Law Essays Admissible Criminal Evidence

Law Essays Admissible Criminal Evidence Admissible Criminal Evidence It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence [per Justice Crompton in R v Leatham 1861] Discuss When considering the above statement it is necessary to examine legislation with regard to the admissibility of evidence. The starting point is to look at section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which allows the court discretion to exclude any evidence they deem to have been unfairly obtained. There have been several cases where the issue of illegally obtained material has been considered. This paper proposes to examine the cases where judges have both exercised their discretion and excluded the evidence as well as the times when such evidence has been allowed. Within this framework consideration will be given of the factors that judges have taken into account when deciding whether or not to exclude such evidence. This will involve looking at policy issues in relation to the use of illegally obtained evidence in order to reach a conclusion as to whether in general terms the courts will opt to include or exclude such evidence. In reaching a decision as to the uniformity of the application of this discretion consideration will be given to whether changes that have occurred with regard to the rights of the suspect under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 have impacted on the admissibility of such evidence. Although there have been many changes in the law with regard to the use of evidence that has been illegally obtained many judges still use the case of R v Sang [1980] as a yardstick by which to measure whether evidence such be excluded. In this case Lord Diplock commented that (1) A trial judge in a criminal trial has always a discretion to refuse to admit evidence if in his opinion its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. (2) Save with regard to admissions and confessions and generally with regard to evidence obtained from the accused after commission of the offence, he has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant admissible evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means.(at p 437) In this case the court following the comments made by Lord Diplock concluded that the judge would have no power to exclude the evidence on the basis that it had been obtained through the use of an agent provocateur. In many ways the decision whether or not to exclude illegally obtained evidence seems to centre on fairness. Sang remains as an authority of the rules on the exclusion of evidence as was demonstrated in the case of R v Nadir [1993] where Lord Taylor CJ said that if a judge considers evidence the Crown wish to lead would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the trial, he can exclude it under s 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.He also has a general discretion to exclude evidence which was preserved by s.82(3) of the 1984 Act which would allow the judge to exclude evidence he considers more prejudicial than probative. In the later case of R v Khan [1994] 4 All ER 426, Lord Taylor seemed to change his opinion of the use of Sang as an authority stating that Since, on any view, the discretion conferred on the judge by s 78 is at least as wide as that identified in R v Sang it is only necessary to consider the question of the exercise of discretion under s 78 which is what the judge did. In general terms although the judge has the discretion to be able to rule the evidence as inadmissible it is more common for the courts to allow the evidence to be adduced. Many judges are of the opinion that the effect of s78 does not make very much difference to the cases brought before the court as most judges seem to decide in favour of inclusion rather then exclusion of such evidence as was the case of R v Mason [1987] and in the subsequent case of R v Samuel [1988]. Mason was later quashed on appeal when it was discovered that the only real evidence against the defendant was the confession and that this had been obtained by telling the defendant that his fingerprints had been found in glass near the scene, which was totally untrue. This decision was reached on the basis of interpretation of s78 where it was considered that there was bad faith and impropriety on the part of the police. A similar decision was reached in the case of Matto v DPP [1987]where the officers persuaded the defendant to undergo a breath test despite the fact that they were conducting the test under circumstances in which they were not entitled to do so. The conviction was quashed with the judge stating that the bad faith of the officers in carrying out the test when they knew they were not entitled to had tainted the case as a whole. This case was distinguished from the case of Fox v Gwent [1986] as in this case the officers were not aware that they were acting outside of there powers. A further case where the court have ruled that the police were not acting in bad faith was the case of R v Alladice [1988] in which the defendant confessed and the confession was allowed to be admitted to the court despite the fact that the police had wrongly refused to allow the defendant access to a solicitor. From all of the above it would seem that the court will only regard the police as acting in bad faith if there is clear evidence that the police deliberately deceived the defendant. There are of course exceptions where the action of the officers was questionable and the courts have still deemed the evidence to be admissible as was the case in R v Christou [1992]. In this case undercover police officers set up a shop were they were supposedly selling jewellery. All transactions in the shop were secretly recorded which led to the arrest of the defendant for dealing with stolen goods and making incriminating statements. The judge held that the police had not incited the offences and there had been no unfairness in their conduct. In the case of R v Smurthwaite and Gill [1994] the officers posed as contract killers and recorded conversations with the defendants who were attempting to hire the services of a contract killer to murder their spouses. The court regarded the officers as agent provocateurs but held that the officers had not incited the defendants to kill their spouses and therefore the evidence was admissible. In this case the judge stated that the fact that the evidence has been obtained by entrapment, or by an agent provocateur, or by a trick, does not of itself require the judge to exclude it. If, however, he considers that in all the circumstances the obtaining of the evidence in that way would have the adverse effect described in the statute, then he will exclude it. In some instances evidence that has been obtained through impropriety has been excluded. Impropriety can occur were there has been a breach of criminal law or a breach of PACE. This was held to be the case in R v Khan [1994] where surveillance devices had been placed on the premises of the suspect. It was argued that the placing of the equipment on the premises amounted to trespass by the police. The court however allowed the evidence to be admitted and the defendant was convicted. In cases where impropriety is alleged most of these cases centre on the admissibility of confessions or incriminating statements. The reliability and admissibility of confessions is governed by s76 of PACE. The most common impropriety is the denial of access to legal representation. The failure to contemporaneously record interviews has also been a problem in the past. One such case where the defendant was denied access to a solicitor was R v Samuel [1988]in which the defendant was arrested for burglary and after having been charged with one offence of burglary was denied access to a solicitor during which time he was interviewed again and confessed to a robbery. At the appeal the court held that the denial of the right to consult with a solicitor was a breach of s58 of PACE and of the Code of Practice on Detention and Questioning. As the judge had failed to exclude the confession at the original hearing the conviction for robbery was ordered to be quashed. The appeal court stated that even if the confession was reliable the breach of s58 rendered the confession as unfair. Within the criminal justice system the gaining of evidence illegally is classed as one of the exclusionary rules where evidence is suppressed or defendant’s rights are violated. Bentham (1827) argued that if you ‘exclude evidence you exclude justice’ He further argued that the solution to the problem was not to deprive the jurors of the evidence but to instruct them about the dangers presented by the evidence and allow the jury to decide for themselves whether to believe the evidence presented to them. Bentham stated that it was rather a contradiction for the court to declare their confidence in the decision of the jury whilst at the same time withholding evidence from that jury for fear of them reaching the wrong conclusion. Bentham stated that If there be one business that belongs to a jury more particularly than another, it is, one should think, the judging of the probability of evidence: if they are not fit to be trusted with this, not even with the benefit of the judge’s assistance and advice, what is it they are fit to be trusted with? Better trust them with nothing at all, and do without them altogether Bentham felt that exclusionary rules are â€Å"insults offered by the author of each rule to the understanding of those whose hands are expected to be tied by it.† He stated that relevant evidence should only be excluded when there was a risk of an inaccurate verdict without the use of the evidence. He went on to advocate ‘the abolition of all formal rules and a return to a ‘natural’ system of free proof, based on everyday experience and common-sense reasoning’. In the case of R v Kearley [1992] the House of Lords held that the evidence of telephone calls and visitor’s to the defendant’s house where they were asking for drugs was irrelevant or inadmissible as hearsay evidence. The primary evidence in this case came from two witnesses who had given evidence stating that the defendants were engaged in the sale of heroin. In this case the persons that came to the house or telephoned dealt with the police who were occupying the house at the time. The evidence of those that had rang or had come to the house could only be used as hearsay evidence as there was no way of getting the persons to give direct evidence to the court. Initially the defendant was found guilty but this was overturned on appeal on the grounds that the judge should have directed the jury of the inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. The court stated that the defendants could not be found guilty on the basis of their association with the people who had rang or called at the house. As with criminal law evidence can also be excluded in civil law cases under Civil Procedure Rules 32.1, though such exclusion is rare as the burden of proof in civil cases is significantly less then for criminal trials. Choo (1989) argued that there are three possible rationales for the exclusion of evidence, these being compensation, deterrence and repute. Choo (1993) stated that judicial legitimacy was the most satisfactory basis for the exclusion of evidence. Ashworth (1977) disagreed with this stating that exclusion was on the basis of discipline, reliability and protection. Hunter (1994) agreed with this stating that discipline is similar to deterrence. One of the main reasons for excluding evidence is on the basis of reliability. Where the reliability of the evidence is in question the courts will frequently opt to exclude the evidence from the proceedings. Bentham (1827) suggests that there is no need for total exclusion and that so long as a caution is issued with the presentation of the evidence the jury should be entitled to hear that evidence. Choo (1989) believes that allowing the evidence to be disclosed to the jury when such evidence could be unreliable is an ‘infringement’ of the rights of the defendant. Choo states that such evidence should be excluded if it admission would have such an adverse affect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. From the above it can be concluded that the rules regarding the use of illegally obtained evidence are not uniformly applied. In some instances the court will exclude such evidence from the jury whilst in other cases the evidence will be admitted. It is clear from s78 that evidence that has been illegally obtained can still be submitted to the court if it can be proven to be reliable or if an unfair result would be achieved if the evidence where not presented to the court. The courts seem to place emphasis on the notion of fairness as fair play. This is applicable both in deciding whether to allow the evidence to be heard or whether the evidence should be withheld from the jury. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, C, Practical Guide to Evidence, 2nd Ed, 2001, Cavendish Publishing Ashworth, A (1977) ‘Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights’ [1977] Criminal Law Review 723 Ashworth, A and Blake, M The presumption of innocence in English law [1996] Crim LR 306 E Bentham, J, Rationale of Judicial Evidence 15-16 (1827), London Choo, A Mellors, M, ‘Undercover Police Operations and What the Suspect Said (or Didn’t Say), [1995] 2 Web JCLI Choo, A (1989) ‘Improperly obtained evidence: a reconsideration’ 9 Legal Studies 261 Choo, A (1993) Abuse of Process and Judicial Stays of Proceedings (Oxford: Clarendon Press) Elliott, C, Quinn, F, Criminal Law, 3rd Ed, 2000, Pearson Education Glazebrook, P R, Statutes on Criminal Law, 2001, Blackstone’s Hunter, M (1994) ‘Judicial Discretion: Section 78 in Practice’ [1994] Criminal Law Review 558 Huxley, P, O’Connell, M, Statutes on Evidence, 5th Ed, Blackstone’s Murphy, P, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice, 2002, Oxford University Press Smith. J C, The presumption of innocence (1987) NILQ 223 B Stephen, Sir JF, A Digest of the Law of Evidence, 12th Ed, 1936, Art 147

Axis Bank

Due to the radical changes brought up in the new era of Banking, General Public is becoming more and more conscious of the services and facilities the different banks are providing. Banks have also started tieing up with insurance companies and other allied services companies to fulfil the needs of their customers. The delivery channels have also been shifted from branches to net banking etc. Sales promotion have also been used to position the product correctly in the eyes of the customers and for product awareness to the customers.Several tools are being used like day-to-day promotional activities like discounts, offers, loans, trade promotion, other promotional activities and so on. The project in so designed as to find out the potential customers and also bring to the knowledge about the various products and services provided by the bank. In the successive chapters we will be talking about organization. . We will also be discussing about the various products and services providedS ection 7 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 makes it essential for every company carrying on the business of banking in India to use as part of its name at least one of the word- bank, banker, banking or banking company. Ancient Hindu scriptures provide enough evidence of the existence of money lending business in India. Mahajans, Shroff, Sahukars, etc. were enjoyed in banking business. In the beginning of the 18th century, the East India Company set up a few commercial banks on moderns lines. In 1770, first Indian bank known as the Bank of Hindustan was started and was closed down twenty years later.Later, the East India Company started three Presidency banks with Government participation. These were: the Bank of Calcutta (1806), the Bank of Bombay (1840) and the Bank of Madras (1843). These banks had the financial participation by the Government also. During the 18th century, some other banks were also opened by Agency Houses in Madras and Calcutta. All these banks failed. Since all the banks emerged due to Agency Houses failed, the need of banking regulation in India was seriously felt. As a result, Companies Act, 1833 was brought into force.The impact of the Agency Houses got slowly reduced. Allahabad Bank came into existence in 1865 and Alliance Bank of Simla in 1875. The first purely Indian joint stock bank known as the Oudh Commercial Bank was set up in 1880 and the Punjab National Bank was launched in 1894. The Swadeshi movement in the country in 1906 encouraged the Indian entrepreneurs to start many new banks. There were as many as 648 commercial banks in India by the end of 1947. As many as 161 banks failed in quick succession during 1913-1914 and the people’s faith in the baking system was shaken.

Are Willy Loman and Oedipus Rex true tragic heroes?

The tragic hero should be the kind of hero in whom we can all see ourselves, and whose struggle we identify with. Neither Oedipus nor Willy is such a character: both are so hell-bent on following what is shown to be a clearly mistaken path of action that we cannot share in their suffering or misfortune. I do not believe that we cannot see or identify with either Willy or Oedipus' character. I think that both characters show both the best and worst aspects of humanity. Oedipus especially has admirable qualities that we as an audience would aspire to. It is interesting to note the opening: it is the only surviving Sophocles' play to open with such a mass dramatic scene. This was more common in dramatists such as Aeschylus' work. Sophocles' openings were usually more quiet and private. The scene opens with Oedipus addressing Thebes, and shows a paternalistic side to Oedipus. Firstly, the staging would have helped to enhance this paternalism – Oedipus is on the stage, raised above the orchestra where the chorus would stand, speaking down to them dominating the space. He refers to Thebes as ‘My children' which suggests that although he is an authority figure, he is concerned about his people, and is compassionate. It is rare in Greek tragedy for rulers to address their people in this way. In the rest of his opening speech Oedipus is comforting and devoted. A modern audience would especially admire Oedipus for this, and this would help us identify with Oedipus. The ancient Greeks would also have likened him to their great, grand, ruthless but democratic leader Pericles – which would have increased their identification. Oedipus also has a degree of empathy: ‘You suffer; yet, though sick, not one of you Suffers a sickness half as great as mine' This empathy shows a humane caring side despite his elevated status he is not at all different from his people. This suggests that although Oedipus is treated almost god-like, he can identify with the average person. This helps with the audience's identification with Oedipus. Towards the end the audience see Oedipus' large capacity for love and affection – even after his downfall. He loves his daughers: ‘But my unhappy daughters, my two girls, Whose chairs were always set beside my own' This beautiful insight into the relationship between Oedipus and his daughters shows Sophocles' uncanny ability to express emotion, and would appeal to the audience, we can all identify with familial love. Oedipus is determined in his struggle, and as an audience we identify with this – as normal average human beings we have to be determined in order to overcome struggles in life. He constantly struggles to find the truth of his identity: ‘Stop! Who were they? Who were my parents? Tell me! ‘ I must ask: how is wishing to know the truth surrounding a mysterious background deemed as ‘hell-bent'? Surely that is what everyone strives for in life is the ancient Greek aphorism: Know Thyself. Every common person can identify with this; it is not confined to the great and mighty. Oedipus' language here is exclamatory and conveys a note of desperation – the audience can obtain a sense of his real burning desire to know himself. Oedipus also has characteristics in himself that we can identity with – not because they are admirable, but because they are flaws, which all of mankind possess. The audience can see a glimpse of arrogance and vanity, when he says ‘Whose fame is known to all' but to contemporary Greeks pride was not at all a weakness. However, to a modern audience, Oedipus would seem arrogant here, and this perhaps shows a more unappealing side to humanity. It begins to emerge that Oedipus has an unrelenting quest for knowledge, and is no pushover: ‘But if you keep silent, if any man Fearing for self or friend shall disobey me' The audience glimpses of how impatient and inquisitive Oedipus actually is, as he poses a quick fire of questions towards Creon, e. g. : ‘Where was he murdered? In the palace here? Or in the country? Or was he abroad? This could perhaps provide a good argument for the above statement – that Oedipus is ‘hell-bent' on following this mistaken path of action. However, I feel that everyone at some point is determined to follow something mistaken, and it is how they deal with their error that really determines their heroism. This is what the above statement ignores; the tragic hero isn't determined by the events leading to their downfall, but more so how they respond to these events. There is a marked change in Oedipus, his tone changes one of irritability: ‘Why, what is this? Why are you so despondent'. Throughout the quick dialogue with Teiresias the audience are shown a less controlled Oedipus: ‘But to withhold your knowledge! This is wrong Disloyal to the city of your birth. ‘ There is a repetition of negatives here, and a critical accusatory tone. Oedipus is now more exclamatory ‘You villain! There is a constant questioning by Oedipus, and the flow of speech between the characters is more fragmented and jagged than previously. This is achieved by the use of many hyphens and short sentences: ‘You do not know- therefore I am the villain! This again creates a much more chaotic and less controlled side to Oedipus – he is not perfect which I actually feel helps us to empathise with him, and consequently are more able to share in his misfortune. Teiresias appears to try and stop Oedipus' misguided path of action in the same way that Biff tries to stop Willy ‘I am not a leader of men, Willy, and neither are you' – but both Oedipus and Willy are too strong of characters to be swayed. ‘This crime was planned and carried out by you' which shows the irrational side to his character, and the simple absurdness of it all. I think Oedipus' anger is pardonable with Thebes in great danger; he cannot get to the core of the mystery when Teiresias refuses to speak. Also, the refusal is incriminating; and it was not unknown for a king to be plotted against, so I could argue that Oedipus is not completely irrational. Greeks were accustomed to taking the oracle's words with a grain of salt, the oracle had not supported Athens in either the Persian or Peloponnesian War, and so I think a contemporary audience would be able to identify more with Oedipus at this point, and we may not see much Oedipus in ourselves, The concept of oracles is very foreign to us. There are however, some parts of the play were we cannot share or identify with Oedipus' suffering – simply because it is so far removed from what we know. For example, Oedipus' downfall is extremely intense. The language and imagery in describing this terrible downfall is rich and evocative: ‘Showers of black rain and blood-red hail together' is said by the messenger in describing how Oedipus has blinded himself; he also speaks of the ‘common storm' of the husband and wife. Oedipus also despairs ‘Oh cloud of darkness abominable. This graphic storm metaphor is used extensively throughout the play, and conveys to the audience the catastrophic disharmony between man and nature caused by chaos in the royal house of Thebes. The Greeks had a dangerous freedom in their open society – which could perhaps be a reason why Oedipus is so ‘hell bent' on following this mistaken path. Each individual is un-accommodated and alone – with nothing to confin e him. It adds unique terror to the Greek tragic vision – we can see from the devastating downfall of Oedipus that the gods were unpredictable – no Greeks expected perfect justice from them. In modern society, most people trust the goodness of their God and abide under the shadow of the Almighty. From this viewpoint I feel that a modern audience could perhaps not share so much in Oedipus' suffering, because they don't expect it. But in his downfall we also see strength in Oedipus – and this is where we feel relieved or uplifted, and the completion of the catharsis. When Oedipus returns to the stage blinded, the audience know that he has passed through the dark night of the soul and has survived the worst. At this stage Oedipus joins the chorus in a lyrical exchange, a kind of duet that begins with an outcry of pain and suffering ‘Alas! alas! and woe for my misery' . In joining the chorus in song meter, he expresses with a new level of emotion and sympathy with humanity. This is in stark contrast to his previous commanding distance and he can now identify and stand beside mere mortal man – which he is himself. I think this is one of the most important parts of the play with regards to Oedipus being presented as a hero. We can identify with him because even if he did pursue a ‘hell-bent' path he made it out alive – and can now empathise with the rest of humanity. A tragic hero must encounter a tragedy – or else they are not heroic, and I definitely can say Oedipus encounters a tragedy. Oedipus does not flinch or hide away from what he has dome – he speaks clearly ‘And she that bore me has borne too my children'. This admittance and courage shows the endurance of the human spirit, Oedipus transcends suffering. The audience will feel a degree of optimism for humans – all is not lost in Oedipus Tyrannus. Oedipus, unlike before, now accepts his destiny ‘My fate must take the course it will' and accepts it quietly and calmly. The audience do not see the common self-pity of the protagonist in this tragedy unlike others – e. g. Lear in Shakespeare's King Lear. Oedipus remains a tower of strength. Oedipus here highlights the best qualities found in humans. Aristotle stated that it is the quality of the hero's response to the peripeteia and the manner in which he confronts it that determines his essential worth as a tragic hero and gives him ultimate tragic status. Oedipus, in coming through the dark night of the soul, confronts his destiny with courage and bravery. This is echoed in Willy Loman, who never gives up his dream of success for him or his son Biff. To imply that Oedipus is on a hell-bent path suggests that fate has victimised him. I believe this is not true – Oedipus could have left the plague in Thebes, he could have left the murder of Laius un-investigated and he could have not pressed Teiresias or the herdsman for the truth. However, his piety, justice, and desire for knowledge meant that he must. And thus it is his character that has caused the tragedy – his good and bad qualities – his human qualities – and so thus I find that we do share his suffering and misfortune. Willy is a product of the optimistic post war society, and he has a real burning desire to sell and succeed: ‘Goddammit, I could sell them! ‘ This is admirable, and shows an iron determination as well as joyous enthusiasm in Willy's character, and so one could argue that like Oedipus' iron determination, Willy has aspects in his character that highlight the best in humanity. He has a real sense of competition, and acknowledges that the ‘competition is maddening! ‘ Willy doesn't accept this competition with defeat – he presses on – he even states to Biff: ‘Never leave a job till you're finished'. I don't see how striving till the very end, regardless of how successful you are in monetary terms, is considered ‘hell-bent'. Willy loves his family: ‘The man who never worked a day but for your benefit' and I feel that the audience would definitely share in his suffering and misfortune – millions of people today strive to provide for their families. Willy is an admirable in his determination for success for his family: ‘I get the feeling that I'll never sell anything again, that I won't make a living for you, or a business for the boys'. The audience feel a sense of pathos, Willy is striving for a better life for his family, and his struggle is against a mighty and powerful force, that ultimately leads to his demise – quite like the gods in Oedipus Tyrannus. Like Oedipus, although he cares for his family deeply, his drive to preserve his personal dignity and honour surpasses their need, and this could perhaps explain why he chooses to kill himself – leaving Linda with nothing. External forces such as consumerism also shape Willy's way of thinking, and would have affected millions of people in that period in America. Consumerism was a major force in the late forties, with families having more disposable income and industry and economy booming, consumer products were churning out faster than ever before to meet the demand. This is demonstrated in Death of a Salesman: ‘there's nine-sixty for the washing-machine. And for the vacuum cleaner there's three and a half' speaks Linda in Act One, and Willy laments how ‘we should've bought a well-advertised machine'. Arthur Miller denounces consumerism through Willy: ‘Once in my life I would like to own something outright before it's broken'. A contemporary audience should be able to identify with this, that Willy has an up-hill struggle against a corrupt society. Willy's mistaken path is not entirely his own doing, but the above statement does not consider these external factors in shaping Willy's destiny. Willy lies unthinkingly – it is almost like an automatic reaction. The audience can see though; Willy's later hesitance, stuttering and pauses ‘Well, I – I did about a hundred and eighty-gross in Providence' showing the extreme discrepancy between his dreams and his reality. This shows his insecurities behind the bravado ‘I'm fat. I'm very – foolish to look at, Linda'. These poignant moments show the deep-seated insecurities within Willy – and I think the audience will be able to identify with Willy at these times – and sympathise with him. Although Willy may be deluded and lie unthinkingly, we can see that he is not completely deluded though, and in this strange metaphor ‘The woods are burning! Willy is realising that his dreams are going up in smoke. This is juxtaposed with the realist vernacular that occurs throughout the play, and suggests this line is of great importance – that Willy is aware that his path is mistaken. However, it suggests that at this stage, he must continue to follow it to retain a sense of personal dignity. This shows the complexity of Willy's decisions, and I feel the above quote trivialises them somewhat. Willy is tired and exhausted – this is made clear in the stage directions: ‘Even, as he crosses the stage to the doorway of the house, his exhaustion is apparent. He unlocks the door, comes into the kitchen, and thankfully lets his burden down'. This staging helps to enhance the realism of Willy's character, and the audience can see visually as well as from the dialogue this man's exhaustion. This very humanistic portrayal of Willy would strike a note with the audience, and I feel that we can share in his suffering, and that he is not following this mistaken path for trivial reasons – he genuinely wants to be better. We can also see in Willy the worst in ourselves – this man has many flaws. There are no attempts to idealise Willy – he is perhaps an anti-hero, and Arthur Miller states that this tragic process is ‘not beyond the common man'. As an audience, we should be able to identify with Willy's suffering and misfortune even more than Oedipus', as it is not so far removed from our own selves. Willy can be rude and dismissive ‘Don't be a pest Bernard! What an anaemic', his language here being vulgar and childish. He can also be intensely angry at the people who love him – he is seen on stage as ‘exploding at her' (Linda). He also betrays Linda's trust in his affair with the woman – which, in memory time – comes back to haunt him: ‘[The WOMAN'S laugh is heard. ] Willy: Shut up! Willy's interior is explored through the use of memory time. Willy often reverts into episodes of memory time when reality becomes too hard to bear. From a psychological point of view, it shows that Willy is perhaps trying to repress the pain he is feeling. This enables the audience to see a more rounded view of Willy's situation, and we are shown his mental suffering graphically, which increases our sympathy for this character. The staging in Oedipus Tyrannus is much simpler and relies mostly on the dialogue – and so a modern audience may not be able to identify as much with Oedipus, as we do not see such detail into his mind. Other characters also highlight Willy's suffering; Linda says ‘He's been trying to kill himself'. Is Willy finally giving in to his failure? We see however, later on in the play, that his attempts to kill himself are not because he is admitting failure, but to gain i20,000 in life insurance in order for Biff to become successful: ‘It's twenty thousand dollars on the barrelhead. Guaranteed, gilt-edged, you understand? ‘ he tells Ben in a fictional episode. Ben uses the sinister metaphor: ‘The jungle is dark but full of diamonds, Willy' to describe Willy's suicide. This is perhaps a point in the play were I do agree with the expressed view ‘hell-bent' on following a mistaken path. Willy has such determination that he will end his own life to secure some sort of success. I feel that here the audience would find it hard to identify with this – most of us would never go this far, and I think most of us would realise how success is not the most important thing in life. For Willy though, it is what he has based his whole life on, and like Oedipus, he wants to preserve that honour. Miller states that the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing – his sense of personal dignity'. This perfectly describes Willy, and so, even if we cannot perhaps identify specifically with his struggle, we are still in the presence of a tragic hero. We could ask however, does Willy need to lay down his life for his personal dignity? It doesn't matter what we think, because for Willy, this is the only way to. I feel that Willy's path is certainly more hell-bent than Oedipus' in that Willy never gains self-knowledge or approaches an anagnorisis of what he truly is, Biff sadly states in the Requiem ‘He never knew who he was'. Whereas Willy dies perhaps in vain, Oedipus survives the dark night of the soul, and accepts his destiny. This could be why audiences more readily see Oedipus as a tragic hero whom we can see the best and worst of ourselves in.

Stone Tools Then and Now

We all know the cartoon of the cave man bearing his stone axe. How crude life must have been, we may think, when there was no metal. But stone is a worthy servant. In fact, stone tools have been found that are more than 2 million years old. This means that stone technology is not something Homo sapiens invented—we inherited it from earlier hominid species. And stone tools are still around. I dont mean stone used for construction, but things you can hold in your hand and do stuff with. Stone Grinding Tools Start with grinding. One stone tool thats still in common kitchen use is the mortar and pestle, better than anything for turning things to a powder or paste. (Those are made of marble or agate.) And maybe you seek out stoneground flour for your baking needs. (Grindstones are made of quartzite and similar rocks.) Perhaps the highest use of stone today along these lines is in the tough, heavy granite rollers used for grinding and conching chocolate. And lets not forget chalk, the soft stone used for writing on blackboards or sidewalks. Edged Stone Tools But what makes me light up is edged stone tools. If you spend enough time in suitable country, one day youll pick up an ancient arrowhead. The utter coolness of the technology really comes home when you look at one of these stone tools close up, like some of the delicate points at arrowheads.com. The technique of making them is called knapping (with a silent K), and it involves striking stones with harder stones, or highly controlled pressure flaking with pieces of antler and similar materials. It takes years of practice, and you cut your hands a lot until you become an expert. The type of stone used is typically chert. Chert is a form of quartz with an exceedingly fine grain. Different types are called flint, agate, and chalcedony. A similar rock, obsidian, forms from high-silica lava and is the best knapping stone of all. These stone tools—points, blades, scrapers, axes and more—are often the only evidence we have from archaeological sites. They are cultural fossils, and like true fossils, they have been collected and classified for many years around the world. Modern geochemical techniques like neutron activation analysis, coupled with growing databases  of the sources of toolmaking stone, are allowing us to trace the movements of prehistoric peoples and the patterns of trade among them. Stone Tools Today Another thing that makes me light up is knowing that this technology is being revived and preserved by a bunch of fanatic knappers. Theyll show you how at a local knap-in, theyll sell you videotapes and books, and of course theyll put their passion on the web. The best knapping websites, I think, are Knappers Anonymous and flintknapping.com, but if you want to follow the arrowhead trail to the scientific end of things, start with the lithics page from Kris Hirst, the About Archaeology Guide. The knapper/artist Errett Callahan has devoted his career to reproducing all the ancient tools, then moving beyond them. He and other practitioners have brought this technology into what he calls the Post-Neolithic period. His fantasy knives will make your jaws drop. PS: Obsidian scalpels are the sharpest in the world, and plastic surgeons rely on them more and more for operations where scarring must be minimized. Truly, the stone edge is here to stay.