Search results

This chapter explores how the principles of retribution and deterrence were framed and thus used to justify capital punishment in the early years of the Republic, and how the purposes for capital punishment have changed in the past two centuries. We ask several related questions: (1) Has our understanding of the morality and utility of retributive justice changed so dramatically that the historical argument tying justification for capital punishment to the past now ought to carry less weight? (2) Have our perspectives on the purposes for capital punishment changed in ways that now might call the entire experiment into question? and (3) What, in short, can we say about the historical similarities between arguments concerning retribution and deterrence at the Founding and those same arguments today?As is often true of common law principles, the reasons for the rule are less sure and less uniform than the rule itself. (Justice Marshall's majority opinion in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986))

There is a long history of school failure for Aboriginals¹ in the U.S. educational system. Culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy affords opportunities for Aboriginal students to achieve academic success through building upon their cultural heritages and Native ways of knowing. School systems adopting this pedagogy empower Indigenous students to connect with essential knowledge for academic success in today’s world. This enhanced pedagogy creates classrooms of involvement that promote Aboriginal students’ achievement. Preservice teachers employing this pedagogy will experience success with their Indigenous students and learn about Aboriginal communities, lifeways, and values. Mutual respect is engendered as long-perpetuated negative stereotypes of Native Americans are undone. Culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy can be tailored to specific populations by incorporating their own Aboriginal knowledge, languages, and practices into teaching praxis.

While uncertainty has always been a feature of the healthcare environment, its pace and scope are rapidly increasing, fueled by myriad factors such as technological advancements, the threat and frequency of disruptive events, global economic developments, and increasing complexity. Contemporary healthcare organizations thus persistently face what is known as “deep uncertainty,” which obscures their ability to predict outcomes of strategic action and decision-making, presenting them with novel challenges and threatening their survival. Persistent, deep uncertainty challenges us to revisit and reconsider how we think about uncertainty and the strategic actions needed by organizations to thrive under these circumstances. Simply put, how can healthcare organizations thrive in the face of deeply uncertain environments? We argue that healthcare organizations need to employ both adaptive and creative strategic approaches in order to effectively meet patients' needs and capture value in the long-term future. The chapter concludes by offering two ways organizations can build the dynamic capabilities needed to employ such approaches.