Lethal

Advancement in the field of technology has become ineluctably foreordained in every sphere. Over the years the conduct of war has transmuted dramatically only by the means of advancement and development in military technology. The year 1945 witnessed a dramatic invention that changed the entire perception of war. Since then there was no looking back. It won’t take many years for the control of weapons to be taken away from the hands of humans. Lethal autonomous weapons system (LAWs) is one such ongoing significant development in the field of military technology. Approved by more than a dozen nations with no prevalence of laws in the international sphere, the countries haven’t failed to continue with the development of LAWs. This advancement in military technology creates a divide between the higher income countries and the lower income countries leading to nothing but greater economic inequality. Arguendo, the nation with lack of resources will approve of developing the weapon, it will be merely because of the deterrence theory. Applying the principle of such advancement in the field of military technology will not only have an impact on the transformation of the warfare but also on the economic aspect of the nations developing the same. Economically, public expenditures in developing weapons are rarely transparent; hence, it abbreviates the overall transparency of any government. The question is if building weapons is incompatible with the principle of being a welfare state, why do governments such as those of India and Pakistan seem exuberant in developing weapons when the impact of the costs of developing the sameits maintenance, expansion and storage is unknown- also impairs the domestic ability to redress the rudimentary issues like poverty, unemployment, inequality and health? The intention of the paper is to analyze and examine that the road to such military technological advancement like the development of Lethal Autonomous Weapons System (a weapons system that once after activation, will not require further human intervention to cull or engage targets) does not merely depend on scientific discoveries or the invention of new technologies but rather on the fact that it would bring ‘international prestige’ to the nations or political advantage by owning such a weapon. The paper also accentuates that with the development of such a technology and despite verbal dictum, international incentives will be partial towards the nations which will be building LAWs, particularly if a nation wishes to become one of the key players specially in the world’s political and economic sphere. Lastly, such a development will amount to not just mere reduction in the world’s economic capacity but also individual nation’s capacity to bring economic development to its own
population.

Decalogue 5 appears to be overtly preoccupied with the specific political issue of capital punishment, yet it is equally concerned with the larger moral contexts which are inherently social - the Law, as the film decrees, manifests our responsibility to each other. While Kieslowski presents us with a murder paradigm which is fundamentally depersonalised, moral choice remains intimately subjective, even if the motivations of the characters are obscured here. The emphasis placed on observation and dissociation throughout Decalogue 5 implicitly critiques the emotional distances wrought between Modern subjects. From the outset, the narrative is framed as Piotr’s story, and the journey he undertakes (along with the audience) moves from an ideal of clinical objectivity - the detached moral frameworks of the Law - to the final annunciation of the personal ("I abhor it"). This article seeks to investigate that journey, highlighting the complexities of these seemingly irreconcilable positions.

The aim of this article is to describe the role of health care professionals in the capital punishment process. The relationship between the protocol of capital punishment in the United States and the use of health care professionals to carry out that task has been overlooked in the literature on punishment. Yet for some time, the operation of the medical sciences in prison have been `part of a disciplinary strategy' `intrinsic to the development of power relationships'. Many capital punishment statutes require medical personnel to be present at, if not actively involved in, executions. Through analyses of these statutes, show the degree to which these professionals have become part of the state's executive apparatus.