Abortion

1. For me, its tough to say what I support. After looking at both the websites I would say I'm pro-choice, but only before the first 12 weeks. Looking at the ways abortions are performed, I lowered my standard for abortion. At some point, when the fetus is older, it just doesn't seem right to me. However, I think a woman should have a choice of what she wants to do with her body and as long as its before 12 weeks an abortion seems constitutional to me. The pro-choice movement seems to be losing because more and more states are putting restrictions on abortion. 15 states have a near total ban on abortion and 20 states have a near ban on abortion after 12 weeks. Pro-life argument is based on a woman's right to chose what she does with her body. They also have a strong support when they say they support improving access to birth control and teaching young people sex education so that there doesn't have to be abortions. I think this is important because it shows they're trying to solve the problem while supporting the rights of women. The pro-lifers seem to use the fact that the killing of a fetus is wrong for their argument. I think this argument is valid, but I also believe in a women's right to chose whats best for her. They use a lot of fact and one of their main purposes is to inform women of all the abortion techniques and their side-effects. This is important because a women should know all the side-effects they may have.
2. I think both of these sides have valid arguments and its hard for me to make the decision of what side I'm on. Like I said earlier, I'm pro-choice so long as its before 12 weeks into the pregnancy. I think parents should know if their child is getting an abortion, just because the child is living under their household and their paying for medical insurance. If a daughter is 18 year old I don't believe they need a parents consent because they are considered an adult. However, any age lower a parent must consent.
3. If a daughter is living under her father's household then I believe he should be notified of the abortion simply because he takes care of her and most likely helps pay medical care. However, I don't think a father's consent should be required, I think only one parent needs to approve if the daughter is under 18, not both, so it may or may not be the father.
4. Illinois seems to have the same opinion as me about abortion. I agree with all the pro-choice laws because they seem to help women in need of abortion or preventing abortion via birth control. However, there are some pro-life laws that I don't agree with. After 12 weeks, Illinois has a ban on abortion with no exception on a woman's health and I think there should always be an exception if their health is at risk. Illinois also has laws refusing to provide medical services and referrals concerning abortion to some women. This is wrong because if a women wants to get abortion or wants information on it she should receive it without delay. Also I disagree with the law requiring the spouse's consent of the abortion because they have no say in the other spouses medical care. So I think Illinois has a good handle on abortion laws for the most part, but I would not like as much restrictions on the women that want more information or coverage for an abortion. A women should be fully educated when making her choice, and once she makes her choice, she should be fully supported.

Death Penalty #3

Response #1) I think the fact that there are so many steps involved in this process helps secure the rights of the accused. Each step is made to ensure everything is backed with evidence and the decision of death penalty is as sure as possible. However, those who cannot afford a lawyer have an extreme disadvantage. This is where there is a fault in our justice system. Each step does not require the defendant to have a lawyer, but without one, an innocent person may have a hard time defending himself.

Response #2) I cannot believe some of the executions that were used even with the eighth amendment in place. Hanging is incredibly risky because so many factors could lead to a slow death. Same goes with firing squad, plus the fact that someone is being torn up with bullets by execution is just inhumane. The electric chair seems like one of the most painful experiences with the description made by William Brennan. Similarly, the gas chamber seems very painful and slow with symptoms similar to a heart attack. Caryl Chessman nodded his head that it was painful before he died. When being executed, no one should feel pain and their death should be quick. None of these executions followed the 8th Amendment because all were cruel and unusual. The lethal injection seems somewhat humane because it puts the person being executed asleep before they die. This allows them to feel no pain. However, there are some flaws to this, such as not being injected into the vein. If the needle is put into the muscle it could be very painful. This is something we should not be risking when considering the lives of people. Until we find a flawless quick and painless execution, we should not execute at all.

Response #3) Generally the states with the most executions are in the south, but there are exceptions. I'm not quite sure why this is, maybe people in the south generally embrace it more. Most of the states that have no execution are in the north, with the exception of New Mexico. I also find that the states with higher population have more people on death row. This makes sense because there is more people. I found that the ratio of whites to blacks on death row are about even, but the ratio to blacks and whites who have been executed is not. I found that generally more whites have been executed. This is strange because most things I've heard from say the system is prejudice toward blacks and more blacks have been executed. There is far more men than woman on death row for psychological reasons that I don't want to get into. The state with the most women on death row is California, most likely because its high population. There are no statistics for juvenile executions because as of 2005 in Roper v. Simmons, the supreme court ruled that it is cruel and unusual to execute someone that has committed their crime under the age of 18. I was surprised to see any states at all to still have hanging and firing squad as a form of execution. They both seem so out dated and cruel. Most states use lethal injection as a form of execution because it is seemingly the most ethical. As of today, Illinois has had only 15 death row inmates and 12 executions. Illinois is currently in favor of the death penalty and uses only lethal injection. Surprisingly California only had 16 executions, but leads all other states in number of death row inmates with 690. Texas takes the number one spot for most executions with ease more than quadrupling its runner up with a whopping 451 executions. I still notice a large trend of southern states favoring the death penalty. Perhaps the south is more conservative.With the number of black to white inmates just about even I don't see any prejudice in the system at all, though there may be a slight more amount of blacks. And there is more whites that were executed than blacks so it evens out a bit. Judging by this data I would say justice is blind and everyone on death row is treated equally.

Response #4) This data strengthens my previous response when I said the ratio of black to white inmates on death row is about equal. However, this does not eliminate racial prejudice in the justice system when determining the death sentence. One chart convinced me that prejudice is in our justice system. From this chart and other information, it was found that one was 3.5 times more likely to be executed if their victim was white. Those that killed whites were 3 times more likely to be sentenced to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks and 4 times more likely than those who killed Latinos. Heres another statistic, 98% of all district attorneys are white. Coincidence? I THINK NOT! So this changed my perspective, because its not so much the execution itself where racism resides, its in the victims of the defendant. What I really like about this site, is that it gives a lot of raw fact and information, but not only this, it gives the opinions of Americans and professionals. Americans go about 50/50 when it comes to the death penalty. However, I don't think they all know how much they're paying for the death of some convict. The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. If I knew this while being a tax payer, I know I wouldn't be pro execution. Not only this, but 88% of criminologists believe that the death penalty does not lower the rate of homicides. So what good is the death penalty doing? Thats opinion coming from an expert, so its convincing to me. Looking at this information overall, I would most defiantly say its leaning toward anti -execution. It provides so many information suggesting that the death penalty brings no good and only does harm to a community. I must say this informational site did a good job because it convinced me. The information and statistics is all laid out for me to make the choice, its all raw fact. Although, perhaps they may have left information that might help the other side of the argument. I believe its best to provide both sides of the argument so people can make a good choice. After looking at this, I believe there are problems regarding racism in the process of the death penalty and I've come to decide that the death penalty is a pointless and expensively unnecessary punishment for inmates. 

Clifford Boggess- to be or not to be?

The question is; should Cifford Boggess have been executed or served life in prison? I beleive he should have been executed like he was because he was a killer and nothing was going to change that fact. Sure, Boggess did show some change in his life after several years on death row, but so do all others on death row. Looking at my list, the reasons to be executed far exeed that of mitigating factors. Its very small, but there is a slim chance he could escape from prison and that is not something I'd like to risk. He told his girlfriend that he'd kill her if he ever got out and I'd think he'd be quick to kill others too. Why have this killer among us, even if he is locked up? Killing came easy for Boggess, there was anger in his killing and almost no sympothy or regret. He even stated that he enjoys killing, and people say he shouldn't be executed? And when going to prison he showed no emotion because he was a tough guy that killed people. Having this killer is prison for life will do no one any good and will only do bad for others. The victims' families could not rest until they knew Clifford Boggess was executed. Knowing Boggess was executed, they felt they didnt need to worry about him any longer, though the pain was still there. Clifford Boggess brutaly killed two defensless people and theres nothing that can chnage that. No new religion or paintings can ever change that he is an angry, brutal killer who enjoyed killing. For this, it was justified he was executed.

Bullying

After watching If You Really Knew Me I discovered that each person has a very unique background that affects how they act in school or toward others. Most kids want to fit in at school so they do things that aren't the real them. Sometimes people bully others to fit in because they feel insecure of themselves. How kids treat others is based on their past experiences that few people know of. For that reason, it makes it easier for someone to bully another person. Not knowing somebody well enough makes it easier to bully them because you don't know there background and past experiences. Another thing that makes it easier to bully is technology. Bullying through technology (cyber bullying) has made bullying easier and more effective for many reasons. Bullies feel safer rather than face to face, they can say things they normally wouldn't, and they can keep up the bullying out of school because technology is everywhere these days. "Bullying is not a new phenomenon, but the Internet gives bullies the ability to continually humiliate their victim and amplify their actions beyond a school’s borders." Cyber bullying is something that cannot be seen as well and can be much more effective because anyone on the internet may be able to see it. I'd like to say this is not a problem at DHS, but it is, however, to a lesser degree. I think it is almost impossible to find a school where there is no bullying that takes place. I think DHS is a good school when it comes to bullying because not much occurs. Its sad to say, but bullying is inevitable and it it does happen to some students at DHS. Sometimes minorities may be bullied because they are "different" from others. Even though bullying seems inevitable, we should do all we can to prevent it. I believe the best way to stop bullying, especially cyber bullying, is to educate the students and teachers the signs and effects of cyber bullying. This way they will be aware of the problem and know how to prevent it. "Teachers and administrators are sometimes not aware of what might be happening online, are unsure of the boundaries of their responsibility with cyberbullying, or are simply ill-equipped to handle it if they do know about it." Because cyber bullying is somewhat knew and always changing with technology, teachers must be up to date with it and educated accordingly so they may fully understand it.

New reasons drug testing isn't cool.

 In a recent ruling it was stated that the past rulings on student searches were very vauge and teachers and staff had little to work with. Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national Legal Director stated, "Today's ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional dead zones. While we are disappointed with the Court's conclusion that the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through what Savana experienced." The past rulings were very general and left things very open, allowing for some unjust searches, such as the search in the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding. "Neither the Constitution nor common sense permits school officials to treat a strip search the same as a locker or backpack search." This is relevant to drug testing because its not like a simple search of a back-back, drug testing is a search of the body and should not be allowed within a school. With drug testing and unjust searches students will be violated of their rights and be taught the wrong thing. "The lesson being imparted–one that goes against every fundamental principle this country was founded upon–is that we have no rights at all against the state or the police." Students get this impression when they are unjustly searched and will continue to be brainwashed to think that the sate can do as they like to them. Students should not be growing up getting this impression that all power can do unjust things to them. Having a drug test will give them that impression, but they should know people shouldn't have to give into random drug tests.

Drug testing in school is not cool

Why is drug testing in school not cool, you ask? Well the answer is simple, drug testing is an invasion of privacy. Students are protected by the fourth amendment even when they're in school. Students should not be drug tested without a reasonable reason to. A drug test would be a search without suspicion because the school would have no evidence or specific reason to search someone.This alone, is reason enough to not have drug testing. Diving further into privacy issues, students would be required to share information regarding their prescribed medications. Students should never be forced to share what medications they take for any reason. Not only do students have to give up their medication information, but teachers at Tecumseh High School in Oklahoma saw the information and the results of the test. If a student is suddenly suspended from their activity, then all the other students will know the results. Students may also be falsely suspended because some common over-the-counter or prescription drugs may test positive.Mike, a seventeen year-old from Shallowater High School was taking medication for allergies. He was randomly tested and tested positive for cocaine. The test result was false because he truly wasn't using cocaine. Mike was suspended and had to take many more tests. This is only one of the many possible cases that have or can happen and is a complete invasion of privacy and is against the 4th amendment. It is up to the students' parents to parent them and decide to give them drug tests or not. It is not the school's job to test students for drugs and punish them.

Religion in schools

I find it strange that 61% of survey takers strongly agree that speakers should be allowed to offer public prayer in schools. Yet 48% strongly agree that there should be a separation of the church and state because the first amendment states it so. I'm going to have to go with the first amendment here and say there should be a separation of the church and state. How can speakers praying in public schools abide by the first amendment? There are many people at schools with different religions and they all cant be doing their religious practices in school, otherwise its not so much school anymore. If someone must practice their religion, go to a church or masque or something that's not school. I am christian and still I would find it very irritating for speakers to praying or offering prayer because school is no time place for those practices. I don't want to be distracted while I'm learning. However, I do feel it is completely necessary to learn about religions in school through educational means and practices. This means schools can not favor one religion over another, or try to force it or its practices upon the students. School should simply teach about the religion mainly because "much of history, art, music, literature and contemporary life is unintelligible without an understanding of the major religious ideas and influences that have shaped history and culture throughout the world."Religion encompasses all these valuable aspects of history that every student should learn about. Then students will understand that there are different types of religions all over the world that effect culture and lifestyle. However, when teaching history, it is not right to change it for political benefits. Texas is still trying to change its history textbooks so that they may promote Christianity and promote "bible-based foundations of America." Others want to leave out Christianity altogether. This would be wrong because its effects were present in the history making of America. I say, leave it how it is, history should be told only by fact with no influential text or teachers. Just teach history how it actually happened and we'll learn from it.

Sept 11 video

Before this video, I didn't know too much about sept 11th. When it happened, I was young and didn't think too much of it because I never witnessed some of the things I saw on the video. First of all, I never really knew how big the twin towers were, until I saw the plane flying below the towers because they were so tall. So in the next clip, when the building was on fire I thought of how huge the building was and all the people it held inside. One of the most compelling things I saw was the man jumping out of the building. He must of had no other choice. It made me think of all the other people trapped with nowhere to go. I couldn't imagine being in that position. Also, I've never seen the second plane hit before. It was unbelievable to see a large plane look so small flying full-force into a huge building. To me it seemed fake, or impossible. I cant imagine what the New Yorkers felt. After these two seemingly invincible buildings collapsed, it seemed like all hope was lost. It made everyone afraid and part of the city look like a ghost town. However, the next day people came together and were inspired by the firefighters and other helpers' diligence, that they began to feel the need to help. I feel like this represents America as a whole; we all come from so many places and cultures, but we all live in the same place and will come together to fight any evil.

Speech codes restricting?

Doing my hw for Issues on speech codes, I found that most speech codes are necessary. FIRE makes it seem like a simple rule "directly restricts the first amendment," however I believe most of the codes are not restrictions, but guidelines to ensure a safe and peaceful environment that a school should have. For example, I looked at NIU and FIRE rated them a "red light" school. Looking over the speech codes described as a "red light," I found they are there for the purpose of protecting the students and their right to learn in peace. The only thing the speech code "restricts" is the behaviors and speeches of people that will directly disturb, harass, or threaten another student.