有关资本论的论文题目

Capital Punishment Many distinctive doctrines in criminal law originated in efforts to restrict the number of capital crimes and executions. For instance, in the late 18th century, when all murder in the United States was punishable by death, Pennsylvania pioneered in dividing murder into two categories. The state enacted laws that authorized punishment of first-degree murder by death, while second-degree murder was punishable by imprisonment only. Elsewhere, penal codes uniformly required death for certain serious crimes. In these jurisdictions, discretionary powers to commute death sentences gradually expanded. (A commutation substitutes a lesser penalty for a more severe one—for example, replacing execution with a life sentence.) Today in many nations, including Turkey and Japan, the death penalty remains legal but the number of executions has declined over time. Although many jurisdictions limited imposition of the death penalty, no government had formally abolished capital punishment until Michigan did so in 1846. Within 20 years Venezuela (1863) and Portugal (1867) had formally eliminated the practice as well. By the beginning of the 20th century the death sentence had been abolished in a handful of nations, such as Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Norway, and The Netherlands. Although not formally eliminated, it had fallen into disuse in many others, including Brazil, Cape Verde, Iceland, Monaco, and Panama. The defeat of the Axis powers provided a foundation for the elimination of the death penalty in Western Europe. Some of the nations involved in the war saw abolition of capital punishment as a way to disassociate themselves from the atrocities that had taken place. Italy formally abolished the death penalty in 1947 and the Federal Republic of Germany did so in 1949. The British government instituted a Royal Commission to study capital punishment in 1950 and abolished the death penalty in 1965. (Northern Ireland did not abolish capital punishment until 1973.) By the early 1980s every major country in Europe had stopped executing criminals. Coincident with this trend in Western Europe, many countries belonging to the Commonwealth of Nations, an association of countries formerly affiliated with the British Empire, eliminated capital punishment. For instance, Canada conducted its last execution in 1962 and abolished the death penalty in 1976. New Zealand held its last execution in 1957 and Australia stopped executing criminals ten years later. A similar burst of abolitionist activity coincided with the breakup of the Soviet Union. East Germany, the Czech Republic, and Romania all outlawed capital punishment between 1987 and 1990. Throughout the former Communist countries, abolition of the death penalty was a political act far removed from the usual domain of criminal justice policy-making. Eliminating the death penalty was one of many ways the citizens of these countries rejected unlimited state power over individual life. For example, in Romania the overthrow of dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was followed by his execution and that of members of his family. Shortly thereafter, the new government abolished capital punishment, which was associated with Ceausescu’s brutal, tyrannical rule. Critics of capital punishment contend that it is brutal and degrading, while supporters consider it a necessary form of retribution (revenge) for terrible crimes. Those who advocate the death penalty assert that it is a uniquely effective punishment that deters crime. However, advocates and opponents of the death penalty dispute the proper interpretation of statistical analyses of its deterrent effect. Opponents of capital punishment see the death penalty as a human rights issue involving the proper limits of governmental power. In contrast, those who want governments to continue to execute tend to regard capital punishment as an issue of criminal justice policy. Because of these alternative viewpoints, there is a profound difference of opinion not only about what is the right answer on capital punishment, but about what type of question is being asked when the death penalty becomes a public issue. Execution by Guillotine During the French Revolution (1789-1799), King Louis XVI of France was tried as a traitor and condemned to death. His execution by guillotine, which took place in a crowded plaza in Paris, was a public spectacle. Early opponents of the death penalty opposed such brutal methods of criminal Early opponents of capital punishment objected to its brutality. Executions were public spectacles involving cruel methods. In addition, capital punishment was not reserved solely for the most serious crimes. Death was the penalty for a variety of minor offenses. The allegations of brutality inspired two different responses by those who supported executions. First, advocates contended that capital punishment was necessary for the safety of other citizens and therefore not gratuitous. Second, death penalty supporters sought to remove some of the most visibly gruesome aspects of execution. Executions that had been open to the public were relocated behind closed doors. Later, governments replaced traditional methods of causing death—such as hanging—with what were regarded as more modern methods, such as electrocution and poison gas. Lethal injection is now the preferred method of execution in the majority of . states. The search for less brutal means of inflicting death continues to recent times. In 1977 Oklahoma became the first . state to authorize execution by lethal injection—the administration of fatal amounts of fast-acting drugs and chemicals. Lethal injection is now the preferred method of execution in the majority of . states. However, modern opponents of capital punishment contend that sterilized and depersonalized methods of execution do not eliminate the brutality of the penalty. In the debate about execution and human dignity, supporters and opponents of the death penalty have found very little common ground. Opponents of capital punishment assert that it is degrading to the humanity of the person punished. Since the 18th century, those who wish to abolish the death penalty have stressed the significance of requiring governments to recognize the importance of each individual. However, supporters of capital punishment see nothing wrong with governments deliberately killing terrible people who commit terrible crimes. Therefore, they see no need to limit governmental power in this area. Early opponents of capital punishment also argued that inflicting death was not necessary to control crime and properly punish wrongdoers. Instead, alternative punishment—such as imprisonment—could effectively isolate criminals from the community, deter other potential offenders from committing offenses, and express the community's condemnation of those who break its laws. In his Essay on Crimes and Punishments, Beccaria asserted that the certainty of punishment, rather than its severity, was a more effective deterrent. Supporters of capital punishment countered that the ultimate penalty of death was necessary for the punishment of terrible crimes because it provided the most complete retribution and condemnation. Furthermore, they argued that the threat of execution was a unique deterrent. Death penalty supporters contended that capital punishment self-evidently prevents more crime because death is so much more feared than mere restrictions on one’s liberty. Supporters and opponents of capital punishment still debate its effectiveness. Social scientists have collected statistical data on trends in homicide before and after jurisdictions have abolished capital punishment. They have also compared homicide rates in places with and without the death penalty. The great majority of these statistical comparisons indicate that the presence or absence of capital punishment or executions does not visibly influence the rate of homicide. Opponents of capital punishment maintain that these studies refute the argument that the death penalty deters crime. Many capital punishment opponents consider the deterrence argument fully negated and no longer part of the debate. However, supporters of the death penalty dispute that interpretation of the statistical analyses of deterrent effect. Capital punishment advocates note that because the death penalty is reserved for the most aggravated murders, the deterrent effect of capital punishment on such crimes may not be apparent in data on homicide rates in general. Supporters also urge that the conflicting results of various studies indicate that the deterrent effect of the death penalty cannot not be proven or disproven with any certainty. They maintain that in the absence of conclusive proof that the threat of execution might not save some people from being killed, capital punishment should be retained. A unique facet of the modern debate about capital punishment is the characterization of the death penalty as a human rights issue, rather than a debate about the proper punishment of criminals. Modern opposition to the death penalty is seen as a reaction to the political history of the 20th century, most notably the Holocaust—the systematic mass killing of Jews and others during World War II (1939-1945). All the major nations in Western Europe utilized capital punishment prior to World War II. After the defeat of the National Socialist (Nazi) and Fascist governments of Germany and Italy, those two nations became the first major powers in Europe to abolish capital punishment. The postwar movement to end capital punishment, beginning in Italy and Germany and then spreading, represented a reaction to totalitarian forms of government that systematically violated the rights of the individual. The human rights focus on the death penalty has continued, especially in settings of dramatic political change. When people view capital punishment as a human rights issue, countries that are becoming more democratic have been eager to abolish the death penalty, which they associate with the former regime and its abuses of power. For example, a number of former Communist nations abolished capital punishment shortly after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991. Similarly, the multiracial government of South Africa formed in 1994 quickly outlawed a death penalty many associated with apartheid, the official policy of racial segregation that had been in place since the late 1940s. Bibliography: Megivern, James J. The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. New York: Paulist Press, 1997. Rourke, Thomas R. “The Death Penalty in Light of the Ontology of the Person: The Significance of Evangelium Vitae.” Communio: International Catholic Review 25 (Fall, 1998), 397-413 Simson, Gary J. and Stephen P. Garvey, "Knockin' on Heaven's Door: Rethinking the Role of Religion in Death Penalty Cases," 86 Cornell Law Review 1090 (2001). Yoder, John Howard The Christian and Capital Punishment. Newton, KS., Faith and Life Press, 1961. Böckle, Franz and Jacques Pohier. eds. The Death Penalty and Torture. New York: Seabury Press, 1979. “Outrageous Atrocity or Moral Imperative?: The Ethics of Capital Punishment” in Studies in Christian Ethics (1993). Strark, J., Abnormal Psychology, Stanton Brothers, New York, 1978 2IntroductionNowadays, in most of the Western world, capital punishment is considered an unacceptable, barbaric sentence that cannot be morally or philosophically justified. In the UK, it has been abolished since 1969, while Protocol six of the European Convention on Human Rights obliged the forty six member states of the Council of Europe to scribe off the death sentence from their penal codes. However, a number of US states retain the sentence with few politicians and theorists claiming that it has a strong deterrent effect. The purpose of this essay is to critically reflect upon this capital punishment a worthwhile deterrent?The punishment theory of deterrence – which belongs to the utilitarian philosophy – is composed of two elements. The first is called specific/individual deterrence and is directed towards convicted offenders. In broad terms it aims to discourage them for their transgressions and thereby convincing them that crime does not pay. The second is called general deterrence and is directed towards potential offenders. It seeks to persuade them by the threat of anticipated punishment from engaging in unlawful conduct by illustrating the unsavoury consequences of , by definition, capital punishment cannot fulfil the first element of deterrence since after its passing, the convicted offender dies. As for the second element of passing a lesson to the rest of the society, the views are mixed; although there is evidence to suggest that the impact of capital sentence is not as great as it would justify it. For example, according to Katz et al, the so far studies on capital punishment produce erratic and contradictory results, while most of them find that there is no deterrent effect. In fact, Shepherd’s 2004 study showed that executions are as likely to increase homicides in states following execution as there are states where there seems to be a addition, a number of research experts have heavily criticised the so far positive studies on capital punishment for being methodologically unviable. For instance, Maltz recent evaluation showed that most of US studies ignored large amounts of missing data, relying only on two sources: the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the US Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Even more importantly, studies that directly examine the reactions of individuals to punishment threats constituently show the limits of the assumptions of rationality that underlie deterrence. In fact, according to the Annual Statistical Report of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, most offenders who are convicted to a capital sentence have cognitive impairments. This makes it even more unlikely that they are actually aware of the other hand, states without capital punishment such as New York enjoy declining homicide rates. The Uniform Crime Reports showed that over the last decade there was a decrease in homicide rates. Similarly, Dugan et al showed that since the early 1970s intimate or domestic homicides have been declining at a steady pace regardless of fluctuations in the number of executions. Finally, according to the forthcoming study by Professor Berk, nearly all of the presumed deterrent effects of capital punishment are confined in one state – Texas – and only for a handful of years when there were more than 5 executions. Overall, the study proved that eliminating Texas eliminates any hint of deterrence from the relationship between execution and beyond the statisticsHowever, it is not just the negative statistics that make capital punishment increasingly unfamiliar. Carter showed that offenders who are convicted to capital punishment usually come from poor backgrounds introducing an element of class discrimination in the sentencing system. Similarly, Keil and Vito’s study reported that blacks who kill whites seem to have the greater odds of receiving the death penalty than whites who kill blacks”. To conclude, the last two year research data show that capital punishment has hardly any deterrence effect, while a number of other side issues such as discrimination and selectivity reinforce the argument against its use.

董晓(1993-)，女，汉族，四川绵阳人，武汉大学哲学学院，本科，研究方向：哲学、 市场营销 。 资本论学术论文篇二 《资本论》综述 摘 要：对于《资本论》的研究对象，马克思在第一卷第一版序言中说“我要在本书研究的，是资本主义生产方式以及和它相适应的生产关系和交换关系”。对于这里所说的“生产方式”有着不同的解释，所以对《资本论》的研究对象也就有不同的认识。 马克思在《资本论》中运用的方法，概括的说，就是唯物辩证法。全书的体系和结构，是一个科学的严密的整体。恩格斯说过：“马克思的整个世界不是教义，而是方法。”马克思自己也说过：《资本论》是“把辩证方法应用于政治经济学的第一次尝试”。 资本论三卷的内容分别可以概括为资本的生产过程、资本的流通过程、资本和利润。 关键词：资本论;劳动;价值;利润 一、《资本论》第一卷 列宁说过：“研究这个历史上一定社会的生产关系的发生、发展和衰落，就是马克思的经济学说的内容”。马克思对整个《资本论》第一卷做了个 总结 ，这个总结的内容是“由资本主义生产方式生出的资本主义占有方式，资本主义私有制，是个人的以本人劳动为基础的私有制的第一个否定。但资本主义生产又以一种自然历史过程的必然性，对本身加以否定。这是否定之否定。”代替资本主义所有制的是集体所有制。生产资料重新同生产者结合起来，但已不是在前资本主义的基础上，而是“在资本主义时代已有的成就―自由劳动者的协作，土地与由他们生产资料的共有制―的基础上”。 马克思在《资本论》中是这样研究经济现象的，即在它们的互相联系和运动中，也就是在矛盾的连续产生及其同时的解决中研究它们。商品从一开始就作为“资产阶级社会经济细胞的形式”来考察的，也就是说，不是孤立地、而是作为整体的出发点来考察的;并且是研究商品的矛盾，使用价值和价值之间的矛盾，价值在交换中从内部矛盾转化为外部矛盾;研究相对价值形式和等价形式之间的矛盾。这种矛盾在货币中寻求解决，即寻求自己运动的形式。但是在这里商品和货币都不是作为孤立的物，而是作为价值表现的两极出现的。 二、第二卷 资本论第二卷要主要讲流通领域，但是应该把单纯流通和资本主义流通或资本流通过程分开。商品流通在资本主义以前的时代就已经存在了，资本主义生产方式是在商品流通已经达到相当水平的基础上产生的。马克思说：“商品流通是资本的出发点。商品生产和发达的商品流通―商业―是资本产生的历史前提。”但是资本主义生产在发展流通时改造了流通，使单纯流通成为资本主义流通。流通的不是商品，而是商品资本;一种特殊商品即劳动力也加入了流通了。使劳动力变为商品的生产资料同生产者的分离，是资本主义生产的前提和出发点，是所谓原始积累，而资本主义生产经常再生产这种分离。资本主义生产不仅再生产资本和资本家，而且再生产无产阶级，即再生产资本主义关系;因而，资本主义生产再生产资本主义流通的客体，再生产资本主义市场。资本生产过程不仅以价值，而且以价值的运动、价值形式的交替，即价值从商品形式变为货币形式以及相反的更替为前提的。因此在分析作为《资本论》第一卷研究对象的资本生产过程以前，必须先分析商品流通或单纯流通。在第二卷研究的已经不是单纯流通，而是“资本的流通过程”。后者的分析只能在资本生产过程分析以后做;因为只有在那以后才能弄清资本的实质，弄清资本的生产和再生产，才能提出资本流通问题，即提出“资本在反复循环中时而采取时而脱离的不同形式”更替的问题。 三、第三卷 在资本论的第三卷中开始提出并解决一些新的问题，这卷最重要的是提出了马克思关于转化形式的学说，从作为转化形式的生产费用和利润的分析开始，马克思从这些最一般的生产价格也是最抽象的转化形式“上升”到比较个别和具体的转化形式，即到平均利润和生产价格、商业利润、平均利润的分解为企业利润和利息，再到额外利润的转化为地租。马克思就利润、利润率和平均利润研究了剩余价值和剩余价值率，但只是从他们在市场表面上采取的那些转化形式来加以研究的。 在对第三卷的研究中，马克思采用了从抽象到具体的方法。我们要按其具体情况来研究资本主义生产方式，而不能只局限于分析生产过程和流通过程，还要研究一种“实际运动”，这种运动中“资本以具体的形式彼此互相对立”，马克思不是单独地研究内容或者实质才去研究它们的表现形式。没有形式也就没有内容，没有内容也就没有形式。只是需要把比较具体的形式跟不具体的形式开来。利润就是比剩余价值更具体的形式，实质上都是资本主义式占有剩余劳动的表现。 资本主义生产方式所特有的不是一般的阶级关系，不是一般的一个阶级剥削另一个阶级，而是具有资本主义外壳的阶级关系。因此，只要这种外壳还未来具有他的全部多样性和具体性，那么，阶级关系也就还具有它的整个现实性。马克思在《资本论》第一卷中开始阶级关系的研究，而在第三卷中完成了这个研究。 四、总结 马克思的经济学理论不限于他的《资本论》，而是一个几乎囊括了经济学的所有问题和方面的、无比宏大的理论体系。其中包括了他的“竞争”、“信用”、“股份资本”、“地产”、“雇佣劳动”、“国家”、“对外贸易”以及“世界市场和危机”等学说。既包括了其“微观部分”，又包括了其“宏观部分”;既包括了对一国范围内的经济关系的分析，也包括了对于国际经济关系的分析。 马克思对其他经济学家批判的性质是这样的：当他为了系统发挥和系统地说明自己某种理论而论述到资产阶级经济学家的观点时，他往往很简略地或者着重指出他们对这种理论的贡献，或者着重指出他们在使马克思感觉兴趣的现象方面所产生的错误认识。 (作者单位：河南大学经济学院) 参考文献： [1] 恩格斯：《反杜林论》，人民出版社1956年版，123页 [2] 马克思：《资本论》，第一卷.第149页 [3] 马克思：《资本论》，第二卷，第6页资本论学术论文相关 文章 ： 1. 关于资本论的学术论文 2. 大学马克思学术论文资本论 3. 大学马克思学术论文 4. 金融类学术论文 5. 关于心理学学术论文结构

题名又称题目或标题。题名是以最恰当、最简明的词语反映论文中最重要的特定内容的逻辑组合。论文题目是一篇论文给出的涉及论文范围与水平的第一个重要信息，也是必须考虑到有助于选定关键词不达意和编制题录、索引等二次文献可以提供检索的特定实用信息。论文题目十分重要，必须用心斟酌选定。有人描述其重要性，用了下面的一句话：“论文题目是文章的一半”。对论文题目的要求是：准确得体：简短精炼：外延和内涵恰如其分：醒目。(二)作者姓名和单位(Authoranddepartment）这一项属于论文署名问题。署名一是为了表明文责自负，二是记录作用的劳动成果，三是便于读者与作者的联系及文献检索(作者索引)。大致分为二种情形，即：单个作者论文和多作者论文。后者按署名顺序列为第一作者、第二作者……。重要的是坚持实事求是的态度，对研究工作与论文撰写实际贡献最大的列为第一作者，贡献次之的，列为第二作者，余类推。注明作者所在单位同样是为了便于读者与作者的联系。(三)摘要(Abstract）论文一般应有摘要，有些为了国际交流，还有外文(多用英文)摘要。它是论文内容不加注释和评论的简短陈述。其他用是不阅读论文全文即能获得必要的信息。摘要应包含以下内容：①从事这一研究的目的和重要性;②研究的主要内容，指明完成了哪些工作;③获得的基本结论和研究成果，突出论文的新见解;④结论或结果的意义。(四)关键词(Keywords）关键词属于主题词中的一类。主题词除关键词外，还包含有单元词、标题词的叙词。主题词是用来描述文献资料主题和给出检索文献资料的一种新型的情报检索语言词汇，正是由于它的出现和发展，才使得情报检索计算机化(计算机检索)成为可能。主题词是指以概念的特性关系来区分事物，用自然语言来表达，并且具有组配功能，用以准确显示词与词之间的语义概念关系的动态性的词或词组。