Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Texas State Tort Claims Act Essay Example for Free
Texas State Tort Claims Act Essay This paper seeks to analyze and discuss State of Texas tort claim act and how it applies to local justice and security agencies. Local justice may be deemed to include any case that may be brought against the State of Texas, its agencies and its officials in their official capacities that could make them liable in the performance of their functions. On the other hand the security agencies may be treated as any other ordinary claimant for damages under the Tort Act since the law does specifically provide special exemption as to their treatment.  The waiver in the law talks about the State of Texas its agencies and its officials in their official capacities and providing for how the state could be liable to any claimant there are no special consideration as far as security agencies are concerned.  The rest of the paper will discuss more in detail about the scope and limitations of the Act.       As a general rule, a state is immune from suit hence the so called sovereign immunity, unless there is waiver. The Texas Tort Claims Act is therefore basically a passed legislative act as a waiver of the State of Texas, its agencies and its officials in their official capacities from lawsuits for damages. They can now be sued in court and these entities mentioned may now be made liable provided the conditions before they could be liable as provided in the act are complied with. There are also exceptions to the waiver as provided in court decisions (Driskill v. State, 787 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Tex. 1990)).      What is the Texas Tort Claims Act in greater detail?    The Texas Tort Claims Act comprises a set of statutes for determining the liability of governmental entity for tortious conduct under law of the State of Texas. It may be noted that sovereign immunity is about non-suability of as a state under all conditions since the state may not be burdened with defending itself every time and then. However for consideration of either justice or equity, the state can make a waiver through legislation. It is therefore logical to agree that prior to the adoption of the Texas Tort Claims Act, individuals and entities in Texas including security agencies could are banned or prohibited from recovering damages from state or local governmental units for injuries as a result of negligent actions of a government employee or officer in the performance of a governmental function.        The state is justified in giving governmental units the sovereign immunity it deserves for the protection of the state from governmental time and resources which could be subjected to unnecessary diminishment from private litigation and persuade people and entities to bring many actions against public officials to the detriment of their functioning effectively. The rule is also believed to be a protection of the government from sham or false suits that otherwise may possibly go to the pockets of corrupts public officials or it could further drain government resources that are better used to promote public service.      The Texas Legislature however in the exercise of its plenary law-making function evaluated the situation and ended up enacting the Texas Tort Claims Act in 1969. The Tort Act specifically waived only sovereign immunity for a governmental entity while engaged in a governmental function.           Under the new law, a governmental unit in the state of Texas is now made liable for:  (1) property damage, personal injury, and death proximately caused by the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of an employee acting within his scope of employment. This provision is however subject to further conditions.      One condition is that the State of Texas in only liable if the property damage, personal injury, or death arises from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or motor-driven equipment. As for the personal liability to the person killed it would be the negligent employee who would be personally liable to the claimant according to Texas law.           The said part of the Tort Act should be further qualified by Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code  § 101.021 which provided that personal injury and death so caused by a condition or use of tangible personal or real property if the governmental unit would, were it a private person, be liable to the claimant according to Texas law.        Are there liability limits for governmental units under the Tort Act?  The answer to the question is in the affirmative since it is provided that that liability of a municipality under the Act is limited to maximum amount of $250,000 for each person in the form money damages in case the victim is more than one but the amount should not exceed $500,000 for each single occurrence in the case of bodily injury or death. As for single occurrence for injury to or destruction of property, the amount of damage that State of Texas could be liable is $100,000 for each (Texas Tort Claims Act, 1969).       Does the Act amend liabilities for the performance of proprietary functions? The answer to the question is in the negative as the Tort Act does not limit the liability of a city or agency of Texas for damages that result from the city or agency’s performance of proprietary functions. Since the new law in made to address performance of official governmental functions, it may be safe to state that prior to the passage of the Act, a city or agency in Texas could already be held liable for the negligent performance of these proprietary functions.         As distinguished from governmental functions, Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code  § 101.0215 (b) provides that proprietary functions are those functions that a municipality involve the exercise of discretion which is performed in the interest of the inhabitants of the municipality.        Under Texas law, 36 thirty six activities that are considered governmental functions, hence activities not mentioned in the law under Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code  § 101.0215 should be considered proprietary functions and therefore not covered by the Tort Act of 1969. In other words, there is no need for waiver for liability under proprietary acts since with or without the tort law the State of Texas could made liable.         To understand these proprietary acts, there is need to enumerate some and these include the operation of amusements that are owned and operated by the municipality and the operation and maintenance of a public utility.          For purposes of classifying whether an act is proprietary or not, the same may be considered propriety absent any evidence that it is part of the 36 enumerated governmental functions which are presumed exclusive. This carries a necessary implication for the purposes of implementing the Tort Act, any activity that the state or its agencies engages in ,when not part of the listed of governmental function, must be deemed proprietary in nature and the state, its agencies cannot invoke the immunity and this could mean unlimited amount of damages that the court may award.      Since the Act is a waiver of state immunity, hence implying immunity for those not waived. Hence it could be asked whether it grants implied immunity for individual public officials. As illustrated earlier the employees was made liable for the personal injury not the property damage, hence the answer to the question is in the negative.      The Act is clear that it applies only to immunity for the governmental entity itself or the state of Texas and its agencies. Issues of exemption public official from liability are not necessarily part of the state immunity but should be treated as issues under the concept of official immunity. To know the same there is need to note how Texas courts applied and adopted a doctrine of limited official immunity, where the courts may declare a public officer or employee not liable from personal liability for acts within the scope of the officer’s or employee’s governmental authority.       It must be made clear however that under present Texas case law, there is either absolute immunity or qualified immunity (Olowofoyeku,1993; Rosenwein, 1999) to a public servant. This will depend upon the type of authority enjoyed by that individual. To illustrate, there is no question that judges are generally entitled to the defense of absolute or complete immunity in the exercise of judicial functions (Turner v. Pruitt, 342 S.W.2d 422, Tex. 1961). This is however limited as far as negligent acts are concerned. Moreover it must be made clear the judicial function of judges is always governmental and never proprietary.     Having said this, it would mean that a great number of Texas public servants may only enjoy defense of qualified immunity from liability, where the liability for discretionary actions could be appreciated if the officials acted in good faith within the scope of the officer’s or employee’s authority.       As to what constitutes an action to be in good faith is a question of fact while a discretionary action requires latitude of exercising judgment. Necessarily therefore, qualified immunity for ministerial or mandatory actions should not be available since the public official is just complying with an order and therefore there is absence of choice (Worsham v. Votgsberger, 129 S.W. 157, Civ.App. 1919, no writ).The duties of jailers and sheriffs in their receipt and care for prisoners are typically considered or held to be ministerial, hence the same people could not just invoke qualified immunity as defense when they are charged in court to be negligent in their function.           It may be concluded that the State of Texas Tort Claim Act applies to local justice and security agencies the same with any other legal claimants in so far as the Tort Act allows the State of Texas, its agencies and its officials in their official capacities to be liable since the law takes the nature of waiver from the general rule that the sovereign state is immune from suit. A principle in law nicely puts it Where the law does not expressly exclude, the same must have been included. References: Driskill v. State, 787 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Tex. 1990) Olowofoyeku A. (1993) Suing Judges: A Study of Judicial Immunity; Clarendon Press, Rosenwein, B. (1999) Negotiating Space: Power, Restraint, and Privileges of Immunity in Early Medieval Europe ; Cornell University Press Worsham v. Votgsberger, 129 S.W. 157 (Civ.App. 1919, no writ) Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code  § 101.021. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code  § 101.0215 (b) The Texas Tort Claims Act of 1969 Turner v. Pruitt, 342 S.W.2d 422 (Tex. 1961).
Monday, August 5, 2019
Modifying Consumer Behaviour Sustainable Development Environmental Sciences Essay
Modifying Consumer Behaviour Sustainable Development Environmental Sciences Essay The use of plastic bags warrants attention in the sustainable consumption debate, especially when packaging accounts for a significant amount of the resources consumed and waste generated by our consumer lifestyles. Governments, retailers and manufacturers are striving to improve sustainability performance by finding ways to reduce plastic bag use. The authors have done sufficient research in providing a global perspective through approaches adopted by different countries in reducing their plastic use. For example, India banned the use of plastic bags while voluntary action is on the part of consumers and the business community to reduce plastic bag use in the UK. References obtained by the authors are credible and reliable as information was based on recent data and reputable sources. The authors also present a balanced view of both advantages and disadvantages of plastics bags. They are energy efficient to produce, cost-effective, convenient to store and easy to use. However, they have adverse impacts in terms of waste disposal and one significant problem is that plastic bags are non-biodegradable and take at least hundred years to decompose. When they break down in size, they kill marine animals which mistake the plastic bags for food and ingest them (Aldred, 2007). Plastic bags clog drainage systems and create pollution where discarded plastic bags float in oceans. Large amounts of money also have to be spent on cleaning up the plastic bags and the damages caused by them (Russo, 2012). However, the claim that many countries spend a substantial amount on cleaning up the plastic bags and the damages caused by them is not justified. In many cases, these claims are merely guesses by advocates instead of data based on actual studies, and cost is often thrown in as a justification after bans are enacted for political reasons (†¦). Science also does not support the fact that plastic bags do any genuine harm. Plastic bags end up doing less damage than other alternatives and the benefits that the bags offer far outweigh their cost. Independent studies also show that plastic bags are environmentally preferable to paper because plastic bags have a lighter environmental footprint than paper and when they are reused, they are preferable to the reusable plastic totes. In addition, current plastic bags use 70% less plastic than those of 20 years previously and account for less fuel to transport, fewer emissions than paper bags. Nevertheless, moderate reuse; plastic totes mad e from polypropylene are better for the environment even though plastic bags are a more environmentally friendly choice than paper bags and reusable totes. Due to the damaging environmental effects which plastic bags have, countries like Taiwan banned the use of plastics bags to reduce environmental issues such as litter and landfill. With a ban on plastic bags, funds would be redirected to infrastructures. Consumer demand shift toward other alternatives, creating more opportunities for entrepreneurs to come up with alternatives to plastic. Companies that manufacture reusable bags could also expand their product lines and create more jobs (..). However, research by †¦ revealed that banning of plastic bags would lead to an increase in paper bag production, resulting in a greater amount of methane being released in landfill. Other research also revealed that banning plastic bags does not help the environment as it increase carbon emissions and other environmental problems. Research by Lane showed that even though most of the waste in landfill sites comes from packaging, plastic bags form only a small fraction of the litter stream. They occupy lesser of the landfill space, leading to lesser greenhouse gases and pollution, as compared to wood and paper (British Retail Consortium News, 2007). I agree with the authors assumption that plastic-bag bans would not lead to a long-term solution in saving the environment. The use of materials and energy should not be restricted where only unnecessary use of plastic bags is avoided. Instead, there should be a sustainable use of everything which includes the reinforcement of public awareness and motivation to reduce, reuse and recycle (3Rs) to resolve environmental problems. Therefore, some countries like UK do not support an outright ban on plastic and seek other possible alternatives such as reusable totes or paper bags or having a tax imposed on plastic bags. Prendergast et al. (2001) found that consumers are more likely to reuse a paper bag an average of 2.7 times whereas a plastic bag will be reused 1.6 times and retaining a paper bag over a plastic bag leads to increased re-usage. However, alternatives such as reusable totes and paper bags have a worse effect on the environment than plastic bags. Plastic bags require 40 perce nt less energy than paper bags and that paper bag manufacturing creates 70 percent more air pollution and 50 percent more water pollution (†¦). Alternatives to plastic bags may not be practical because in many cases, efforts to increase bag recycling have shown minimal success to date (†¦). Furthermore, when governments outlaw plastic bags to encourage consumers to use other environmentally damaging products, more pollution is actually created. There might also be society and economic impacts on the less affluent in terms of employment loss, due to reduced plastic bag manufacturing Another possible alternative which the authors did not consider could be the recycling of plastic bags in recycling centers where plastic is melt and polymers are reused to carpets or clothes. However, plastic recycling has proven to be difficult to process mechanically as plastic bags are made of polyethylene where it is often labour intensive and cost intensive to sort plastic waste. A key assumption made by the authors is that plastic bags bans are beneficial for the environment. Therefore, the issue of banning plastic bags still remain a controversy as many variables are at play and the process of changing consumer behaviour in relation to plastic bag use can be a complex one. There are different perspectives as to how such consumption should be modified. For countries such as Bangladesh and India, flooding and public health concerns resulted in the use of legislation to ban the use of plastic bags. Plastic bag bans can prevent flooding in urban areas and human health problems. In the UK, voluntary action is on the part of consumers and the business community to reduce plastic bag use. Consumers are urged to reduce their use of plastic bags while manufacturers and retailers are expected to introduce measures to encourage consumers to act responsibly. Other countries like Italy, Ireland and Denmark prefer to impose tax to encourage consumers to reduce plastic bag use and taxes collected can help raise revenue for further environmental improvement. To conclude, the use of plastic bags have a great impact on sustainable consumption and changing consumer behavior through voluntary action, legislation banning the use of plastic bags, or taxing their use can make an effective contribution to a more sustainable future.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
Human Cloning is Against Gods Will :: reproductive technology
Human Cloning is Against God's Will When I first began this essay, I held no stance on the subject of human cloning. After my initial research, I came to the conclusion that there was no real evidence that human cloning should be illegal. My first draft however lacked good arguments. I’ve since returned to the library and took a new look at the problem. And, after more research my stance was changed. Human cloning, while bringing some good, is not God’s will, and any God fearing human should consider human cloning wrong. There are many good reasons why human cloning should not be outlawed. Parents unable to have children could clone themselves. â€Å"If and when human cloning becomes possible, it will represent little more than another step in reproductive technology and one that individuals would be free to choose if they desire†(Hines). The children, being genetic replicas of the parents, would be true offspring. This would comfort the parents in the fact that they truly lived on through their children. This technology could also bring great things to the medical world. â€Å"The technology of cloning may well allow biotechnologists to develop animals which will grow human-compatible organs for transplant. Cloning is likely to be first used to create animals that produce valuable therapeutic hormones, enzymes, and proteins†(Bailey 2). These advances could save many human lives, all through cloning. The cloning of humans could also be applied to endangered animals.  "Cloning something as extinct as the stars of Jurassic Park remains fiction, but Lanza has just received permission from Spain to clone the bucardo, a mountain goat that became extinct when a tree fell on ‘Celia,’ the last of its kind. The tissue was frozen; if it can be cloned in the egg of a common ibex, the bucardo would live again. ‘We hope to have live bucardo kids by early summer,’ says Lanza†(Begley 3). We could take action against the deaths of whole species. This technology could turn the world on its head. However, just like test tube babies were denounced in the sixty’s, we now do the same with cloning. Before the technology has even entered the door, we ask it to leave by not only banning the idea but any research on it. Nevertheless, with enough research these things could be a reality in the future.
Saturday, August 3, 2019
Graduation Speech -- Graduation Speech, Commencement Address
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, faculty, staff, graduates of the Class of 2012, families and friends. I tried to think of something profound to say today, but it may be too presumptuous to assume that my short life experience is enough to impart any great wisdom. However, I will at least share with you something that I have learned. As a brief disclaimer: individual results may vary; drowsiness and/or dizziness are the most common side effects. Contact your doctor if symptoms persist. Wisdom is something of an enigma that cannot be achieved by the pursuit of knowledge alone. It comes from the lessons of trial and error coupled with determination, persistence and commitment. This idea can best be illustrated in the famous words of Thomas Edison when he said, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Wisdom is a never-ending cycle of blending knowledge with life experience and lessons learned that are not soon forgotten. Ultimately, these things are the tools and materials we use to build our futures. Based on the values and in...
Friday, August 2, 2019
The Concluding Sentence Of The Book: What It Means :: essays research papers
The last sentence in the book "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain reflects the tone and character of Huck, the main character. "But I reckon I got to light out for the territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before." (497) The language and grammar reflect the manner of an "unsivilized" stray child. Huck want to remain the way he is - wild and crude, wants to keep his jargon and his lifestyle, without the decency that Aunt Sally wants to impose on him. Huck is not only driven by the fear of being domesticated by Aunt Sally, but also by his love for freedom, the ability to love, and being a survivor. Huck is a child of the wild and feels displaced and uneasy in a decent atmosphere of a house of Aunt Sally or Miss Watson. He has never had a home, and the house of the widow Miss Watson is no cozier to him than the empty barrels he used to sleep in or the woods. He feels even worse in the house because he has to play by the foreign rules. He has to accept Christianity, has to follow a rigid etiquette at dinner, wear clothes that are too stiff and clean for him, and he is not supposed to smoke. "I went up to my room à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ and tried to think of something cheerful, but it warn't no use. I felt so lonesome I most wished I was dead. The stars were shining, and the leaves were rustled in the woods ever so mournful; and I heard an owl, away off who-whooping about somebody that was dead." (219) Huck's own environment is the uncultivated wild.Huck is a roving character. Most of the time of the story Huck spends on the river on the raft with Jim. The raft on the river is their safe shelter, their only home. "I was powerful glad to get away from the feuds, and so was Jim to get away from the swamp. [Jim and Huck] said there warn't no home like a raft, after all. Other places do seem so cramped and smothery, but a raft don't. You feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft." (327) The character of Huck is like the river - flowing and forever changing.
What are the scope, breath and units of ethics according to the following theorist: Plato’s Euthypro and Republic
Plato. Scope: The freedom of choice of a man is very dangerous and harmful phenomenon. The man can not choose what is holy and unholy and so the only thing directing the person in life if fear. The fear of the gods would have saved you from the danger of acting wrongly, and you’d have been cursed in front of human beings. Breath: since the essence of every phenomenon, including life of breathing creatures is to fulfill a certain function. In these measures men should fulfill their function – to live proper life for the good of the city-state. But life is not a function of a soul, but its proper quality. Units of ethic: just man is not wise or good, and just man is not supposed to live a long and happy life, while unjust miserable and unhappy? The difference between two is that the man who practices justice does so unwillingly, since he lacks the power to violate it. And in life in general he will walk the only possible road he knows – the just one, while the unjust man will yearn for more, and it doesn’t matter for what exactly, since he has options. Republic. Scope: the freedom of choice or deliberate decision is a punishment for human beings given by gods. And free choice depends on the essence of our soul. Breath: Can evasion or violence be succeeded with the gods? Well, if they don’t exist or don’t involve themselves with human affairs then what’s the point to consider their observation in our deeds? But if they exist, we shall pay a just penalty for our crimes in the place called Hades. The choice is of men or of his destiny†¦ Units of ethic: two people just and unjust given the same opportunities would act the same – temptation would be too strong. And this is the evidence that none are just willingly, but only by compulsion. And they act the very way because everyone thinks that in personal case injustice is much more profitable than justice. If anyone having this licence to refuse to do any injustice, or to posses the property of others, all who were aware of it would consider him a most contradictive and irrational creature, though they would praise him before each other faces, deluding one another through their fear of injustice influence. Euthyphro. Scope: everyone has the choice, and the only difference of a choice is what we should pay for the results of it. Whoever has unjustly killed another should be punished by all means. Breath: Holy is all gods love and people are meant to worship them and follow their will. What is holy and just have to do with the gods, and the rest (unlawful and pious) of it has to do with ministering of human beings. Units of ethic: we shouldn’t get nervous about people laughing at our predictions, the public recognition is of a soon. One must not tolerate a profane man, no matter who he may seem to be (even if it’s your own father).
Thursday, August 1, 2019
Criminal Justice Theories Essay
A brilliant philosopher once remarked that man is by nature good. Evil, according to him is the result of ignorance or the lack of knowledge. When crime is committed it is because of the limitation and imperfection of his present knowledge. Though it may be true that no man is morally corrupt by nature, Socrates’ explanation of the presence of crime and evil in our society does not suffice to answer the question why people offend and commit crime. Why is it that even the highest ranking CEOs of multinational companies manage to steal money from their investors and stockholders? It does not explain why even educated people become criminal offenders and violators of the law. This could only mean that there is more to crime than just the goodness or badness of the individual. It is because of this reason that Sociologists have turned to other causes or factors that may influence human behavior into committing crimes. This has resulted in several theories attempting to explain crime and deviance. These theories are Social Control Theory and Labeling Theory which will be discussed in this essay. Social Control Theory proceeds from the assumption that man is by nature delinquent and is capable of committing crimes. Instinct drives human behavior to commit crime. Travis Hirschi, the proponent of Social Control Theory, asserts that despite man’s inclinations to commit crime, it can be controlled and his behavior can be regulated so as to make man conform to certain social rules or laws. He says that this could be done by strengthening man’s social bonds with the people around him. These social bonds include attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. The stronger these social bonds are, the more committed a person is to conventional activities and the greater his attachments to his parents and friends, the less likely it is that he will engage in delinquent behavior. Conversely, once this social bond is weakened then it is likely that individuals will engaged in delinquent behavior. (Reginald J. Alston, 1995, p. 3) Thus, according to E. A. Ross the most effective means for controlling and regulating behavior is not the enactment of laws and the threats of punishment but the belief and value systems that helps man obey with the rules. Labeling Theory Labeling Theory did not give much attention to crimes but to the labels that people attach to certain individuals or to certain acts. For example all people have at one time violated rules. But not all persons are labeled as criminals. Only those people who are actually caught or whose deviant acts are disclosed to the public that are considered criminals. A person who is labeled as a criminal begins to think of himself as a criminal and begins to associate with other deviants thus reinforcing the stigma that society attaches to deviants. According to the results of a study conducted by Mike S. Adams (2003) perceived negative labels were related to increased involvement in self-reported delinquent behavior. The study also showed that teachers and peer groups are important sources of negative labels which can lead to the adoption of a deviant self-concept. (p. 4) Labeling Theory states that the labels we apply to certain individuals have a significant influence his behavior. It is natural to classify or categorize things the problem with this is that the people do not realize the negative unintended effects of these labels. There are times when this labeling could scare a person and help him or her conform to the norms of the society. But most of the time labeling has the effect of pushing the person farther away from the society. The effect of this is that the person loses interest in conforming to the laws. He then places himself in the shoes, so to speak, of the label that society has imposed and he acts in such a way that is consistent with his label. Comparison and Contrast The first point of comparison between these two theories is that they both acknowledge the society’s influence on human behavior. In the case of Social Control Theory, socialization and interaction with other members of the society helps in regulating human behavior so as to make man conform to and obey social rules. It reduces man’s propensity to engage in deviant behavior. On the other hand, Labeling Theory affirms the society’s influence on the way a person sees himself and the way he thinks and behaves. Negative perception of the society leads to negative behavior on his part. The second point of comparison is that both these theories see the individual as the result of his interaction with the community. In the case of Social Control Theory, man is defined by his relationships with other, his commitments, values, norms and beliefs. If he has a strong bond with the society it is likely that he will conform to existing rules or laws but if this bond is weak then he becomes more vulnerable to committing deviances and crimes. On the other hand, in Labeling Theory, the individual’s construction of self-identity is seen as a result of his interaction with the members of his community and the way others perceive him. (Craig Calhoun p. 1) If he is judged and labeled by the society as a criminal then it is likely that he will think of himself as a criminal and act like one. . These two theories can be distinguished in the sense that Social Control Theory focuses on the reason why some people adhere and conform to existing rules. It is not actually a theory that explains why people commit crime but it explains the reasons why some people obey the laws. (Paul Delfabbro, 2004, p. 4) On the other hand, Labeling Theory focuses on why people commit crimes. It does not explain why some people obey laws but it does explain why some of us commit crimes. Another distinction is that Labeling Theory is a political rather than a sociological attempt to explain deviant behavior since political relations within the society have so much to do with the giving of labels. It does not deal with the morality of human action but rather it deals with the effects of the attitudes and perceptions of people and defines criminals not as evil persons who engage in wrong acts but as individuals who had a criminal status placed upon them by both the criminal justice system and the community at large. (â€Å"Overview of Labeling Theories†) Conclusion The theory which best explains the reason why people engage in delinquent behavior is the Social Control Theory. Not only that it explains why crime does happen in the society but it also provides for the solution to this problem. This theory supports the proposition that a punitive model of our justice system is not an effective solution to crime. Due attention must be given to alternative forms of response to crime such as giving more focus on rehabilitation and social integration. It would be better if the state instead of allocating millions of dollars for our penal system to allocate some of this money to educating parents and strengthening of communities by means of various sports and recreational program for the youth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)