29th May 2015 Capital Punishment Capital punishment is one of the most controversial issues not only in the United States, but also in many modern countries. The United States federal government (in comparison to the separate states) applies death penalty for capital crimes, capital crime is a serious offence which includes treason, terrorism, spying, federal murder, large-scale drug trafficking, and trying to kill a witness, juror, or court officer in certain cases. In the United States, 32 states such as Texas, California, Florida, and Alabama apply the death penalty. On the other hand, 18 states such as New York, Alaska, West Virginia, and Massachusetts do not apply the death penalty (The Death Penalty Information Center). In 1608, captain George Kendal, was the first recorded execution in the history of the United States for being a spy for Spain. In 1966, the public support for capital punishment reached all-time low. A Gallup poll shows support of the death penalty at only 42% (The Death Penalty Information Center). Even though supporters of the death penalty claim that capital punishment is effective punishment, it should be abolished because it costs the government a huge amount of money, there is no real evidence that capital punishment reduces the crimes rate, and many innocent people could die. The cost of the death penalty is one of the reasons that the government of the United States should ban capital punishment. Capital punishment in 32 states cost the government of the United States a huge amount of money that could be used wisely in other important issues such as creating jobs, public health, and education. For example, in Kansas non-death penalty cases which counted through to the end of incarceration cost the state in average $740,000, while death penalty cases which counted through execution cost the state $1.26 million for each inmate (Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit). Moreover, in Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case (Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008). In California, according to the Assessment of Costs by the federal Judge Arthur Alarcon and Professor of Law at Loyola Law School Paula Mitchell, the cost of the death penalty has totaled over $4 billion since 1978. The authors calculated that, if the governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years (The Death Penalty Information Center). The second reason that the government of the United States should ban the capital punishment is that many wrongly convicted people could die. According to a study by the National Academy of Sciences, 4% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent in the US. Since 1973, 151 people have been released from death rows throughout the cou.

1. 29th May 2015
Capital Punishment
Capital punishment is one of the most controversial issues
not only in the United States, but also in many modern
countries. The United States federal government (in comparison
to the separate states) applies death penalty for capital crimes,
capital crime is a serious offence which includes treason,
terrorism, spying, federal murder, large-scale drug trafficking,
and trying to kill a witness, juror, or court officer in certain
cases. In the United States, 32 states such as Texas, California,
Florida, and Alabama apply the death penalty. On the other
hand, 18 states such as New York, Alaska, West Virginia, and
Massachusetts do not apply the death penalty (The Death
Penalty Information Center). In 1608, captain George Kendal,
was the first recorded execution in the history of the United
States for being a spy for Spain. In 1966, the public support for
capital punishment reached all-time low. A Gallup poll shows
support of the death penalty at only 42% (The Death Penalty
Information Center). Even though supporters of the death
penalty claim that capital punishment is effective punishment, it
should be abolished because it costs the government a huge
amount of money, there is no real evidence that capital
punishment reduces the crimes rate, and many innocent people
could die.
The cost of the death penalty is one of the reasons that
the government of the United States should ban capital
punishment. Capital punishment in 32 states cost the
government of the United States a huge amount of money that
could be used wisely in other important issues such as creating
jobs, public health, and education. For example, in Kansas non-
death penalty cases which counted through to the end of
incarceration cost the state in average $740,000, while death

2. penalty cases which counted through execution cost the state
$1.26 million for each inmate (Survey by the Kansas Legislative
Post Audit). Moreover, in Maryland death penalty cases cost 3
times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a
single case (Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in
Maryland, March 2008). In California, according to the
Assessment of Costs by the federal Judge Arthur Alarcon and
Professor of Law at Loyola Law School Paula Mitchell, the cost
of the death penalty has totaled over $4 billion since 1978. The
authors calculated that, if the governor commuted the sentences
of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would
result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a
savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years (The Death Penalty
Information Center).
The second reason that the government of the United
States should ban the capital punishment is that many wrongly
convicted people could die. According to a study by the
National Academy of Sciences, 4% of defendants sentenced to
die are innocent in the US. Since 1973, 151 people have been
released from death rows throughout the country due to
evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10
wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.
Furthermore, from 1973-1999, there was an average of 3.03
exonerations per year, and from 2000-2013, there has been an
average of 4.29 exonerations per year (The Death Penalty
Information Center). Therefore, the government of the United
States should ban the death penalty to prevent the death of
innocent people.
Although some supporters of the death penalty argue
that capital punishment deter crime, recent studies shows
completely the opposite. In fact, the states that do not apply
capital punishment have lower crime rate than the states that
apply the death penalty. According to the N.C. Department of
Justice, the state murder rate has declined significantly since
the executions stopped. According to a research reported in
Homicide Studies, executions may actually increase the number

3. of murders, rather than prevent murders. Furthermore, according
to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions
of the country that do not apply the death penalty are the safest
for police officers. In the United States, murder rate in death
penalty states is 5.83% while the murder rate in non- death
penalty states is 4.10% in 2007 (Death Penalty Information
Center). The percent difference between non-death penalty
states and death penalty states is 42%. In other words, the
capital punishment supporters who claim that death penalty
deter crime do not have a solid evidence to prove their claim.
In conclusion, it may be true that in order to keep an
inmate in prison for life costs the government a huge amount of
money. However, the death penalty costs the government even
more money than keeping a convict behind bars. Therefore, the
government of the United States should abolish capital
punishment laws because it costs the government enormous
amount of money, many innocent people could die, and capital
punishment is not an effective punishment to prevent the crimes
from happing.
Running Head: NODAL LOGISTICS AND CUSTO BRASIL
1
NODAL LOGISTICS AND CUSTO BRASIL
2
Nodal Logistics and Custo Brazil
Student’s Name

4. Institutional Affiliation
NODAL LOGISTICS AND CUSTO BRASIL
Introduction
The Nodal Logistics Corporation had completed all the
necessary preparations needed to invest a real estate company in
Sao Paulo Brazil. This was made difficult when an obstacle was
thrown their way. The Sao Paulo partner made it clear that the
government regulations in Brazil require that the commercial
real estate contracts must all be denominated in the Brazilian
currency (Reais), and this was contrary to what the company
had been used to. The practice of Nodal Logistics is very
essential to its success particularly internationally because all
contracts of the industrial real estate are written in the United
States Dollars. The case in Sao Paulo Brazil was a stumbling
block and was become more serious because the industrial lease
contracts extended from five to twelve years and that was a very
lengthy time of disclosure to the Brazilian currency (Reais)
(Michael, 2008).
What kind of currency Risk does Brazilian project pose to
nodal?
Currency risk is defined as the jeopardy that ascends from the
alteration in the price of one currency against another and, in
this case, the Brazilian currency against the US Dollar. Each
and every time investors or corporations have properties or
commercial operations transversely on general borders, they
face currency risk if their points are not prevaricated.
Nodal faces some risks with the long exposure to the Brazilian
currency. The main problem Nodal is facing is the challenge of
the exchange rate as the U.S Dollar is superior to the Brazilian
Reais. As per now the 1 Reais is 0.32 U.S Dollars, and as this
may look like a small figure, it can multiply and translate into
millions when a large amount is used in investment. Despite the
fact that the Brazilian currency has been appreciating against
the U.S Dollar over time the economic conditions can be
predicted at times, especially for five or more years, a lot can
change.

5. The initial execution of the contract in Brazilian Currency is
also a risk worth noting, even though forty-five million United
States Dollars is an enormous investment and confrontational
fluctuations in exchange rate variations can meaningfully
influence the cash flows of the Corporation. The second risk
foreseeable is that the project is anticipated to produce
consistent cash flows in local currency that will be converted
intermittently in United States Dollars for its dissemination to
shareholders, which can jeopardize cash flows in the long
run.As mentioned earlier the US Dollar is superior to the
Brazilian Reais and the project will benefit the corporation
more, if the project was to generate cash in U.S Dollars. This
will eliminate the problems of exchange rates and furthermore
reducing the effect on cash flows. As long as the project is
generating cash in the Brazilian currency, the corporation will
always be under pressure because the economy has its
uncertainties meaning that the exchange rates will always not be
constant and this will heavily affect the cash flow, in the long
run, especially that the project is meant to take five to twelve
years.
Also, as mentioned earlier the Brazilian currency has recorded a
positive trend in appreciating against the US Dollar but in
business it is advisable to look at all possibility. For instance,
the Brazilian currency starts depreciating against the US Dollar,
the returns that the corporation will be receiving will be less
that what they had anticipated. Taking a 15% depreciating
against the US Dollar, this may amount to little or no gain at all
because the returns the corporation expects are affected by the
change in value of the Brazilian currency (Reais) against the US
Dollar.
What are the primary management methods to be considered?
Nodal Logistics Corporation can dimplement dissimilar
approaches and schemes to appraise this project.Some of the
methods that can be considered include: purchase forward
contracts, purchase put inputs, cross currency swap, currency

6. risk sharing and money market hedge.
Purchase Forward Contracts: this will be an agreement between
both parties on how much to sell and buy the property on a
particular future date. This is essential as the project is to take a
period of five to twelve years and the exchange rates fluctuate
all the time affecting the cash flow and the amount of returns in
general. Agreeing on an amount to be used as the value for
future will eliminate the risks posed by the fluctuating
economic conditions and exchange rates. This forward contract
can be customized to any commodity, amount, and delivery
date. An aspect of this technique making it appropriate for this
corporation to implement it is the fact that forward contracts do
not trade on a centralized exchange and are consequently,
considered as the over the counter instruments.
Purchase Put options: this technique gives the corporation time
to sell their property at the price at which they consider
appropriate. They will only be allowed to sell at that price for a
specified period and at this time the exchange rates will not
affect their returns but as soon as the time expires, the exchange
rates will affect the sales. The corporation can agree with their
counterparts in Brazil to allow them to sell their specified
quantity of a security at a specified time within the period at
which the project is supposed to be implemented.
Cross-Currency Swap: this will be an agreement between both
parties to exchange their interest outgoings and principal on
leads denominated in two dissimilar currencies and this case the
US Dollar and the Brazilian Reais. In this technique, a loan's
interest payments and principal in one currency would be
exchanged for a correspondingly sized loan and interest
payments in a dissimilar currency.
Currency Risk Sharing: A method of hedging currency risk
where the two parties (Nodal Logistics Corporations and their
Brazilian counterparts) to a contract breach an agreement to
share the jeopardy equally from exchange rate vacillation.
Currency risk sharing amongst the two parties commonly
encompasses a price modification clause, in which the base

7. price of the contract is accustomed if the exchange rate varies
further than a quantified immartial band or zone. Risk sharing,
therefore, transpires only if the exchange rate at the time of
contract payment is outside the impartial band, in which case
both parties divide equally the profit or loss. By nurturing
collaboration amid the two parties, currency risk sharing will
sure eradicate the zero-sum game nature of currency
vacillations, where one party benefits at the expense of the
other.
References
Michael, H. M., (2008). Nodal Logistics and Custo Brasil.
School of Global Management. Thunderbird.
Running Head: NODAL LOGISTICS AND CUSTO BRASIL
1

8. Nodal Logistics and Custo Brazil
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation