Crime Victim Provisions: An analysis

Crime Victim Provisions: An analysis Critically explore the needs of victims of crime and the services currently provided for them. Include reference to the demands of the victim movement and the limitations of the current criminal justice system. The recent years in the UK and throughout the world has seen the importance and influence of human rights growing. This has had an effect on the law as a whole, but instead of the good of society being protected by statute and common law the individual has come to the forefront, i.e. an individuals rights cannot be derogated unless a set criterion is followed. Therefore this focus on the individual has not only given stricter rules for the courts and police to follow in respect to suspected and convicted criminals, it has also laid an emphasis on the individual victim and the resources, after-care and support, as well the effect on sentencing in respect to criminal cases and restitution or compensation in respect to civil cases. The recent rise of the role of victims in the Criminal Justice system is highly important, which will be identified in the discussion of restorative justice. The role model for incorporating the victim providing restitution and their needs can be seen in Australia within Victorian Criminal Justice System. Therefore this case study is not going to explore not the medical help that victims need and which have been procured, but their search for justice and restitution and compare it to the UKs approach to the victim in the Criminal Justice System. It is here that the victims rights groups are calling for justice, as seen in the recent Home Office Survey of Victims Rights Groups wishes, i.e. a true role for the victim in the Justice system, especially Criminal Justice:To genuinely reflect the needs of victims, the social rights referred to in the paper The social rights of victims of crime should be included in the new Charter, clearly identifying the agencies responsible for delivering them. Restorative Justice: This is the most modern reasoning for sentencing and balances the various elements of the sentencing, such as the victims needs, the rehabilitation of the offender, interests of protecting society. It could be adapted to include public opinion, but in the interests of justice it would need to be informed public opinion because the theory is Rawlsian in nature, which results in a theory from the standpoint of justice. Rawls in his thesis for engendering equality states that justice is the prime basis of all government and to ensure justice, the access to justice for all is the obvious means and end to ensure justice is fulfilled; therefore in the Criminal Justice system this would include the access to justice for the offender, the victim, and the rights for the public to voice their opinion on sentencing of a convicted criminal. Rawls theory is based on a few key ideas, which are the rights and duties of government/institution of society and the burdens and benef its of citizens co-operating. Rawls bases his theory on distributive justice, where inequalities are restrained by the greatest benefit of least advantaged and each person has the condition of fair equality of opportunity. Therefore Rawls would allow for restorative justice but retribution would be unjust, rather aims to rehabilitate and return the perpetrator to society would be appropriate, i.e. in order for the perpetrator to compensate society because if the perpetrator is rehabilitated and educated then society will be benefited. Rawls would argue that there is a role for the victim in the sentencing procedure and for public opinion as long as the perpetrator is not subject to hatred, prejudice and vengeance that would be the fear if public opinion was allowed to take over the proceedings. Rather Rawls would argue there needs to be a balance between the rights of the perpetrator, the publics opinion and its protection and the victims access to justice. There still needs to be the rule of law and objectivity but within the realms of these new considerations. It is possible that the perfect model the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council has met these obstacles and created a system that allows an ap propriate mixture of these elements. Victorian Sentencing The Victim Role in the Criminal Justice System: The VSAC was set up to ensure that there was just sentencing as well as allowing for the victim to have a sufficient statutory role in the sentencing procedure. This follows ensuring that the victim plays a proper role in respect to the criminal justice system. Yet in order for there not to be retributive and vengeance sentencing and in order to stop tainting of the trial before the judgment the role of the victim is closely monitored. Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 ensures: Just punishment to punish the offender to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances; Specific and general deterrence to deter the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or a similar character; Rehabilitation to establish conditions within which it is considered by the court that the rehabilitation of the offender may be facilitated; Denunciation to denounce the type of conduct engaged in by the offender; Community protection to protect the community from the offender; or a combination of two or more of the above purposes. Therefore this limits the role of the victim and ensures that the defendants rights and the victims rights and community views are balanced. It also allows for informed public opinion to be taken into account in the sentencing procedure. This sentencing procedure takes the views of victims and the public in to account through a thoroughly monitored manner, rather than allowing the press to have a field day and public outcry. The Victorian sentencing procedure allows for the victims views to be taken in the form of an impact statement and this only occurs if the defendant is found guilty, i.e. this system does not allow such views to taint the defendants right to a fair hearing. In addition sentencing is gauged against informed public opinion rather than the outcry of the uneducated or the enraged so that there is a rounder understanding on the effects of the crime on the society and the individual. The British Approach to Victims: The government has always been on the side of the victim it takes on his or her case and seeks to punish the perpetrator but it has no always done so with enough rigour or sensitivity of their needs.Helena Kennedy focuses on the problem with the Criminal Justice System in the UK in respect to the lack of acknowledgment for the victim. In many ways the system is cold to the victim; it forgets there is more than retributive justice. The England and Wales Sentencing Advisory Council is made up of judges and academics, there is no real voice for the victim as in Australia. The only impact statements by the victim are those taken by the police and prosecution, when the victim is in a highly stressful situation. It pervading culture of the UKs system is that a conviction will satisfy the needs of the victim; this is not the case as the VSAC has seen. In many cases the victim needs to know why the crime happened and have the ability to talk the perpetrator . Also this is a method that can help the perpetrator acknowledge the harm done and hopefully rehabilitate the offender, especially in the youth justice system. The UK system has recognized this and in has instituted this as an alternative to imprisonment in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The key is the use of restorative justice, the approach taken in Australia, which is understanding and balancing the needs of the perpetrator and the victim. The problem in the UK is that on some levels it recognizes the need for this balance, but on others especially in the recent wakes of the terrorist attacks to forget about justice and civil liberties in order to have to power to punish anyone who may be a threat. It has followed the media frenzy of the US and forgotten about justice. The victim no longer figures in such approaches but the needs of the state. In order to satisfy the victims needs there needs to be an inclusive role, such as answers, apologies, informing the offe nder of the impact of their crimes on innocent people, crime prevention and restitution. This is harder in respect to serious crimes, but sometimes the reasons for the actions of the perpetrator not only help the victim to reconcile their experiences but it also ensures that the government understands the reasoning for certain crimes and make the perpetrator understand the impact of their crimes. Therefore the role of the victim in the Criminal Justice System is more than just attending a court room but can play a role in understanding and preventing crime. The VSAC has understood this problem and has introduced impact statements, as well as more diverse advisory panel and the influence of informed public opinion; rather than the pick n mix that the UKs government is taking whenever it suits the needs of the state. This approach was verbalized by John Major during his leadership as condemn more and understand less but as Helena Kennedy argues the victims of crime, their desire is often to understand why a criminal acted as they did. Conclusion: The objective approach that the VSAC makes it very hard for the press to create witch hunts and put pressure on the court to impose an unjust sentence in favour of perceived public opinion; rather the specific victims of the crime are taken into account. This objective approach halts and the fears that the courts will become a place for the media based witch hunts are stopped and justice for the victim is considered at the same time as balancing the justice for the defendant. This creates a unique approach to criminal justice and possibly a way forward for ensuring that victims do gain a voice, without the witch hunts that have been seen recently in the US, especially those held in Guatanamo Bay. Also the UK system which is on the brink of following the US should heed the fears of those in the UK justice system against the media/witch hunt approach and follow the approach the VSAC and subsequent jurisdictions in Australia have taken, which is to balance the criminal justice between the public opinion, the victim and the defendent in an objective manner as Justice Badgery-Parker states: [T]he need which the criminal justice system exists to fulfil is the need to interpose between the victim and the criminal an objective instrumentality which, while recognising the seriousness of the crime from the victims point of view and, in the case of murder, the magnitude of the loss which the victims family and friends have sustained, attempts to serve a range of community interests which include but go beyond notions merely of retribution. In order to do this there needs to be easy access to forums and practioners from the Criminal Justice system in order to stress the different reasoning behind sentencing procedures, as well as Victims AND Offenders rights groups in the UK. Bibliography: R G Fox, 1995, Victorian Criminal Procedure: State and Federal Monash Law Book Co-operative Freiberg, 2001,Sentencing Options, Sentencing Review 2001Discussion Paper Freiberg, 2002, Pathways to Justice Sentencing Review 2002 Discussion Paper Graycar Morgan, 2005, Law Reform Whats in it for Women, Windsor Yearbook on Access to Justice Volume 23 Home Office, 2001, Review of the Victims Charter: Summary of Responses can be found at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/vcreviewvictims.html Helena Kennedy, 2004, Just Law, Vintage BooksJohn Rawls, The Theory of Justice (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971) Rawls J., Justice as Fairness: a restatement, (E. Kelly Ed) (2001, Cambridge Mass, Harvard University press) Ridge, M. 2003 Giving the dead their due Ethics 114: 38-59. Sentencing Advisory Council, About Sentencing Principles and Purposes, can be found at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/CA256F82000D281D/page/About+Sentencing?OpenDocument1=20-About+Sentencing~2=~3=~

Concealed Carry Right Should be limited Essay

Because of the establishment of concealed carry legislation by all states over the years, it has been increasingly possible for almost every American citizen to carry concealed weapons in public places. As unfortunate and horrifying gun violence tragedies like the Newtown School Shooting and Sandy Hook school shooting repeatedly occur, whether citizens should have the right to carry a conceal handgun in public has created a massive uproar. People have different views about this issue. Just as the Second Amendment states that every human being has the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, many gun-rights advocates believe that reasonable citizens have the right to carry any kind of concealed weapons for self-defense purposes. On the other hand, people who argue against the right of concealed carrying claim that the Second Amendment does not state that law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed guns in public and they may consider concealed handguns as an inefficient for m for defense purpose as it creates more chances for potential crimes and injuries. As you can see, both sides have made very strong argument. Even though citizens without criminal records have the constitution right to keep and bear firearms, citizens’ rights to carry concealed handguns should come with limitations outside the home. In general, allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons does not benefit both of them, citizens and the public since it is not effective for self-defense and creates more chances for gun violence. To begin with, the United States has always been a nation of individuality. In the past, all Americans advocated armed self-defense to fight for liberation and to protect their lives from violence. In the era of emancipation, writers such as WEB Du Bois also supported that guns are necessary tools to defend African Americans’ lives. Hence it is not surprising that gun ownership is legalized in the United States. Needless to say, guns have become a part of American culture. However, when hearing news of mass shootings recently, most people from outside the United States think they must have happened in the United States. And it is because the majority of the deadliest mass killings in the world took place in the United States in the past few years.  Accordingly, a comparison study on twenty-six developed countries that held by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health showed that the United States has the highest level of gun ownership per capita and also has the highest rate of gun homicides. (Bagnall) Guns increase the gun violence in the society and further infringe on the base philosophy security of the United States. Lao-Tzu’s philosophies create persuasive argument on gun issues. As he suggested in Tao-te Ching â€Å"weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them. Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use th em only with the utmost restraint† In his opinion, law-abiding citizens should have no need for weapons. If people were unable to carry concealed guns, there would be probably less need for protection by concealed weapons. The goal for the society is to reduce violence as much as possible. As a matter of fact, allowing unstable people to carry concealed guns in public makes it easier for them to use guns to commit as many gun-related crimes in public as possible. Janet Bagnall, a columnist who writes for the Times and Colonist Newspaper has made a strong argument that â€Å"where guns were more available, there were more homicides.† Carrying concealed gun is not a way to protect people, but to put other people at risk of an injury or even death as it increase chances that people shoot each other when they are intoxicated, nervous, or irritable. Precedent Obama was quoted in an Apr. 2, 2008 article saying, â€Å"I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.† (ProCon) A per son from other countries such as England or Costa Rica or Japan is less likely shoot and kill someone when he has the impulse to do so since lethal weapons are not easily accessible in those countries. However, it might be easier for that person to misuse his guns and be involved in criminal activity if the person happen to be an American citizen and own a murderous weapon, as America is a country flooded with guns. The high gun owner rate makes guns more accessible for criminals. In addition, people with concealed weapons even kill many more people in cheaper, quicker, and easier ways than if they did not have handguns. For instance, the shooting spree on the campus of Virginia Tech that killed thirty-two people was less likely to happened or killed less people if the  gunman couldn’t carry a handgun. It is true that â€Å"guns did not kill people, people kill people.† Since handgun is primarily designed to kill people and not for sport or other purposes, it is not a toy that should be carried in a person’s purse. It is true that the high ownership of guns is out there in the United States, and no one can guarantee that it can be completely reduced by bannin g concealed carry. However it would stop insane and violent people from using guns easily in public places and then gradually reduce gun violence. What is more, concealed weapons are not effective for self-defense in bars, theaters and other public places. Many people with concealed guns are more likely to be attacked than a victim who has no gun, as they are not properly trained on conflict resolution and thus unable to fight back to the attacker or to solve the conflicts. For instance, just imagine what would happen if guns were taken away from citizens and used to overpower them or other people in public places? According to the data sets that were provided by the Violence Policy Center, only 0.8 percent of victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes involved using guns as self-defense behavior between years 2007 and 2011. The most reliable data show that guns were used only 338,700 times in self-defense, and this includes off-duty police. Truly handguns deter criminals from committing crimes such as burglary in people’s homes. Given that there are more than 300 millions guns in the United States, it is impossible to suggest that guns are an effective form for self-defense in public. Allowing citizens to carry a concealed handgun does not lessen the chance of being attacked. Instead, it increases the chances of unintended public shootings. Aristotle made a strong argument in the Nicomachean Ethics, a wise man will never put himself into needless danger. Carrying guns will never be intelligent action as it potentially put one’s lives into danger. If citizens are permitted to carry concealed guns in public areas, criminals are also more likely to be armed. The reason is that there is always a chance that victims would be armed. Moreover, killing with guns is not necessary even it is for self-defense. Applying Aristotle’s virtue ethics, living is necessary to be happy. Caring about others is human nature as people are social animals. But killing with guns will absolutely unnecessary for personal happiness as it may lead to horrible thing happen on other people. Gun violence is not the only way to fight against violence. There are still many other ways that citizens can defend themselves in  public. Most important, the Second Amendment limits the concealed carry right. Every constitutional right comes with reasonable restrictions when it begins to threaten the nation and other citizens. In other words, although individuals’ freedom of religious belief is advocated by the constitution, they are still not allowed to practice human sacrifice, as it is a violation of human rights. In the same manner, individuals can get themselves into troubles of libel and slander, defamation even though they have freedom of speech. Hence gun rights are not an exception either. It is true that the Second Amendment guarantees that individuals with clean records are allowed keeping arms for defending themselves and their property lawfully at homes. The law clearly states that reasonable citizens have the right to bear arms and keep the government secure. But it does not mean that they can carry guns everywhere. According to Adam Cohen who is a former member of the New York Times editorial board, the Supreme Court in Heller declared â€Å"America has a long tradition of bans on concealed weapons – and of courts upholding them.† Therefore, the Second Amendment does not extend to the right to carry a concealed weapon in public. Law-biding citizens can keep their guns at home and that is enough. Guns do not make sense for solving problems and are not going to not make today’s society better. To sum up, carrying concealed weapons in public threatesn the constitutional order. Recent mass shootings have become one portion of the long-term trend of gun violence in the United States. As mentioned above, the dangers of concealed weapons in public places are something that should no longer be ignored. Without doubt, there are only two reasons for carrying guns in public. One is to prevent individuals from danger and another is to commit a crime. If everyone are not allow to carry concealed handguns in public places, then why is there a need for individuals to carry guns? Though it is unlikely that the debate between gun ownership and concealed carry rights will ever end; one thing is certain, legalizing concealed carry may obviously cause more lethal crimes to occur. The American political system needs to find a balance between security and freedom. Banning concealed carry is something the federal government of America should take into considerations. Work Cited ProCon.org. (2014, October 28). Concealed Guns ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://concealedguns.procon.org/ Bagnall, J. (23, December 12). Column: Gun laws make a difference in mass killings. Retrieved November 17, 2014, from http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/column-gun-laws-make-a-difference-in-mass-killings-1.32450 Lao-Tzu. Tao Te Ching. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from http://taoism.net/ttc/complete.htm Guns are Rarely Used to Kill Criminals or Stop Crimes New VPC Analysis Reveals. (2013, April 15). Retrieved November 17, 2014, from http://www.vpc.org/press/1304self.htm Ross, W.D. Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.2.ii.html Cohen, A. (2013, March 4). The Next Gun Control Battle: A Right To Carry Firearms in Public? Retrieved November 18, 2014, from http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/04/the- next-gun-control-battle-a-right-to-carry-firearms-in-public/

Of Mice and Men Chapter 2 Analysis Essay

The purpose of my essay is to look at how Slim is presented as a threat to George and Lennie later on in the novel Of Mice and Men. The first time that we meet Slim in the novel is on page 34. Steinbeck goes into a very detailed description of him, describing him in a beautiful manner, and then the first thing that we hear from Slim is â€Å"Brighter’n a bitch outside†. All throughout the novel, George has been telling Lennie not to trust anyone, don’t talk to anybody, you can’t trust them. Yet when George first meets Slim, there very first conversation is a philosophical one. They talk about traveling, and more specifically traveling together. George says it’s nicer to travel with a friend, which could foreshadow a vulnerability on his part. George is already trusting Slim too much, he has only just met him, he shouldn’t be so trusting of Slim. Even though Slim seems to be a gentle and kind person, George has just met him and should not be so trusting. George is beginning to contradict himself and what he told Lennie, not only by being so trusting of Slim, but he told Slim that he was his friend. Yet he told the boss that Lennie was his friend. This essay has looked at how Slim can possibly present a threat to George and Lennie in the novel.

Essay on Compare and Contrast Two Views of Gay Marriage

One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and†¦show more content†¦Bennett’s article is a response to Sullivan’s and states that gay marriages should not be allowed. Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is done in the sight of God and thus should be treated with high regards and also believes gay marriages to be corrupting today’s society. He believes that, â€Å"†¦marriage is not an arbitrary construct which can be redefined simply by those who and human realities. It is an honorable estate, instituted of God and built on moral, religious, sexual and human realities.†(2002:30) He goes on to explain how America’s most important institutions such as neighborhoods and schools are fine just the way they are without gay marriages. (2002:30) Though Sullivan and Bennett both make strong points for their cases against each other, they have many similar aspects to their articles. Both articles make similar evidentiary assertions by adding religion in to their discussions. Sullivan fights that in America there is a separation between church and state and therefore, church should not be added in to a discussion about same-sex marriages. (Sullivan 2002:26) Bennett (2002) makes different comments about this issue. Bennett (2002) believes that gay marriages are an insult to religion and thus should not be allowed in to America’s proper institutions like church. (Bennett 2002:30) Sullivan (2002) and Bennett (2002) both use religious assertions to explain their views on same-sex marriages. Sullivan (2002) says thatShow MoreRelatedCompare and Contrast Two Views of Gay Marriage Essay815 Words   |  4 PagesSullivan had written supporting gay marriage in America. Bennett started out by first issuing two key points as to what divides the proponents and opponents of same-sex marriages. The two articles are derived from Sibylle Gruber’s Constructing Others: Constructing Ourselves edition. Bennett notions that legalizing same-sex marriage would weaken the meaning of it and outlines what the basic concept of marriage is. Throughout the article Bennett argues why same-sex marriage should not be legalized byRead MoreGay Marriage1041 Words   |  5 Pagesï » ¿Erin Krogstad Compare-Contrast Synthesis 10/11/2013 English 111x Gay Marriage Gay marriage is a topic that is heavily debated in this day and age. Whether or not it should be legal for homosexuals to get married is a theme that authors Andrew Sullivan, who wrote â€Å"For Gay Marriage† and William J. Bennett, who wrote â€Å"Against Gay Marriage† use in there articles. The main points the authors both discus is the meaning of marriage itself, the social impact same sex marriage will have on societyRead MoreGay Marriage1711 Words   |  7 PagesRWS 305 T 4PM Professor Voth October 13, 2009 Gay Marriage Begins With Separation Our country was built on the foundation of separation between church and state. But has the concrete wall of separation begun to deteriorate? Or was it ever really there at all? As we continuously battle over the rights to same sex marriage, the question of church or state surfaces. It is due time that we examine this matter and decide once and for all if the church should have any opinion in theRead MoreDifferences Between Same Sex Marriages Essay2574 Words   |  11 Pagesalready slim, the possibilities of he/she being your marriage partner is slimmer, why make it any harder, by not letting the couple enjoy the experience of planning and getting married, just because they are of the same gender. This bibliography will have a compare and contrast between same sex marriages. As well different opinions that are found online of said subject. For example, why we should or shouldn’t have same sex marriages, compare and contrast, I as well will be supporting my opinion in theRead MoreSame Sex Marriage Should Be Legal Essay2606 Words   |  11 PagesSex Marriage The possibilities of finding your soulmate is already slim, the possibilities of he/she being your marriage partner is slimmer, why make it any harder, by not letting the couple enjoy the experience of planning and getting married, just because they are of the same gender. This bibliography will have a compare and contrast between same sex marriages. As well different opinions that are found online of said subject. For example, why we should or shouldn’t have same sex marriages, compareRead MoreAn American Childhood By Annie Dillard1392 Words   |  6 PagesCompare and Contrast Over the years, the issue of family values has evolved from the conservative view of distinct gender roles to the prevailing situation where men and women have equal rights. The most notable change from the traditional to the modern values of the family has been the issue of gay marriages. Whereas it was a taboo for gay couples to declare their relationship status openly in public, today the situation is different as is evident with the two texts under discussions. The storyRead MoreSocial, Political, And Economic Institutions During The Civil Rights Movement1237 Words   |  5 Pagesequality. 2. Compare and contrast a current global civil rights issue to the American Civil Rights Movement 1954-1965. Just like African Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) also put up a fight for rights of equality and freedom of expression and association. According to the LGBT, their strategy is not only fighting for their own beliefs on gay marriage and persuading judges and government officials, but also trying to effectively change the way society thinks and views these rightsRead MoreThe Aspect Of Religious Expression Essay1534 Words   |  7 Pages The aspect of religious expression that I have chosen is Gay marriage. Gay marriage or same-sex marriage was passed by the house of representatives in new zealand on 19th August 2013. With the world slowly adjusting to the views of same-sex marriage NZ joined as the 13th country to recognise and support it as a legal civil union. Civil union is the recognition of two people being in a union as a legal status without religious input. Despite New Zealand being a predominantly secular society i willRead MoreHeterosexual And Homosexuality Marriage. Marriage Is Considering1449 Words   |  6 PagesHeterosexual and homosexuality marriage Marriage is considering to be several distinct aspects of life: friendship and companion ship, sexual relations, love, conversation, procreation and child-rearing, and mutual responsibility. Making compromises and putting someone else first rather than yourself. My view on the purpose of marriage is being able to wake up to your best friend every day, being able to buy your first home together, plan for children, plan your future together as one and to be happyRead MoreAnalysis Of Andrew Sullivan s Article Why Gay Marriage Is Good For Straight America 1621 Words   |  7 Pagesarticle â€Å"Why Gay Marriage is Good for Straight America.† He is an experienced publicist, and he is homosexual. Sullivan argues that every person has the right to get married disregarding his or her orientation. Richard Rodriguez who is also a famous publicist composed â€Å"Family Values.† Like Sullivan, he is homosexual and he discusses it in his work. Rodriguez and Sullivan share many vie wpoints related to homosexuality, but they disagree about the appropriateness of homosexual marriage – Sullivan is