23. The peculiarities of monarchy in Great Britain

Britain is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch - Queen Elisabeth II as a head of state. The British constitution, isn't set out in a single document. Instead it is made up of a combination of laws and conventions. The Bill of Rights was the 1st legal step towards constitutional monarchy. This Bill prevented the monarch from making laws or having an army without Parliament's approval. Since 1689 the power of parliament has grown, while the power of the monarch has become weaker. The UK is a constitutional monarchy: the head of the state is a king or a queen. In practice, the Sovereign reigns, but doesn't rule. The present Sovereign is Queen Elisabeth II. Today the Queen isn't only head of state, but also an important symbol of national unity. In law the Queen is head of the executive, head of the judiciary, the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the Crown and the established Church of England. The monarchy's absolute power has been progressively reduced, the Queen is impartial and acts on the advise of her ministers. Laws are made by the Parliament. The Queen is only a formal ruler: she reigns but does not rule. In fact everything that she does is done on the active of her ministers, who are responsible for the royal acts. Thus, most of her functions are symbolic. The United Kingdom is governed by Her majesty's Government in the name of the Queen. But the Queen has all the information, and has the right to encourage or to warn. The Queen's residence in London is Buckingham Palace. The Queen and the Royal family continue to take part in many traditional ceremonies. Their visits to different parts of Britain and to many other countries attract considerable interests and publicity. The proceedings of both Houses of Parliament are broadcast on television and radio.Additionally, she has some homes in England and Scotland. The British Parliament consists of two chambers: the House of Lords and the House of Commons. There are more than 1000 members in the House of Lords. Many seats are hereditary. The House of Commons has 635 members. They are elected by a general election (secret ballot). Any member may introduce a Bill and ask permission to bring it to the House for the first reading. After the third reading the Bill goes to the House of Lords. If the Lords agree to a Bill, it will be placed before the Queen for signature. The government is headed by the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the party that has won the election. In Great Britain there are three main political parties: the Conservatives, the Labour Party and the Liberals.

The problem of capital punishment in legal systems: for and against.

The existence of the death penalty in any society raises one underlying question: have we established our justice systems out of a desire for rehabilitation, or out of a desire for retribution? The lister has set out to examine both sides of the debate over the ethics and legality of capital punishment, especially in the US, and chooses neither side in any of the following entries. They are not presented in any meaningful order.

Against: It Teaches the Condemned Nothing

What is the purpose of punishment? When your young child emulates what he just saw in a Rambo movie, you give him a stern lecture about what is real and what is not, what is acceptable in real life and what is not. So when the child grows up, breaks into a home, and steals electronics, he gets caught and goes to prison. His time in prison is meant to deprive him of the freedom to go where he wants anywhere in the world, and to do what he wants when he wants. This is the punishment, and most people do learn from it. In general, no one wants to go back. But if that child grows up and murders someone for their wallet or just for fun, and they are in turn put to death, they are taught precisely nothing, because they are no longer alive to learn from it. We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing him or her.

For: It is the Ultimate Warning

Nevertheless, if would-be criminals know undoubtedly that they will be put to death should they murder with premeditation, very many of them are much less inclined to commit murder.  Whether or not would-be criminals are wary of committing the worst crime is an important—and probably impossible—question to answer.  Murder still happens very frequently.  So some criminals disregard this warning for various reasons.  But the fact does remain that many criminals who ride the fence on committing murder ultimately decide to spare the victim’s life.

Against: It Does Not Dissuade

If the foreknowledge of any punishment is meant to dissuade the criminal from committing the crime, why do people still murder others? Capital punishment does not appear to be doing its job; it doesn’t seem to be changing every criminal’s mind about killing innocent people. If it does not dissuade, then it serves no purpose. The warning of life in prison without parole must equally dissuade criminals.

For: It Provides Closure for Victims There are many victims of a single murder.  The criminal gets caught, tried, and convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe.  But the person he has killed no longer has a part to play in this.  Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived his family and friends of a loved one.  Their grief begins with the murder.  It may not end with the murderer’s execution, but the execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal—a feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives on.A system in place for the purpose of granting justice cannot do so for the surviving victims, unless the murderer himself is put to death.