Abortion

1.     After viewing both of the sites, I feel that I have a better understanding of what each side of the argument is as well as which points both sites hoped to highlight. I thought that NARAL- Pro Choice America had a more inviting and user-friendly site. The visitor was not bombarded with facts or pictures, but rather was presented the side without much imposition of ideas. Of course, I might have thought this way because of my stance on the issue. I found the National Right to Life website a little more invasive and up front about the issues that surround abortion. I thought the pictures were very graphic and the details of the procedure were surprising, but I felt myself somewhat questioning my position after viewing the sight. Given that emotional response, I figured that the sight must have at least been slightly effective.

2.     As a 17 year-old girl, I have to say I would not be thrilled about having my parents know I was considering an abortion, but I do feel that it is important for the parents to know if their daughter is planning on having the procedure. I only consider this because I would want my parents to be concerned and willing to help me in any way they could given a situation like a teenage pregnancy. I do not, however, feel that the parents of a minor should have consent of the abortion unless the girl is under the age of 17. I feel this way simply because by the age of 17, contrary to what some science may prove, I think a girl is educated enough to decide what may be best for her and her unborn child.

3.     I think that the father should be notified of a daughter wanting or receiving an abortion because as a parent he would be equally as responsible for protecting his child as the mother. I can see why a man may not have an educated stance on pregnancy simply because they do not have to go through it, but as a father one has the responsibility to take care of his children.

4.     Illinois law at this point seems to have restrictions on access and use of abortions, but still has it available with the consent of either parents or spouse. I think that most of Illinois’ laws are properly laid out because there should be some restrictions on the availability of abortions and the reasons women are seeking them. I would change the law that states that no insurance can be offered to cover an abortion simply because it is a medical procedure and some people need the support of insurance companies if they need or want an abortion.  

Death Penalty #3

Stages:

In order to attempt to protect the rights of the accused, the police have to make an educated arrest and in the process of the court, the defendant has to be considered innocent until proven guilty. While both these ideas in theory should be decent standing points to uphold the rights of the accused, there is a certain pressure that comes with a murder that may sway decisions and choices. Often times, when a crime is committed, the people of the community no longer feel safe and immediately look towards the police force to restore the safety they are used to. With this pressure, it is easy for the police to make mistakes or jump into an arrest without sufficient information about the person they may be arresting. Once the defendant is in trial, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is brought into play; however, the people on the jury have a burden that is not easy to carry. They are deciding between life and death for a human being. While hearing the gruesome details of the case, I'm sure it isn't easy to keep in mind that the person who is being prosecuted might be innocent. It is in the best interest of the people for someone to be blamed. I think that the rights of the accused should be protected, but I think it is hard to do so when the person is being accused of murder.

Methods:

There are a number of methods used during executions such as firing squads, hanging, gas chambers, lethal injections, and electrocution. Hanging was popular and the primary method of execution up until 1996. Firing squads are still used, but only primarily in Idaho. Gas chambers were used until they were ruled a "cruel and unusual punishment" and the last use of a gas chamber was in 1999. Electrocution was used until about 2008 until it too was deemed a cruel and unusual punishment. Lethal injection today is the most widely used form of execution. In my opinion, lethal injection is also the most humane of all of the execution methods simply because it is the fastest and although I do not feel that the prisoner should be excused of all pain, it is the least uncomfortable for the person being executed.

State By State:

From what I found, the southern states seem to be the most prominent in holding death penalty inmates and actual executions. Texas, being the large state it is, is the leading the state in inmates and executions. I was surprised by the states that had no death penalty at all, but I was even more surprised by those states that did not have life without parole. Also to my surprise, there seemed to be more white inmates in most states rather than black inmates completely discounting the argument that some may have concerning racial disparities concerning the death penalty.

Death Penalty Information Center:

This information agrees with what I said previously about the lack of racial disparities in the death penalty because the pie chart shows that 56% of defendants executed were white. The economic effects of the death penalty seem to be less than actually holding an inmate for an extensive period of time or even life. The numbers of executions peaked in 1999 and were slowly decreasing until a slight spike in 2009. The public opinion recently has been only 33% for the death penalty, with most leaning towards the option of life without parole plus restitution.

Clifford Boggess and the Death Penalty

In my personal opinion based on the information presented in class, I do believe that Clifford Boggess should have been executed. This was a difficult and somewhat lengthy debate because I found myself going back and forth between the person Clifford was and the person he seemed to be. In the beginning, he was a cold blooded killer; one that loved the thrill of taking another person’s life and felt little to no remorse about the crimes he was committing. After time on death row, it would seem that Boggess was taking a new perspective on life and what he had done. He expanded with art, became a loyal and devoted follower of Jesus Christ, and claimed over and over again that he was apologetic about killing the two old men. However, I found myself getting more and more aggravated as Clifford went on and on about the person he had become. He seemed so cold about his murders, almost as if they were nothing. He rarely acknowledged himself as a killer or came to terms with what he had done because he was hiding behind his “Christian” way of life that he had somehow found on death row. It is unrealistic to think that he should sit in his cell, day in and day out, crying and repenting for what he had done, but he seemed completely unphased by what he had done and how it has affected people other than himself.

 I do believe that people have the ability to change, but not in the drastic ways that would need to occur in order for a killer to suddenly become a good person. Many people who are driven to kill have a psychological predisposition to have little to no feelings about killing and in some situations even enjoy what they are doing. Someone can change their outlook on life or their anger management, but it isn’t as simple as changing what a person is biologically destined to do. I have to say that I have a lot of faith in human beings, but I sincerely believe that a lot of what Clifford Boggess said was simply what he thought everyone wanted to hear. Even when Lisa Hazelwood wrote Clifford simply asking for an answer as to why he killed her grandfather, he stuffed the letter with bible passages and found what seemed like every way possible to avoid the question. She found the letter as equally frustrating as I did which in many solidified the fact that she wanted him to die. In taking Clifford’s life, I do feel the justice system gave the families of the victims at least a little peace of mind in knowing that this killer was not going to have the opportunity to hurt anyone else. I know that personally, it would be a relief to know that the justice system put an end to the person who took a loved one from me.

While Clifford appeared to have made some decent life changes in prison, I don’t believe that someone who has the ability to live with the actions they have committed, like taking another person’s life, can be any kind of value to society. There are many devoted Christians in the world who would never even consider the possibility of murdering someone, there are rising artists all over the world who can travel and find inspiration without having to be behind bars. I can’t find any possible way to justify Clifford Boggess as an asset to society because he was secure with his decisions to execute a living, breathing, human being just like himself. It may seem harsh, but if he was okay with doing it once, and then okay with doing it twice, I am a firm believer that a third time really isn’t going to mean anything to his conscience.

Bullying

Bullying has literally been around for centuries. Whether it was pushing books out of a "nerds" hands, actually physically hurting someone, or simply calling another person names, it exists and has existed all around the world. I think it is completely unrealistic to believe that the entire problem is going to completely be solved considering as time goes on, bullying gets more "sneaky", more high tech, and more dangerous.
When we talked about the case of United States vs. Lori Drew, the bullying wasn't even kids on kids, it became something grown adults took part in. Lori Drew was the mother of a young girl who went to school with Megan Meier, an 8th grader at Immaculate Conception School in Missouri. Drew wanted to see if Megan had been saying negative things about her daughter on MySpace, so she created a fake account and pretended to be a boy named Josh Evans. After a little time of flirting and creating a relationship, Josh told Megan that the world would be a better place without her and he no longer wanted to be her friend. These actions ultimately led Megan to kill herself. The main thing that truly gets to me about this case, is the fact that a 47 year-old woman had nothing better to do with her life than terrorize a 13 year old. That is the textbook definition of pathetic. It doesn't matter that Drew thought Megan was saying nasty things about her daughter because as a mother, Drew should have used the opportunity to teach her child that sometimes fighting back is not the answer, but rather deal with the problem as a mature and growing girl. Instead, Lori Drew paved the way for her daughter to never leave high school, even as a 47 year-old woman. Drew was convicted but then acquitted for charges of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but not charged for her direct actions in harassing the young girl who took her life as a result of this woman's actions. This in some ways is the perfect example of how bullying has taken a dangerous turn, it is no longer about fighting your own battles because in some cases the players aren't following the rules.
When we were watching the MTV series, If You Really Knew Me, I was surprised at how strongly I believed that challenge day could be a real solution to the entire bullying problem. I do not think that bullying is necessarily a problem at Deerfield, but that is not to say that people don't start drama, girls don't say nasty things to each other, or that people are made fun of. As horrible as it may sound, I somewhat think that those actions are part of growing up because you need to go through those things to realize how juvenile it is as an adult. There are always going to forms of bullying taking place, but I really believe that Deerfield has implemented a policy that is enforced; zero tolerance when it comes to bullying or harassment. With all that being said, some schools (like the ones Jamie Nabozney attended) really have no control, or choose not to take control, of bullying problems. I think that programs like challenge day are real solutions to this problem because it eliminates the lecturing aspect that so many kids have experienced when the topic of bullying is brought up. Challenge day is interactive and gives students an opportunity to see that they may have more in common with the people they bully than they might originally think. It gives a personal addition to people who may not be seen as human on a daily basis.
The problem of bullying can't be eliminated completely, it just is not a realistic goal. However, we can work to find effective and working solutions to keep the problem under control.

Students and the Fourth Amendment Response

While I truly believe that the ideas of the Fourth Amendment should be held to a high and serious standard, I do believe that the perameters laid out by the Supreme Court are both reasonable and necessary. The overall idea of the search of a student is well within the guidelines needed to keep students, teachers, and the school safe and well protected. In some cases, the search of a student may include that of a random drug test conducted in an extracurricular setting.
In the case of Vernonia vs. Acton, it was stated that when signing up for sports within a High School, students are willingly subjecting themselves to a lack of privacy such as changing, showering, and traveling with the team. When a student is knowingly signing up for a sport that involves a lack of privacy, who is to say that the school cannot then take necessary actions to ensure that their students are not taking part in illegal or harmful activity. While i personally don't agree with the idea of drug testing in a high school enviornment, I do understand why the courts would rule it within Constitutional rights to do so. Privacy cannot be an arguement when the idea of privacy is already halfway out the door.
The Supreme Court stated after the case of NJ vs. TLO and Vernonia vs. Acton that a warrant or probable cause was not necessary for the search of a student as long as the seach was reasonable as well as that drug testing was within Constitutional rights of the school to do so. After looking over the evidence that was presented in the cases as well as the debate in class, I have to say that I agree with the stance the Supreme Court has taken on drug testing within a High School enviornment.

Freedom of Religion Response

When reviewing the First Amendment Survey, I cannot say that I was surprised that when asked which part of the First Amendment was most recognizable, people most commonly voted freedom of speech. However, I did find it somewhat interesting that the least recognizable was the right to petition simply because it becomes so relevant when protesting, gathering a group, or fighting an issue. The survey was one that I found informative and also intriguing because it brought up questions that may not be directly related when talking about the First Amendment because they brought up issues such as religion in schools, seperation of church and state, and even going as far to ask whether or not corporations and businesses have the same free speech as independent citizens.
I then went on to research teaching religion in schools and read the article titled, Revising History: What happens in Texas won't stay in Texas. It spoke about the recent debate in the Texas curriculum about what can or cannot be taught in social studies classes around the state. The fight is mainly about whether or not the presence of Protestant Christianity should be included when speaking about our countries founding. I must say, I have to agree with the decision to keep religious views outside of the educational system. I feel that in some ways, inviting religion into class discussions opens the floor for more religious than factual based arguements or discussions. A simple conversation about science could suddenly take a turn for the creation of the universe, which then in many ways pulls the entire context of the original conversation out of the equation. In this day and age there are far too many religions, religious beliefs, and lack of religious beliefs to impliment a sound and respectful religious system within the educational enviornment.

7 Days in September Response

I really enjoyed the movie that we viewed in class about the events that took place during the week on Spetember 11th, 2001. The part of the movie that I felt was the most impactful was the raw footage that made up the majority of the movie. We have all seen the images of the towers falling and the same clips over and over again, but this documentary shed a different light on the tradegy as well as the days that followed. I appreciated the different viewpoints that we got to experience because in many ways, it made the event that much more real and relateable.
I remember Spetember 11th, but not well enough to recount exactly what I thought. I know that after a day or two, the incident didn't seem real cause we were hundreds of miles away in Chicago. The movie brought everyone into the center of the horrific experience. You saw the towers fall from a block away, you passed the people covered in debrise on the street, you watched as firefighters and policemen passed you on the street to head towards ground zero. It wasn't just some event in New York anymore, I felt like the entire thing was much more real than I had ever known before.

Speech Codes

Americans have become accustomed to the ability to say pretty much whatever they want about any given topic. Free speech is rarely given a second thought when a citizen chooses to bash the government, or disagree with a president, or protest a national issue. It has become more and more apparent throughout the years that Free Speech is something the American people have taken hold of. Many even say that the new generations have an obligation to be the voice of the nation, but how is that possible when speech is censored or punished? And if there are perameters on speech, how close to the border is too close?
We recently read about a fraternity on the Auburn university campus who demonstrated what seemed to be their right to free speech. They dressed as blacks, painted their faces black, and were doing a number of demonstrations that made people well aware of their dislike or seeming disgust for the opposing race. These actions once again raises the question, how far is too far? The students were demonstrating their right to free speech. They were portraying their views and opinions in a public setting, the same type of rights that are listed in the Constitution as a right given to citizens of the United States. So what's wrong with the picture? Free speech is a given right that should be used to educate, inform, challenge, and publicize ideas. However, when those who are demonstrating the free speech are acting in a way that is both juvenile and unnecessary, there needs to be a line drawn. There is a huge difference between a gathering of people that have collectively decided to speak about their dislike for blacks or their views on balcks and blatently offending another person for something they had no say in.
Free speech is a privelage, one that the country has worked hard to maintain and place in perameters as to ensure that the whole country is comfortable and safe when it comes to the disputes that may arise around the United States. Some people, like those involved in the fraternity scandal at Auburn, have now taken their free speech rights for granted. They intentionally and knowingly made classmates and people around the country uncomfortable and painfully aware of the prejudice that is still in the world. Free speech is accepted and even encouraged when the content, format, and discussion topics are intellegent and well delivered. An immature display of linching a boy who was wearing black face is the furthest thing from intellegent I have ever seen. Free speech is an amazing privelage and tool when used correctly.
With all of this said, however, I do not feel as though students shoudl surrender their First Amendment right the second they step on a university campus. School, in particular, should be a forum for discussions and arguements that further educate students on the multiple interpretation of any given issue. There should be a wide acceptance of opinions and viewpoints to further the education of generations that are slowly going to become the forefront of our nation. There should be this freedom, but with the ability of the school to stop any type of speech that goes beyond comfortable and respectful and takes a turn for violent and innapropriate. Speech codes in some sense are effective ways to ensure the safety and comfort of students at school, while still maintaining the ability for student voices to be heard.