<span>Madison claimed that private rights and public good would be best protected in a single large republic rather than a mélange of small republics. Do I agree? Yes, absolutely, I agree. There's no strength in division; it is pretty obvious that in unity is strength. Just think for a seconds what will become of the United States if there are 52 countries in North America? India would be more developed had Pakistan and Bangladesh not broken off from India. Yes, public good should be protected in a large republic rather than a string of small republics.</span>
Answer:
I would say that I stand between these two arguments. Many criminals have sadistic minds and do not care for what happens to them. Thus, to them it would not matter whether they get the death penalty or not. They would just see it as a way of 'fun' in their own minds. Also, many criminals could have their own ways of getting away the crimes that they have committed. It is successful because many fear death, unlike those with twisted minds. In the end, all minds are twisted are they not for committing murders or such? Overall, I think that it is acceptable for murder yet not for convincing people to not commit crimes.
The roaring twenties had a very large increase in luxury buying. People had much more money that they were willing to spend. This increased the standard of living and raised the economic value. Later the economy would crash and lead to the Great Depression.
