I didn't even have to read more than a few sentences in the stages of a Death Penalty Trial before I saw something that makes me doubt the guilt of the accuseD. It was something along the lines of death cases being ones where there is immEnse pressure on the police toncatch the murderer. The more pressure there is, the more rushed the police will be and therefore they will take shortcuts or flat out cheat the system by putting innocent people to their deaths.
Uckily, the jury has to sit on these caseS for a month so ther is plenty of time to really contemplate the severity and the necessity of this punishment, although who knows what kind of people are in this jury and if they care or are invested in justice at all. In theory these steps of process seem like they would work really well, but I feel that when deciding whether or not to give the death sentence the jury will not presume a defendant innocent until proven guilty. I think the jury is most likely to presume guilty and wait to find out just HOW guilty the defendant is. The jury is only human after all, and I don't blame them for thinking this way because anyone would, it's just that a human with flAws shouldn't get to pick death.
The methods of execution disgust me. I was literally wrinkling my face up as if there was a terrible smell coming from the screen.
1. Hanging: This is terrifying. It's so medieval I can't believe it's still a choice in some states. It's inhumane because it will cause severe emotional damage because of the nerves and anxiety upon getting the black bag over his head. It's completely unreliable and everything has to be perfect or else the person will be in a lot of pain and anguish before he dies. This is not ok to put a human being through.
2. Firing Squad: Imagine if that first shot was the blank shot? How would one feel, unable to see, practically dying of anxiety and hearing the shot fire, but not knowing why one is still living? That is something that is traumatic enough to literally gray the hair on one's head. This technique is inhumane.
3. Electrocution: While reading the passage explaining this method of murder I thought about the Green Mile and the execution scene in that movie. Seeing it fictionalized with special effects is bad enough even if I know it was fake, but to think that it actually has happened in reality blows my mind. How do the executioners and the people who set up the chair and the sponge and the witnesses feel when witnesses this graphic death? Real people have gone through that pain, and no one deserves to have to die such a painful and cruel death. Not even a criminal.
4. Gas Chamber: What are we, Nazis? Who in their right mind would employ this method? It obviously puts innocent people at risk when they have to clean up the body and there are still fume remenants in the chamber. It seems like the trend of these execution methods are to 'accidentally-on purpose' put the death row inmates in the most amount of pain and terror as possible. That's cruel and unusual and it puts everyone who condones it on the same level as the murderer.
5. Lethal Injection: I'm still anti-death penalty, but this method seems like the most humane. At least the inmates are anesthitized, but there is still that emotional anxiety of going to the injection room, being strapped down,and being prodded by untrained people who may inadvertently cause extreme pain. To top that all off, we saw in the documentary about Clifford Boggess that sometimes inmates are sent to the injection room, strapped down, and then at the last second delayed only to come back again and again not knowing if they're going to die or be saved temporarily. It's torturous. Some would probably say the prisoner deserves that turbulent emotional damage for his crime, but I still think that it is not ok to treat people that way, guilty or not. We have brains that allow us to rise above the primitive natures of the Amygdala, but we sometimes choose not to use our given capacity for empathy. It's sad.
California, Texas, and Florida (in that order) have significantly higher amounts of inmates on Death Row than the other states. Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Masschusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin do not have the death penalty (and are therefore are lead by rightheaded people). Only 11 states have more black inmates than white inmates. That surprises me, actually. California has the most women on death row, which isn't surprising because they have the most inmates anyways. There are hardly any women on death row, there are mostly only men. There are some juveniles that have been executed, but only 16 and older. There can't be many statistics about them because their identities have to be protected since they were minors. 4 states do not have an option for life without parole. The most commonly used method of execution is largely lethal injection. Curretn Illinois policy says it's ok to execute people with mental retardation, one must be 18 or older to get death, and life without parole can be given. As of 9/08 I think Texas has executed the most people, second most is Virginia. Mostly whites have been exectued, in Virginia it's pretty even between blacks and whites. In both other ethnicities don't compare. Texas only uses injection and Virginia uses electrocution and injection.
After considering this data it seems to me that the death penalty is definitely sexist, but less racist than i thought it was. Hardly any women are ever executed or put on death row whereas many men are. I don't know if this is because men commit more violent crimes than women or if juries are more likely to vote for men to get death. Surprisingly, though, more white people than any other minorities are executed and sentenced when just averaging out all the results. Thankfully, most states choose lethal injection as the method of execution. This is not humane, but it is the best of all the evils.
The updated data reconfirms my belief that the death penalty is racist. If a white person is killed by a black person, the black person is much more likely to get the death sentence than a white person who kills a black person. Economically, the death row and executions cost more than tax dollars than the life sentence costs. Therefore, the death penalty is a waste of money. Race plays a huge part in the sentencing. There is not enough minority representation in the courts. This data says that as a country, we are pretty much equally in favor and not in favor of the death penalty. And there is a percentage of people with no opinion. The opinion is a mere 1 percent higher for not in favor of the death penalty. I think the death penalty center is against the death penalty judging by their reports and the facts they choose to represent. I think it is very convincing because it confirms my own previous beliefs. I like most anything that will qualify my views. I don't think anymore information is necessary because this data is very thorough.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Clifford Boggess
After watching the documentary on Clifford Boggess' death row case I felt the familiar feeling I get after watching an E!Insider Special on Charles Manson. To sum it up it feels like, 'This person is seriously a psychopath.'
I'm not really partial to the mitigating or the aggravating factors of this case because I still believe that the death penalty is wrong no matter what. What I am partial to is the fact that Boggess came from a family with a history of mental illness, an uncle who was also a criminal and a mother who had drug and alcohol problems along with abusing her children. His childhood was rocky and traumatic. There was no stability in his life. He was shipped off from an irresponsible and abusive mother to an adoptive family that couldn't take care of him and then sent him to live with some other relatives. This lack of stability in the earliest years of childhood is one piece of a recipe that spells criminal or murderer or just plainly to a dysfuntional adult. In Boggess' case it obviously lead to murder.
We have to take into consideration the psychological factors and the biological factors and the environmental factors in order to evaluate Boggess not for the death penalty, but as a human being. In some regards I sympathize with him because he is probably a sociopath, and that is unfortunate. I wonder what it would be like to grow up without emotions or a sense of anything central to human behavior.
Anyways, Boggess was a murderer and he was executed (wrongfully) so there's no point in studying what created a murderer because he'll never get to sit on Freud's couch. He would have never been fit to be released back into society because he was a sociopath and everyone could tell that he may have convinced himself that he was human, but on the inside it just wasn't possible. Taking into consideration his value as a Christian and an artist is a useless sentiment as well. There are enough Christians in the world and most of them aren't cold blooded murderers. There are enough artists in the world as well who are much better painters than Boggess. Even some people in this school are much better artists than Boggess was, although that is subjective. He has no value as either of these things, but he has value as a human being. I don't know how his lawyers overlooked that little factoid. He was a human being and so are his executers and so were the men he murdered. This puts everyone on an equal plane unless one counts Sociopath as a different level, (which I kind of do). The point is, Boggess took life away from a human and is therefore being punished for it in jail. A life's sentence would suffice. Even though he was having the time of his life in prison, he has to live with being a sociopathic psychokiller. The executioner won't be punished by taking life and that is NOT fair. It's not moral. It's not just. It's nothing but a pathetic attempt to help the society feel clean again and to enable the families to grieve improperly.
I've basically argued everything against Boggess that can possibly be said, but the fact is that he is a person. No one person has the right to take another person's life away on a whim like this. The execution was wrong.
I'm not really partial to the mitigating or the aggravating factors of this case because I still believe that the death penalty is wrong no matter what. What I am partial to is the fact that Boggess came from a family with a history of mental illness, an uncle who was also a criminal and a mother who had drug and alcohol problems along with abusing her children. His childhood was rocky and traumatic. There was no stability in his life. He was shipped off from an irresponsible and abusive mother to an adoptive family that couldn't take care of him and then sent him to live with some other relatives. This lack of stability in the earliest years of childhood is one piece of a recipe that spells criminal or murderer or just plainly to a dysfuntional adult. In Boggess' case it obviously lead to murder.
We have to take into consideration the psychological factors and the biological factors and the environmental factors in order to evaluate Boggess not for the death penalty, but as a human being. In some regards I sympathize with him because he is probably a sociopath, and that is unfortunate. I wonder what it would be like to grow up without emotions or a sense of anything central to human behavior.
Anyways, Boggess was a murderer and he was executed (wrongfully) so there's no point in studying what created a murderer because he'll never get to sit on Freud's couch. He would have never been fit to be released back into society because he was a sociopath and everyone could tell that he may have convinced himself that he was human, but on the inside it just wasn't possible. Taking into consideration his value as a Christian and an artist is a useless sentiment as well. There are enough Christians in the world and most of them aren't cold blooded murderers. There are enough artists in the world as well who are much better painters than Boggess. Even some people in this school are much better artists than Boggess was, although that is subjective. He has no value as either of these things, but he has value as a human being. I don't know how his lawyers overlooked that little factoid. He was a human being and so are his executers and so were the men he murdered. This puts everyone on an equal plane unless one counts Sociopath as a different level, (which I kind of do). The point is, Boggess took life away from a human and is therefore being punished for it in jail. A life's sentence would suffice. Even though he was having the time of his life in prison, he has to live with being a sociopathic psychokiller. The executioner won't be punished by taking life and that is NOT fair. It's not moral. It's not just. It's nothing but a pathetic attempt to help the society feel clean again and to enable the families to grieve improperly.
I've basically argued everything against Boggess that can possibly be said, but the fact is that he is a person. No one person has the right to take another person's life away on a whim like this. The execution was wrong.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Drugs-4th Amendement
School required drug testing is an invasion of personal privacy, no question to it. The school has no business in the testing of students whether it is a matter of participating in school activities, sports, or just random tests to keep drug use down in schools. It is wrong to get into students' business unless it is a matter of performance enhancement in sports or other matters of academic dishonesty.
It really boils down to it not being any of the school's business to get into a student's personal affairs outside of school. There is always a percentage of kids who will do drugs. Threatening them with drug testing is not going to deter them from doing the actual drugs, but it is going to deter them from participating in school functions. If anything permitting students who use drugs to join clubs and sports may offer a distraction from the problem, but if they are banned by the school after "dropping dirty" on a drug test then they are more likely to retreat from school sponsored things and continue using drugs. Scaring kids with threats of drug testing and punishments that they can't control by, say, not being on drugs during activities and school will cause drugs and alcohol to be driven more underground and it will become a more dangerous activity. The danger will not, however, cause kids to stop what they are doing. If the school system backed off then the fear and the secrecy would also lessen.
Parents should be responsible for their kids' hypothetical drug use. The school, especially public schools, are not parents. During school hours schools are granted a limited amount of parenthood so if a student shows up high then the school has a right to do something about it if there is reasonable cause to suspect a student is on drugs. If there is no suspicion that an individual is on drugs then there is no reason to drug test and entire population of people who should be assumed innocent until the school is given a reason to believe differently. If parents are worried about their own children they can go to Walmart and buy a package full of drug tests to use at home.
I really don't care about privacy issues of 'oh no I have to pee in a cup while someone watches/listens!!!!' That honestly doesn't concern me because there is too much proof against a student's right to privacy as we have communal locker room etc. What does concern me is that the school has to hire this person who is similar to a probational officer. Not only does this person have to be hired, but this is a humiliating and uncomfortable position for an innocent or guilty child. Personally, if I had to be in that situation I would feel like a criminal, I would feel ashamed to be in that position, and I would feel angry that I had to be subjected to something that people on probation have to go through. This is emotionally damaging to an impressionable student. It leaves scar in the student's view on justice and the fairness of the school system and the constitution. A person is innocent until proving guilty, but this is a method of proving innocence after being assumed guilty. It's just wrong.
Drug testing in schools is just wrong and a waste of money and time.
It really boils down to it not being any of the school's business to get into a student's personal affairs outside of school. There is always a percentage of kids who will do drugs. Threatening them with drug testing is not going to deter them from doing the actual drugs, but it is going to deter them from participating in school functions. If anything permitting students who use drugs to join clubs and sports may offer a distraction from the problem, but if they are banned by the school after "dropping dirty" on a drug test then they are more likely to retreat from school sponsored things and continue using drugs. Scaring kids with threats of drug testing and punishments that they can't control by, say, not being on drugs during activities and school will cause drugs and alcohol to be driven more underground and it will become a more dangerous activity. The danger will not, however, cause kids to stop what they are doing. If the school system backed off then the fear and the secrecy would also lessen.
Parents should be responsible for their kids' hypothetical drug use. The school, especially public schools, are not parents. During school hours schools are granted a limited amount of parenthood so if a student shows up high then the school has a right to do something about it if there is reasonable cause to suspect a student is on drugs. If there is no suspicion that an individual is on drugs then there is no reason to drug test and entire population of people who should be assumed innocent until the school is given a reason to believe differently. If parents are worried about their own children they can go to Walmart and buy a package full of drug tests to use at home.
I really don't care about privacy issues of 'oh no I have to pee in a cup while someone watches/listens!!!!' That honestly doesn't concern me because there is too much proof against a student's right to privacy as we have communal locker room etc. What does concern me is that the school has to hire this person who is similar to a probational officer. Not only does this person have to be hired, but this is a humiliating and uncomfortable position for an innocent or guilty child. Personally, if I had to be in that situation I would feel like a criminal, I would feel ashamed to be in that position, and I would feel angry that I had to be subjected to something that people on probation have to go through. This is emotionally damaging to an impressionable student. It leaves scar in the student's view on justice and the fairness of the school system and the constitution. A person is innocent until proving guilty, but this is a method of proving innocence after being assumed guilty. It's just wrong.
Drug testing in schools is just wrong and a waste of money and time.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Religion and the First Amendment
Freedom of Religion
1. I’m really surprised that so many people consider America a Christian Nation. That’s really single minded.
2. Athiest’s Stellar Performance may not Translate into Win
So I learned about how the Courts will not take away the statement "under God" in the pledge even if some Athiest makes a great case about him not wanting religion forced down his daughter's throat in school. I believe the terms he used were something along the lines of having her "coerced" into religious beliefs by sneaking that phrase into the pledge. Thankfully, no one's going to force a student to say the pledge, although it seems like many a student have been wrongly punished for his or her refusal. Legally, no one HAS to say the pledge in school, but if one chooses to say it the phrase about God is personally optional, but will remain in the official lyrics of the pledge.
Personally, I hate the pledge. I never say it and I don't think I have said it since I was in the fifth grade and it was basically part of the curriculum. I don't really care if other people say it, but I think it's ridiculous to take time out of my day to have a moment of silence to pay my respects to a God of our country that I don't even believe in. Maybe if it said, "under George Washington" or something stupid like that I wouldn't dislike the pledge so much, but I really think the pledge has one foot over the line of forcing religion in school.
So I learned about how the Courts will not take away the statement "under God" in the pledge even if some Athiest makes a great case about him not wanting religion forced down his daughter's throat in school. I believe the terms he used were something along the lines of having her "coerced" into religious beliefs by sneaking that phrase into the pledge. Thankfully, no one's going to force a student to say the pledge, although it seems like many a student have been wrongly punished for his or her refusal. Legally, no one HAS to say the pledge in school, but if one chooses to say it the phrase about God is personally optional, but will remain in the official lyrics of the pledge.
Personally, I hate the pledge. I never say it and I don't think I have said it since I was in the fifth grade and it was basically part of the curriculum. I don't really care if other people say it, but I think it's ridiculous to take time out of my day to have a moment of silence to pay my respects to a God of our country that I don't even believe in. Maybe if it said, "under George Washington" or something stupid like that I wouldn't dislike the pledge so much, but I really think the pledge has one foot over the line of forcing religion in school.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
9-11: Seven Days in September
I normally don't get emotional over these sorts of 9-11 patriotic type movies probably because I was so young when it happened and no one explained it to me until I was probably in the fifth grade. That's a two year gap between when it happened and when I actually understood what happened and I attribute that to bad parenting or something that I'm not going to really get into right now because it's not relative.
But I did get kind of torn up inside during this documentary: Seven Days in September. That's what a good documentary does, it gets you to care about what's going on in the film and evokes emotion. That's how I know it was actually a good documentary.
It was really brave of the people with cameras to continue filming throughout. Especially when the dust was falling right after the towers fell. Honestly it looked like the greatest post-apocalyptic movie scene that ever existed. Except it was real and that made it extremely depressing and horrific. I had goosebumps while watching this part, and actually now that I think about it I had goosebumps a lot during this movie. And it wasn't cold in the room or anything. It was the impact.
Right before the scene of the mass argument I wrote this:
"The nature of man is surely evil. Our instinct is survival of the fittest, to kill or be killed, to hate those different and make them our enemies and conquer our enemies. Our duty as humans living in our modern world that does not call for instinct-based behavior is to suppress these evils, control these evils and live as rational human beings. To think and accept everyone, to think less selfishly, It's a human duty to ignore these tendencies for violence, to get rid of the need for war, to deny ourselves hate for other sections of humanity that differ from our own. That is the duty and burden of the Modern Human Being."
Then I saw the scene in the park where a massive argument breaks out and goes on and on with everyone shouting. Multiple arguments going on about the same issues in one area with everyone fighting everyone for a long period of time. Everyone was just releasing all their pent up anger, and I first thought that it was going to turn ugly and a riot was going to break out, but then the magic happened. Someone admitted his confusion and his misplaced anger and started crying and then it turned into a beautiful group cry/hug. This is the way people should behave at all times. It's sad that it took a terrible tragedy to bring out, "New York's true colors," which actually ended up being surprisingly kind and genuine and connected to the other people around them and not just themselves. It was really refreshing to see and made me rethink my previous comment. It was great how the group expressed different viewpoints, vented, debated, argued and shouted (without violence) and had nice controversy. Controversy is good. Controversy makes the world go round. But at the end of the day when we're exhausted and we start to cry, why not just have a group hug? (And I hate hugs with all my heart, too). There actually doesn't need to be that literal embrace, but the symbol of acceptance is perfect.
I recommend this movie to anyone old enough to understand the concepts. And it's surprising how young one can be and still understand.
But I did get kind of torn up inside during this documentary: Seven Days in September. That's what a good documentary does, it gets you to care about what's going on in the film and evokes emotion. That's how I know it was actually a good documentary.
It was really brave of the people with cameras to continue filming throughout. Especially when the dust was falling right after the towers fell. Honestly it looked like the greatest post-apocalyptic movie scene that ever existed. Except it was real and that made it extremely depressing and horrific. I had goosebumps while watching this part, and actually now that I think about it I had goosebumps a lot during this movie. And it wasn't cold in the room or anything. It was the impact.
Right before the scene of the mass argument I wrote this:
"The nature of man is surely evil. Our instinct is survival of the fittest, to kill or be killed, to hate those different and make them our enemies and conquer our enemies. Our duty as humans living in our modern world that does not call for instinct-based behavior is to suppress these evils, control these evils and live as rational human beings. To think and accept everyone, to think less selfishly, It's a human duty to ignore these tendencies for violence, to get rid of the need for war, to deny ourselves hate for other sections of humanity that differ from our own. That is the duty and burden of the Modern Human Being."
Then I saw the scene in the park where a massive argument breaks out and goes on and on with everyone shouting. Multiple arguments going on about the same issues in one area with everyone fighting everyone for a long period of time. Everyone was just releasing all their pent up anger, and I first thought that it was going to turn ugly and a riot was going to break out, but then the magic happened. Someone admitted his confusion and his misplaced anger and started crying and then it turned into a beautiful group cry/hug. This is the way people should behave at all times. It's sad that it took a terrible tragedy to bring out, "New York's true colors," which actually ended up being surprisingly kind and genuine and connected to the other people around them and not just themselves. It was really refreshing to see and made me rethink my previous comment. It was great how the group expressed different viewpoints, vented, debated, argued and shouted (without violence) and had nice controversy. Controversy is good. Controversy makes the world go round. But at the end of the day when we're exhausted and we start to cry, why not just have a group hug? (And I hate hugs with all my heart, too). There actually doesn't need to be that literal embrace, but the symbol of acceptance is perfect.
I recommend this movie to anyone old enough to understand the concepts. And it's surprising how young one can be and still understand.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Speech Codes
College speech codes are the end of the free world.
Restricted speech in lower level schools are just as bad, but college is the 'real world' in comparison. If the Real World teaches a person to deal with speech codes and just accept them for what they are, that's grounds for real constitutional changes, government conspiracy, the loss of human rights, and the eventual fall of the Democratic Republic.
Maybe that's jumping to quick conclusions, but all it takes is the public's acceptance of the loss of rights and the ball starts to roll on the other restrictions the government will be allowed to institute. Even so called 'Fighting Words' being unprotected is a step in the wrong direction. Yeah, it's a danger to the individuals who will chosse to lash out in violence because of a few mean-spirited words, but maybe that's more of an issue with self control or the way that person was raised. There's no reason to react violently anyways, that's the path of emotionally charged, ignorant people who can't stand to accept the idea that other people have different ways of thinking (as offensive as those ways may be) and would rather violently attack another rather than listen to something distasteful.
Sticks and stones can break your bones, but names will never hurt you.
See?
Thankfully, the Supreme Court is pretty good about making sure these speech codes aren't allowed to be instated, but schools are still allowed certain policies that just don't sit right. Anti-harassment policies are well meaning, but the way they are presented restricts even the mention of sex topics and racial issues on the college campuses because it's too offensive.
Personal opinion?
Unless you're actually attacked physically for something, then just stop being so sensitive and get over it.
Restricted speech in lower level schools are just as bad, but college is the 'real world' in comparison. If the Real World teaches a person to deal with speech codes and just accept them for what they are, that's grounds for real constitutional changes, government conspiracy, the loss of human rights, and the eventual fall of the Democratic Republic.
Maybe that's jumping to quick conclusions, but all it takes is the public's acceptance of the loss of rights and the ball starts to roll on the other restrictions the government will be allowed to institute. Even so called 'Fighting Words' being unprotected is a step in the wrong direction. Yeah, it's a danger to the individuals who will chosse to lash out in violence because of a few mean-spirited words, but maybe that's more of an issue with self control or the way that person was raised. There's no reason to react violently anyways, that's the path of emotionally charged, ignorant people who can't stand to accept the idea that other people have different ways of thinking (as offensive as those ways may be) and would rather violently attack another rather than listen to something distasteful.
Sticks and stones can break your bones, but names will never hurt you.
See?
Thankfully, the Supreme Court is pretty good about making sure these speech codes aren't allowed to be instated, but schools are still allowed certain policies that just don't sit right. Anti-harassment policies are well meaning, but the way they are presented restricts even the mention of sex topics and racial issues on the college campuses because it's too offensive.
Personal opinion?
Unless you're actually attacked physically for something, then just stop being so sensitive and get over it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)