CESSM 3 and the NRA method of measurement Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

CESSM 3 and the NRA method of measurement - Essay Example In the CESSM3, the maximum depths are categorized, whereas the Series 1700 NRA method of measurement constitutes an additional division that has the planned area of excavationIn Class F&G from CESSM3, the eight most common component types in each class division are compiled; an attempt is not made to list all component types in any class.Class F&G from CESSM3 method of measurement seeks to attain these objects principally by using the Work Classification that defines how the work is to be divided into separate BOQ items, the information to be provided in the descriptions of the items and the units that the quantities will be expressed against each itemBoth the Class F&G from CESSM3 and the Series 1700 NRA Measurement methods allow for an item for geotextiles, although CESSM 3 only lists this item as geotextile and there is no space for the description of the item which is provided for in NRA method of measurement. This item is quite similar for both of these methods of measurement. B oth the Class F&G from CESSM3 and the Series 1700 NRA Measurement methods allow for separate headings for material disposal. Both methods of measurement are measured in M3, but the items to be disposed of vary from one method of measurement to the other. In the NRA method of Measurement, the items are listed as Acceptable material Class 5A, Acceptable material excluding 5A, Unacceptable material ClassU1 and Unacceptable material Class U2. On the other hand, topsoil, rock or artificial hard material, a material other than topsoil, rock and stated artificial hard material are listed in the In Class F&G from CESSM3.

Persuasive presentation against capital punishment Essay

Persuasive presentation against capital punishment - Essay Example However, while serving the cause of justice in such cases, it would be utterly inappropriate for a society to momentarily do away with the set social, moral, ethical and religious values accrued over centuries and generations, to turn into some sort of a collective predator, savagely taking the life of a culprit in the name of justice. Society has to punish crime, but it ought to do so without tempering with the quintessentially human values and aspirations (Bedau, 1977). Capital punishment do punishes a criminal, but at the same time it also deprives a society with a measure of its humanity and restraint. Capital punishment is based on the principle of â€Å"an eye for an eye†, which is totally savage, anachronistic and inhuman in its approach and scope. Society should punish the hardcore and incorrigible criminals, but for doing so it does not need to stoop to the level of the murderers in intends to punish. There is no denying the fact that capital punishment is usually awarded to deviant people guilty of committing the rarest of the rare crimes. In that context, the capital punishment is not pragmatic in the sense that it extends to a criminal an easy way out (Zimring, 2003, p. 145). The pain inflicted by capital punishment on a criminal is only momentary. In contrast, the saner substitutes like life imprisonment are more stringent and rigorous in their practical implications (Zimring, 2003, p. 145). The torture of being deprived of one’s liberty, comfort, rights and social support system for years is certainly a worse torture for a hardcore criminal than the clean break allowed for by a death sentence. Thus, life imprisonment, realistically speaking is more potent and valid a deterrent to crime and a suitable expression of social repudiation for a serious crime, as compared to a capital sentence. Besides, life imprisonment and