbeth felt guilt for her part in the murder of King Duncan and for murdering sleep she was denied the luxury of sleep driving her to insanity. The Macduff’s also suffered greatly. Lady Macduff witnessed the deaths of her children as they were â€Å"Savagely slaughter’d† (4:3:237) Macbeth also caused grief to Macduff as he ordered the slaying of his â€Å"Wife, Children, servants, all† (4:3:245) Macbeth was the cause of much suffering in the play and in turn suffered greatly throughout. Macbeth suffers much indecision from the moment he hears the witches prophesies. He gets confused and is torn between killing or not killing King Duncan. He immediately thinks of killing the king, as he wants so badly to be king, but the idea of committing such a crime appals him. â€Å"Why do I yield to that suggestion†(1:3:144), he says in a state of confusion. Macbeth is Duncan’s â€Å"kinsman†, â€Å"his subject† and â€Å"his host†. As his host he should be protecting him, not killing him. Macbeth believes in â€Å"even-handed justice† and that if he commits evil, evil will be put upon him. He ultimately decides not to kill the King but Lady Macbeth convinces him otherwise, â€Å"What beast was’t then That made you break this enterprise to me?† she asks.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Lady Macbeth does later fell guilt over her part in Duncan’s murder but Macbeth’s guilt is immediate.. Macbeth murders his great king and only moments later feels horrible guilt, â€Å"Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood Clean from my hand?†(2:2:77) Blood on hands is a symbol of guilt that Macbeth sees often in this play â€Å"with thy bloody and invisible hand† (3:2:53) He feels guilt like he has never experienced before â€Å"gouts of blood, which was not so before†(2:1:53) he says.

Discuss the role and importance of the doctrine of judicial precedent in English legal system. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine?

Introduction The doctrine of judicial precedent is based upon the principle of stare decisis, which means the standing by of previous decisions. This means that when a particular point of law is decided in a case, all future cases containing the same facts and circumstances will be bound by that decision as signified in Donoghue v Stevenson[1] and Grant v Australian Knitting Mills.[2] Whilst the doctrine of judicial precedent helps to maintain the interests of justice, many have argued that it restricts the laws ability to keep abreast with the changes in society and that much restriction thereby exists.[3] Consequently, there are advantages and disadvantages to the doctrine of judicial precedent which will both be discussed in this study. This will be done by firstly considering the role and importance of the doctrine, followed by a review as to its advantages and disadvantages. Once the relevant information has been gathered an analysed, an appropriate conclusion will then be drawn. Role and Importance of the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent The doctrine of judicial precedent is a general principle of common law that is established in a case to help Courts decide upon similar issues in subsequent case law.[4] Judicial precedent is defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Law as a â€Å"judgement or decision of a Court used as an authority for reaching the same decision in subsequent cases.†[5] There are two different kinds of judicial precedent that exist which are; authoritative and persuasive. Authoritative precedent binds all lower Courts, whilst persuasive precedent does not actually have to be followed and is intended to merely persuade the Court into making a particular decision. It is necessary that Courts always follow the judicial precedent doctrine[6] so that any discrepancies’ can be avoided. This will provide greater certainty to the judicial system, which is vital in maintaining the interests of justice.[7] Not all agree that judicial precedent is that effective, however, and have instead argued tha t many of the principles are weak and outdated.[8] This is due to the fact that judicial precedent is ageless and so a decision that was made a long time ago by a Court of Appeal, for instance, will still have to be followed until â€Å"it is distinguished by another Court of Appeal or overturned by the Supreme Court.†[9] Judicial precedent’s that have been set by higher Courts will therefore be binding upon all lower Courts unless the same Court or the Supreme Court has overturned the previous decision as identified in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd.[10] Therefore, whilst judicial precedent does have some drawbacks, it is still an important part of the judicial system and is necessary in the interests of justice. Advantages There are many advantages to the doctrine of judicial precedent with one of the main advantages being the ability to save time when making a decision on a case.[11] If a Court is already provided with an answer to a problem in which they face, it will not take as much time to reach a reasoned conclusion. This is because the Court will not be required to analyse the case and make a decision as they will already have the answer before them, which is a significant benefit within the judicial process. An example how effective judicial precedent can be is exemplified in the case of Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd and London Dockland Development Corporation.[12] Here, the Court did not have to form an original precedent was could merely apply a previously established principle to the issue at hand. Another advantage, which has already been mentioned, is the consistency between cases. This strengthens the system and is also likely to reduce crime since those who are aware of the conseq uences will be less likely to commit a criminal offence.[13] Greater fairness is also provided as cases with similar facts will be treated the same. This is of course unless there is some further fact which is material to the decision as the Court will then be capable of reaching a different conclusion.[14] The existence of a judicial precedent may also prevent a Court from making a mistake as guidance will be provided as to how a case ought to be dealt with. Therefore, a judge will be less likely to make a mistake when reaching a conclusion and a decision will be deemed to be a lot stronger. It will make it difficult for a Court’s decision to be contested as there will be case law in place that will back up the Courts decision as shown in Kadhim v Brent London Borough Council.[15] This is important in preserving the integrity of the justice system and maintaining Judges confidence.[16] Injustice will also be prevented as it would certainly be unjust for different outcomes to be reached in two cases with similar facts. This would be unfair and society would most likely lose confidence in the justice system. Judicial precedent also prevents judges from producing prejudicial decisions since a judge will often be bound to follow a previous decision even if he disagrees with it.[17] This is important in ensuring that the rulings of judges remain as consistent as is reasonably possible so as to prevent confusion and unfairness. Another advantage that exists is the ability to develop the law even further. Making law in decided case provides an opportunity for growth and legal development and ensures that the law is able to keep abreast with the continuous advances in society.[18] Courts are able to lay down legal rules and principles a lot quicker than Parliament and because there are constant societal and technological advances, it is necessary that new legal rules and principles can be established more conveniently. The doctrine of judicial precedent can also be flexible in that judges are able to make decisions on a case by case basis according to the individual facts and circumstances.[19] However, this flexibility is restricted by the judges obligations to follow previously decided cases. Because there is a centralised legal system, it is much easier for judges to follow.[20] This is especially so in the UK were there are only a small number of Courts. Arguably, there are many advantages to the doctrine of judicial precedent, yet is unclear whether these outweigh the disadvantages which will be discussed in the next section. Disadvantages Whilst there are many advantages to having a doctrine of judicial precedent in the, it often said that the doctrine introduces unnecessary restrictions into the law.[21] Because of the fast pace at which society advances, it is necessary for the law to keep abreast with any changes that are made. However, the existence of judicial precedent often prevents judges from developing legal doctrine in accordance with societal developments.[22] This demonstrates how the judicial system is somewhat outmoded as reliance upon date case law decisions will be made. This may not be appropriate in modern society and it seems as though further advancements may need to be made. This has a negative impact upon the role of judicial precedent and highlights the complexity of the system. This is because a certain area of the law may have developed over time, yet judicial decisions may not reflect the changes that have been made. Another disadvantage is that the volume of cases may result in too many precedents, causing confusion.[23] Because there are significant amount of case law decisions, it can be extremely difficult and time consuming to understand the law. It has also been put forward that judges may look for reasons not to follow a decision and therefore produce an illogical decision.[24] This can have dangerous consequences and is not what the doctrine intended. Judicial precedent may also cause injustice as the overruling of an earlier case may spark outrage if individuals have conducted their affairs in accordance with a decision.[25] This weakens the importance of the judicial precedent doctrine and seems to counteract its original objectives. Since the Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted, the doctrine of judicial precedent has in fact been weakened. This is because legal rules and principles must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the rights that are contained under the European Convention of Human Rights 1951. Any legal rules or principles that appear to conflict with such rights must therefore be amended to ensure adequate protections are being provided to individual human rights.[26] This has a significant impact upon the judicial precedent doctrine since lower courts may be able to overturn previous decisions if it can be shown that they are incompatible with the rights under Convention. As noted by Betten; â€Å"when confronted with the Convention, British judges will in many respects have to put themselves into a different interpretative frame of mind.†[27] This was recently exemplified by the case of Culnane v Morris & Anor[28] when Eady J had to consider the effect section 10 of the Def amation Act 1952 had upon the rights contained under the Convention. Under the judicial precedent doctrine the Court would have been required to follow the decision in Plummer v Charman.[29] However, because the decision in Plummer was incompatible with the Convention rights, Eady J was capable of side-stepping the decision. Therefore, it could be said that judicial precedent is not effective in cases concerning human rights. Subsequent to the enactment of the HRA, it therefore seems as though the judicial precedent doctrine is largely being undermined since the judiciary are no longer required to follow previous decisions if they are incompatible with the Convention. It could be said that the doctrine is no longer important since the Court in Miller v Bull[30] departed from the decision in Ahmed v Kennedy[31] regardless of the fact that the Ahmed decision was made subsequent to the HRA’s enactment. In has been suggested in view of these cases that a â€Å"gaping hole in the precedent wall†[32] exists as â€Å"new human rights points can be taken at whatever level they first arise, notwithstanding previous cases which would otherwise be binding.†[33] Consequently, it evident that judicial precedent will not always be followed if it can be shown a decision is incompatible with Convention rights. This has also been recognised by Zander who put forward that; â€Å"under the Human Rights Act 1998, the operation if the doctrine of precedent may be set aside.†[34] Therefore, Courts may be free not to follow the decisions of higher courts. This will only be applicable in cases concerning human rights and so the judicial precedent doctrine will still be upheld in the majority of instances. Furthermore, once a human rights issue has been recognised subsequent Courts will then be required to follow the position that has been taken. This re-instates the judicial precedent doctrine further and maintains consistency in the judicial system.[35] As identified by Fafinski and Finch; â€Å"section 2 of the HRA requires future courts to take into account any previous decisions of the ECHR.†[36] These decisions will not, however, be formally binding, though they will be highly persuasive. In effect, any human rights issues that have been dealt with will be subject to the precedent doctrine. In general, Courts will be required to follow any the jurisprudence of the ECHR, provides that it is clear and consistent yet â€Å"it should never be suggested that a court is bound by Strasbourg decisions.†[37] It could be said that the precedent doctrine was essentially put on hold when the HRA was enacted to enable the Courts to deal with human rights issues effectively. Howe ver, the doctrine is now being restored as human rights decisions are being made post HRA. Arguably, whilst the HRA had a significant impact upon the judicial understanding of judicial precedent the underlying features of the doctrine remain unchanged and it is only a matter of time before all human rights issues have been dealt with by the Courts and the doctrine is fully restored. Conclusion The doctrine of judicial precedent primarily assists Courts when making decisions via previously decided case law. This certifies that certainty and consistency is being provided within the judicial system and enables a speedier judicial process to be effectuated. Greater fairness also exists as cases with similar facts will be treated the same, which prevents any injustice from occurring. Legal rules and principles can also be developed under this process and a more flexible judicial system is established. On the other hand, there are many inherent drawbacks that exist under the doctrine, such as the unnecessary restrictions that are placed upon judges to follow previous decisions. This could prevent the law from keeping up-to-date with advances in society as many of the principles may be somewhat outmoded. Furthermore, it may also be time-consuming and difficult to understand the law as a result of the amount of cases that exist. Since the HRA was enacted, the doctrine of judicial precedent also appears to have been weakened, yet as new case law decisions are established, the doctrine will in fact be restored. This is essential given the importance of judicial precedence and although there are many disadvantages, these appear to be outweighed by the advantages. Bibliography Books C Duxbury. The Nature and Authority of Precedent, (Cambridge University Press, 2008). D Gray. Public Services, (Heinemann: London, 2004). E Reichert. Challenges in Human Rights, (Columbia University Press: London, 2007). J Ashcroft and J Ashcroft. Cengage Advantage Books: Law for Business, (Cengage Learning: United States, 2010). J Martin. Key Facts English Legal System, (Routledge: London, 2014) J O’Riordan. AS Law for AQA, (Heinemann: Oxford, 2002). L Betten. The Human Rights Act 1998: What it Means: The Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the Legal Order of the UK, (Martinus Nijoff Publishers, 1999). M Charman. B Vanstone and L Sherratt. AS Law, (Routledge: Oxon, 2012). M Zander. The Law-Making Process, (6th edn, Cambridge University Press, 2004). P Plowden and K Kerrigan. Advocay and Human Rights: Using the Convention in Courts and Tribunals, (Routledge, 2002). S Fafinksi and E Finch. English Legal System, (2nd edn, Pearson Education, 2009). Oxford. Oxford Dictionary of Law, (6th edn OUP Oxford, 2006). Journals D Lock. ‘Public/Human Rights: Unconventional?’ (2009) 159 New Law Journal 1727, Issue 7397. Halsbury’s Laws of England., ‘Paragraph 21 Power to Determine Ambit of Own Authority’ Lexis Nexis. Halsbury’s Laws of England. Paragraph 1460, Human Rights. Lexis Nexis. J T Loughran. ‘Some Reflections on the Role of Judicial Precedent’ Fordham Law Review, Volume 22, Issue 1, 274-320. Sixth Form Law. ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent’ [Accessed 27 April, 2014]. Cases Ahmed v Kennedy [2002] EWHC Civ 1793 Culnane v Morris & Anor [2006] EWHC 2438 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd and London Dockland Development Corporation [1997] UKHL 14 Kadhim v Brent London Borough Council Miller v Bull [2009] EWHC 2640 (QB) Plummer v Charman [1962] 1 WLR 1469 Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718 CA

Explore Shakespeare’s Use of Soliloquy in ‘Othello’ Essay

Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatists used his theatrical convention to evoke the inwardness of their characters, a soliloquy provides the audience with accurate access to the character’s innermost thoughts and we learn more about a character than could ever be gathered from the action of the play alone. In ‘Othello’, both the hero and the villain speak in soliloquy. Iago, the villain, speaks his soliloquies first (Othello’s occur towards the end of the play), drawing the audience in as he outlines his intentions and ideas. The soliloquies give us access to the feelings and motivations of both hero and villain, which heightens the intensity of the drama. They are also a source of a great deal of dramatic irony which increases the dramatic tension for the audience. In ‘Othello’, the use of soliloquies is crucial as the play is based on deceit and they allow us to know the motive of characters, especially Iago, and we see the characters in their tr ue light as they use language and images which are typical of them. Iago illustrates the issue of deception through his soliloquies; they are useful as they show Iago’s true feelings. Iago’s character is presented to us through his soliloquies, illustrating motives which he uses to justify his actions, making the soliloquies instruments to show the audience what makes Iago tick. Language is the source of Iago’s power and his soliloquies reinforce this. Iago’s soliloquy in Act1 Sc.3 is where he starts to formulate his plan to get back at Othello. When he is alone, he reveals his true motives. First he mocks Roderigo – â€Å"Thus do I ever make my fool my purse:† making the audience aware of the fact that he is only using Roderigo. He is toying with Roderigo for ‘my own sport and profit’. He suspects Othello of cuckolding him and he wants revenge. Iago knows that Othello trusts him well, and the fact that he says that he will use this against him shows just how devious Iago is – † He holds me well: The better shall my purpose work on him.† Othello holds Iago in very high regard and it is Iago’s use of this that leads Othello to murder his wife. Iago is determined to drive out Cassio and  take his place, he considers how he could do this and decides to use Othello’s trusting nature to try to persuade him that Cassio is too friendly with Desdemona. Iago’s soliloquy suggest that the manipulation of Roderigo and Othello in the first act is leading up to a more serious deception as his web will ensnare Desdemona and Cassio too. The soliloquy shows his ability to improvise quickly, at the start, he is musing over a possible plan, and a few lines later he has the outline of a subtle plan which will bring about his revenge. It is appropriate that Iago uses words which associate him with a devilish image – â€Å"Hell and Night Must bring this monstrous birth to the world’s light.† Without the soliloquy, the audience would not know of Iago’s plan, or the extent to which he is capable of manipulating people. The soliloquy clearly shows Iago’s evil nature and his use of devilish imagery reinforces this. Another of Iago’s soliloquies in Act2 Sc.3 is also useful in showing us Shakespeare’s use of soliloquies. At the beginning of the speech, Iago reflects on how no one can accuse him of being the villain when he offers such good, helpful advice. We can see that he manipulates a lot of the characters and knows that he is acting. We see Iago’s true maliciousness in this speech as he intends to use Desdemona’s good nature to â€Å"enmesh them all†; he wants to destroy an innocent with whom he has no quarrel so that he can carry out his revenge. The speech shows Iago’s delight in his own cunning and acting abilities, revelling in the fact that he has the power to turn Desdemona’s â€Å"virtue into pitch†. As is typical throughout the play, Iago shows that he has nothing but contempt for honesty and innocence and he looks forward to corrupting them, associating honesty with foolishness. Iago’s loyalty is only to himself, and he even plans to use his wife in his scheme. The imagery Iago uses is again crude and materialistic, he will persuade Othello that Desdemona pleads for Cassio for her â€Å"body’s lust†, and without her knowing it, her conviction in Cassio and her pleas for him to be forgiven by Othello only serve to â€Å"undo her credit with the Moor†. Iago’s  language in his soliloquies emphasises his deception, as with Othello and Cassio, he is generally polite and guarded. The soliloquy serves to provide the audience with another view into his evil mind that he cannot express in dialogue with other characters as he is trying to manipulate them and needs them to think of him as honest and trustworthy. Othello’s language is a contrast to Iago’s, he is seen as the most romantic of Shakespeare’s heroes, his speeches often emphasise this difference as he uses poetic lines and images. However, this language sees a significant change as Iago poisons Othello’s mind, and his speeches soon take on similar traits of Iago, using devilish language and hellish imagery. Although Othello’s soliloquy in Act5 Sc.1 shows a change from the chaotic mind he showed in Scene 4; his anger has passed to an infinite sorrow, and he speaks more like the Othello we saw at the beginning of the play. Othello’s speech reveals a number of things about Othello that we would not otherwise know. Othello sees himself as acting as a martyr and for justice as he suggests that his purpose is to prevent Desdemona from committing further sins of adultery. His repetition of â€Å"It is the cause†, plus the fact that he will not say what the cause actually is, implies that Ot hello finds it hard to take Desdemona’s life and be separated from her. Othello does not want to spill Desdemona’s blood; some critics suggest that this is because he wants to avoid leaving any marks of murder so he can feel blameless. Other critics see it as Othello’s desire to leave Desdemona looking perfect – â€Å"Yet I’ll not shed her blood, Nor scar that whiter skin of hers than snow, And smooth as monumental alabaster:† It is as if Othello wants to see Desdemona as she does usually, with no marks of murder on here. Throughout the rest of the speech, Othello uses complex imagery; he speaks of a rose being plucked and then withering, he then says – â€Å"Be thus when thou art dead and I will kill thee, And love thee after.† This suggests determination, but also pain and reluctance, Othello has to use symbols, Desdemona as a rose, by doing this, he avoids confronting the deed directly and distances himself from Desdemona as a person so that be might be more able to carry out the murder. The opposition (the play is heavily based on opposites and opposition) in Othello is clearly shown in his lines about weeping and sorrow – â€Å"But they are cruel tears: this sorrow’s heavenly – It strikes where it doth love.† Othello implies that sorrow is â€Å"heavenly†, which is the opposite to what sorrow should be, this emphasises that Othello is acting out of love, as a martyr of love. Without the soliloquy, the audience might not have been able to know what Othello was thinking as he justifies his action in killing Desdemona. It portrays Othello as his usual calm self while he does not speak passionately and seems in control of what he is saying, the images and language he uses are opposed and shows that he is emotionally torn. From this, we can see that Shakespeare uses soliloquies to put forward what the dialogue between characters cannot; we see the characters true emotions and motives when they speak in soliloquy and this is implied when they use language and imagery which is typical to them. Iago’s soliloquies show his true nature, he highlights what his scheming has accomplished and indicates his future plans and actions. The audience has a chance to view his characters and what he thinks of the other players. Othello’s soliloquies come later on in the play when we can see the changes in Othello as he is poisoned by Iago. They serve to portray Othello’s nature to us and emphasise the beauty of his language.