Anchor Baby Video

I watched a video on anchor babies on Fox News. In Arizona, state legislators want to change the Amendment that any person born in America is automatically an American citizen. The state representative for Arizona felt that because illegal immigrants can come into America and have a baby that would become a citizen is a main reason why immigrants are coming into America. I disagree with this statement, as did Brent Wilkes of the League of United Latin American Citizens. Immigrants are sneaking into this country for a better opportunities like jobs and a better life style. Making this state law would go against an Amendment that has been a law in America for hundreds of years. Changing this law will not be the rule that gets immigrants not to sneak into the country. Wilkes felt that instead of making so many laws restricting people from coming into the country, politicians should make a better process to come into the country. Immigrants want to come to America, so maybe if there is an easier and better process than what there is now, less people would have to sneak in. I think a bigger problem is what do with the parents and the child when the illegal parents are caught.

Anchor Babies

I read an article from the Denver Post about problem with babies being born in America, and being granted citizenship, also known as "anchor babies." The author felt that words in the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment should be changed. Ireland recently changed a few words up in their Constitution about granting babies born in their country citizenship. They changed it so the baby needs to have at least parent who is a citizen of Ireland. This seems like a very good idea to solve the problem of "anchor babies." The even bigger issue is what happens to the parents when they have a child born in America. They are not citizens but their child is. Personally I think the baby should stay with the parents because families should stick together. The couple problems that I can think of for allowing the 14th Amendment to be changed where one parent must be a citizen is one, changing an Amendment around would never get done. People love and believe in the American Amendments, and feel that the Amendments are the basis of America, so it would be very hard to change around something as important as Amendment. Two, what happens to the other parent that is not an American citizen. This would split the family up even more, and in the end we are back to the same problem as before.

Border Fencing Is Crucial to Ensure American Security

Contrasting the last article I read, this one talks about how a border fence is necessary. At first I highly doubted that America would build a fence all along the border between Mexico and America, but instead they simply want to build fences covering the very rough parts of the border, where most of the drug trafficking occurs. This is not that far-fetched and seems like a pretty good idea to limit some of the bad drugs into America. However will it ever get done? The article on opposing view points said that to date only 12 miles of fencing has been done, with a plan of fencing 854 miles. The author of the article seemed upset that so little had been done, because the writer felt that it was the governments duty from the Secure Fence Act to finish completing the fence. It seems like whatever the government wants to get done takes forever to complete, so this person should not expect much. Some of the reasons why the author felt the fence needed to be built were a little out there, for example that it could stop the next major terrorist attack. But it could also help slow down the drug trafficking on the border. Overall I feel like some parts of the border should be fenced up, but even if its fenced, people will still figure out a way to come into America. No matter what border enforcement tries to do, people will still find a way to come into the country.

"Border Fencing is a Bad Policy"

I read an article on Opposing Viewpoints about how building a fence along the boarder would not be a good idea, and is a bad policy. The article had six reasons for why it wouldn't work. The first reason is that it wouldn't work. People have been getting through the border illegally for hundreds of years. No matter what way America tries to keep people out of the country, people are still going to find a way to get into the country illegally. The second reason is that it makes the problem worse. They brought up statistics how people used to just come to the border and work for a season, then go back. Now, however, people are trying to sneak in illegally and it causes many problems. This brings up the point that when things get harder and riskier to do, more people want to do it. Another great point that the article had was how costly it is to build a fence. Are economy is so bad that the pros of building a fence to not out way the cons to build in entire fence. Also Hispanics who come into the country might actually be benefiting the economy. At the end of the article they were unable to come up with any conclusion on what to do with the illegal immigration problem, but they did conclude that building a fence would not be the best idea. I also agree with this. I definitely do not think that building a fence would work, and it seems very far-fetched.

Race In America

After reading two articles from CNN and one article from the Chicago Tribune, my feelings toward the racism in America have only gotten stronger. Before learning about this in issues, I had always felt that there was some racism still in America, but I now realize that that is a great understatement. The first article I read was from CNN called, "Behind the Scenes: Life after San Quentin." This article told the story of a ex-convict, who had sold crack-cocaine, but was now trying to change his life. He has tried to get a good job, however the only jobs that he has been receiving are ones that are not enough to pay the bills. He originally had only a 4th grade education, father had left him, and his mother was a crack addict. This is not the type of surrounding where someone is more likely to succeed. He is very tempted to go back to selling drugs as an easy way to get money because no other job will give him enough money to get buy. It is sad because this is a man trying to change his life around, get a proper education, and a good job, but all the odds are against him. The second article I read was very startling. Also from the CNN website titled, "Study: Black man and white felon-same chances for hire." An experiment took place where people sent out fake applications with equal education and experience, but different races (white and black) for real entry-level jobs. They found that white applicants were twice as likely to get the job as black applicants. Even worse was that white applicants with felonies had the same chance, if not a higher chance, than black applicants with equal records. This brings up the same things as Andrew Hacker was saying that black people are born into America with a disadvantage. The people hiring the applicants may not look at themselves as racists, but self-consciously they racially profiling these applicants, favoring whites over blacks. The most surprising article that I read was from the Chicago Tribune titled, "Blacks better off during slavery." This was a very extreme short article that baffled me. He felt that because blacks have been struggling in America, they were and would be better off as slaves because they will serve more value in America. This article in itself shows the problems of racism in America. The fact that this man thinks that blacks would be better off with no freedom shows that not only should this man not be in politics anymore, and that there are clear racial problems that people are afraid to address because they do not want to look like racists. There is a lot of hidden bias in America, and it is limiting black people to their full potential. People do not want to admit that it is there, but these hidden biases clearly exist in America, and I am not sure when they will ever stop.

Mock Trial Recap and Response

The first trial that we heard from in class was between a couple who had been dating for a while, and one night the boyfriend wanted to have sex with her, but she did not. It started to get physical, when finally he had sex with her. It took her a day to realize, but then she thought about it, and felt that he raped her. In the end, the jury, me included, decided that he was not guilty of raping her. Some of the compelling facts to this case was that in the past during their relationship, she was never very clear about when "No" meant "No." There were times where she would say no and wouldn't mean it, so it was hard to determine whether she meant it or not. Another point that the defense brought up was that she may have had other motives to say that he sexually harassed her. There was a note given to him by a student in his class. This note was an inside joke about their class, but she misinterpreted it, and got very angry. This was a big fact in the case because this whole case could have been a result of jealousy. This changed the motives of the case. Not only that but the man in the relationship was thought of by many of the witnesses as a great guy that would not harm a fly. The case seemed to iffy, and it was hard to tell if it was just a case of jealousy, so I still feel like this is not a case of sexual harassment. The big problem with the plaintiff was that their expert witness did not really seem like a real expert. If the examination would have gone better with him, then maybe my opinion would have gone differently.
The second case is a much harder decision than the first one. To be honest I am still swaying between if the District of Columbia is guilty of sexual harassment, or if they are not guilty. Elyse Roberts was someone who was very hard to deal with, and even though the District of Columbia handled this problem in the wrong way, it did not seem like Ms. Roberts handled it very well. This case seemed, and was described as a childish problem that the two could not solve. Some key facts of the case were that Ms. Roberts' transfer was not a promotion or a demotion, and eventually would be a better fit for her because she was not a very good trial attorney. Not only that, but Kevin Murphy was one of the best trial attorneys, and very well liked throughout the office. This is one of the reasons why it was such a tough case because either Ms. Roberts was misinterpreting Mr. Murphy's humor, or unlike what everyone else in the office thought, Mr. Murphy had taken it too far. One of the biggest key facts of the case was that every other woman in the office liked Mr. Murphy, which made it look Ms. Roberts was just being sensitive. However I will admit that the Sports U.S.A. issue was definitely handled poorly. In the end I feel like everyone in the District of Columbia handled this poorly, and this could have easily been avoided. They could have switched offices, Mr. Murphy could have apologized, or Ms. Roberts could have been transferred because she was not a suitable trial attorney. Any one of these options could have solved this case, instead of going to trial.
Sexual harassment is an issue that I don't think people take too seriously (and maybe I am an example of that). A lot of times people just look at it as a women being too sensitive, however women should never have to feel uncomfortable at the workplace or at school because they should be considered equal. It is hard to say what is considered as sexual harassment and what is considered as just a women being too sensitive, which is why these cases become very complicated. I don't think sexual harassment is that big of an issue at DHS because the administration is very strict on the subject, and punishments can be very severe. The culture at Deerfield is that sexual harassment is very frowned upon. Even though it may exist at times, people are very conscious about the issue, and try not to make people feel too uncomfortable, which is why it is not too big of an issue at DHS. These problems can be addressed by teaching kids about the problems of sexual harassment and the punishments for harassing someone.

State of the Union Address

Even though this speech was made awhile ago, there are still a couple of things that President Obama addressed that I was very happy about, and others that I am a little worried about. The main point that President Obama was trying to stress was the importance of the future. Things may be looking down now, but if we all work hard then the future may not be so bad. One of the things that he talked about a lot was teachers. When there are better teachers, it produces better students, and with better students, it creates a smarter America.

Over the past years more and more countries have been testing higher than students from America. Obviously America strides for being number one in everything that they do, so it is important that we move up as students in the world. There are many schools out there that do not have updated books, proper teachers, and facilities. In a country like America, we would expect that everyone deserves a proper education, but this is not the case. Which is why Obama stressed the importance of teachers and how teachers should be considered as one of the most important jobs in America. And when you think about it, you come to realize how important teachers are. They are the backbone of every school, and a person's school stays with them for the rest of their lives.

The only thing I did not like about the speech was the hundreds of goals it seemed like President Obama had. It is important to have goals as a President, however when you set so many, it seems nearly impossible to complete all of them. As usual President Obama pumped up the crowd and the rest of America with his signs of hope of an incredible future, but once again we are all still waiting for this incredible future. I do like President Obama, and i think that he is a great speaker, however I feel that there are times in his speeches where he brings false hope to the people, and I just hope that he will be able to complete at least some of the goals that he has set.

Egypt Protests

After looking at the timeline of events during the Egypt protest I have mixed feelings for Egypt's future. It seems like the people of Egypt are willing to start a democracy and change their old ways. And it looks as if they desire a more peaceful future, and erase the memories of their violent past. On February 14, "Youthful volunteers swept streets, painted fences and curbs, washed away graffiti that read, “Down with Mubarak,” and planted bushes in Tahrir Square, which many want to turn into a memorial for one of the most stunning uprisings in Arab history." They are trying to get rid of all the violence that has occurred in Egypt and instead remember the fact that they were able to get rid of a dictatorship in their country. It seems like the people have the right idea, however the people are not the ones who will decide what Egypt's government will be in the future, the military will be. Any time a military is in control of what a country's government will be, it can't be good. Egypt's military is hoping to put in place a democracy, but I'm not sure that that is what is going to be put in place in Egypt because a military usually cares more about power, rather than the well being of the people.

Something else that I liked that was a cause of the outcome of the Egypt protests, was the domino effect in the Middle East. When watching a video on the NYtimes.com, it showed how other little countries in the Middle East have been protesting their governments after seeing what the Egypt protests did. Thats what's so great about when there are protests like these because it allows other countries to see hope in having change and peace in their country. When they see one country do it, it shines a light of hope that maybe they will be able to bring change too.

Final Response to "Columbine"

Ever since watching Bowling for Columbine I have always been interested in the topic of the Columbine shooting. I knew a good amount of background information about the two boys, Eric Harris and Dylan Kleboid, but this book provided the most in-depth look at Columbine that I have ever seen. It took the reader into the life of the two crazy high school teenagers. The book too you into the minds of these two kids and you could then see why they wanted to kill people. Dylan and Eric were mentally unstable and depressed. They hated a lot of different groups of kids and came up with the wrong way to deal with it, and that was to try to get rid of them. The Columbine massacre could have been much worse than it originally was if Eric and Dylan were successful in exploding the pipe bombs they had put in the cafeteria, and other places around the school. It was estimated that hundreds more students could have died if these bombs had been successful. This could have been the one of the worst disasters in America's history. A majority of the beginning of the book, Cullen goes into excruciating detail of what was going on at the school during the shooting. This section of the book was one of the hardest and most depressing things that I have ever read. To go into the mind of a teacher with a wife and kids, and have to learn about him get shot for trying to help students escape is an extremely difficult thing to read. One of the reasons why this was such a hard book was the fact that our school has received numerous bomb threats and that these kids that were killing and being killed are our age. It is all too real to even imagine.

How We Can Prevent More Shootings

Recently on Saturday, six people were killed and seven people were wounded. There have also been other shootings since the Columbine shooting like the Virginia Tech shooting. The trend that I have noticed over the course of researching some of the other shootings is that the shooters are people who are mentally unstable and do not know how to deal with their problems. There are people out there who feel like because they live in America they are allowed to think whatever they want no matter what. This leads to thinking that this certain group should not be around anymore. When you have ideas like that, combined with an mentally unstable person, it can then lead to terrible things such as the Columbine shooting. I am not trying to say that people should be limited to what they want to think or believe because that goes against the foundation of America's beliefs, but I do think that when there is a shooting after shooting after shooting, something needs to be done. Our school is very good about thinking about the well being of the students. Making sure that there is very limited bullying and that kids are doing well mentally in school. However, not every school is privileged like Deerfield. Not every school ensures that every student is safe when they go to school, physically and mentally. Which is why I believe that what should be done to at least limit shootings in America would be not to limit peoples' ideas, but to limit peoples' destructive actions. This can be done by, as I have said before, limiting the right to bear arms. America is obviously not responsible enough to have that law because of the countless number of murders due to guns every year.

In this case, the only thing that could have prevented this shooting would have been if guns were harder to obtain. These kids did not kill the students because of music, bullying, bad parents, etc. They killed because they were emotionally unstable. And when someone who is not stable has a gun it is just a recipe for disaster. There is not much the school or anyone could have done to help these kids. And after reading this book and watching Bowling for Columbine, I am sick of hearing how easy it is to obtain a gun and use it. Something has to be done and quick because the number of murders with guns is not going to go down unless something is changed.

Remorse for Parents

Cullen talks a lot about what the families of the murder victims were doing and how they were dealing with the deaths, and then he goes into a short chapter of how Eric and Dylan's parents dealt with their son's death. While the whole country was mourning the death of all the students and teachers that died, it seemed like it was only the parents of Eric and Dylan who cared about their deaths. They were basically forgotten and frowned upon, which is not too unpredictable, however these were still someone's children. One would think that the killers' parents would be ruthless, abusive, and terrible parents, however they were the opposite. Dylan's parents preached peace to their two sons and never allowed so much as a BB gun in the house. They never knew about any of the violent things that Dylan was into. They did know that he had depression issues, but to only an extant of how extreme his depression was. The Klebolds were unable to have a proper ceremony and burial because of the circumstances of the death. Cullen goes on to say that, "The Klebolds were afraid to bury Dylan. His grave would be defaced. It would become an anti-shrime. They cremated his body and kept the ashes in the house." This chapter was extremely hard for me to read because I know how much my parents care about me and if anything, G-d forbid happened to me or anyone else in my family, words could not even describe how devastated they would be. But it was even worse for the Klebolds and Harris because not only did they lose their child, but they lost their sons in such a horrific way that it was such a worse experience for them. It was hard for anyone to show any remorse for them because what their kids had done, but now I am trying to show some remorse for them because what happened to them, no parent should ever have to deal with.

Tighter Gun Control in U.S.

Before reading this book I had seen the Michael Moore film Bowling for Columbine. In the movie Moore focuses a lot on gun control in America and how guns have negatively affected America's culture. In a previous assignment I talked about how Americans have taken advantage of the Second Amendment, which has caused the most deaths by guns out of all the other countries in the world. The country with the second most gun related deaths has no where near as much as America does. One of the things that shocked me the most about the book was how easy it was for Eric and Dylan to get guns and ammunition. Eric and Dylan went to the Tanner Gun Show with their friend Robyn Anderson. She was eighteen at the time so she was able to supply them with the guns, however when they went she was not even I.D.ed. Guns should not be that easy to receive because you never know what kind of people are buying the guns. Anderson did not know the boys intentions, but in the end what she did was clearly wrong. The boys got their ammunition from from another kid in high school who was dealing them tons of ammunition. It just amazes me how easy it is to get a gun in the United States. Even though "the Right to Bear Arms" is one of the original laws of America, people need to realize that times are different. Things may have applied hundreds of years ago, but when there is a problem so bad, such as the gun control problem, it is important to make changes. Make new restrictions that will make it harder to own a gun. Even though it will be restricting Americans' rights, it will be making their lives much safer.

The Media's interpretation of Columbine

One of the big things about the Columbine shooting was the media confusion. During the actual shooting no one knew who it was, how many people were shooting, and why. Because so many students were saying such different things about what they had saw while in the school, it was nearly impossible to piece everything together of what had happened. For a while people thought that the killers were part of the gang the Trench Coat Mafia because Eric and Dylan were wearing trench coats at the time, but that was later proven false. The main goal of the media was to say that it was goth kids who were out to kill jocks who had bullied them before. The media was also trying to figure out what was to blame for Eric and Dylan's actions. They blamed the violent video games and movies, the crazy music, bad parenting, etc. Like the move we watched in class, "When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts," the media is making on side look worse than the other. In the movie Spike Lee showed how poorly the news portrayed the black victims compared to the white victims. The black victims of Hurricane Katrina were viewed as looters and were always shown on top of houses without any help. This is because they were not the ones who were being saved. The white people were. And unlike the blacks who were "looting," the white victims were stealing to survive. Before ever reading this book, I had always thought that the Columbine shooters were simply loners who had no friends and were bullied all the time, but this was not true. And that is what makes this event so much scarier. Yes these kids were definitely not mentally stable, however they did have friends and were not psychopaths like the media cut them out to be. I am not trying to say these kids are angels, I just feel like the media wanted them to look like another pair of psychopaths. Dylan and Eric had always had depression issues and never liked associating with the mainstream crowds. It wasn't bad parents, video games, music, etc. Eric and Dylan were two kids who were not mentally stable and were unable to deal with the problems in the right way. In both the Hurricane and the Columbine shootings, the media tries to twist sides of the story so that as the viewer you only see it from one perspective. Both Spike Lee and Dave Cullen (author of Columbine) show different sides of the tragedy that are not shown in the mainstream media.

Women deserve a Choice

The first website that I looked at was the NARAL-Prochoice America. They brought up many good points about why pro-choice is the right law to have in America. But the main focus of their website was about how people are making it harder and harder for women to get abortions now days. The site goes into detail about how doctors who perform abortions are being threatened by pro life extremists. Dr. George Tiller was killed because he provided abortion services. Money should not be something that should be an issue if someone wants to get an abortion. There are so many women that are under the poverty line and rely on the government for their health care. By not having the government cover abortion, it is basically forcing women to have a child because they are unable to pay for it. The other website I looked at was the National Right to Life. The main focus of their website was about how important the human life is, and informing people questioning getting an abortion about how the fetus should definitely be considered a living thing. It goes into great detail about how each trimester the fetus becomes more and more like a living thing. They talk about how abortion is unsafe and that it is not the only option, but unlike the other website there aren’t many facts to back up their points. The only facts that they bring up are the different times when babies start to show signs of life. The argument that I felt was better was the pro choice argument. I felt like they had a wider variety of points for why allowing women to choice if they wanted a child or not was better than just forcing a woman to have a baby. Another argument that I liked more about the pro choice website was that not only did they talk about making it easier for women to get an abortion, but they also talked about ways in preventing unplanned pregnancy. While as the other website solely talked about how getting an abortion is equal to killing a living thing. Even though it seems like the pro choice website would be winning the debate, they are not. After watching the video and reading the packet, more and more people are starting to sway towards pro life instead of pro choice. And people are trying to make it harder for woman to receive an abortion, which is why the pro choice website had so much information about how it should be easier to get an abortion. Looking at the two website made my view on abortion even clearer, and that is that women should be able to choose if they want to get an abortion or not. And the women who want to get an abortion should not be persecuted against during the process.

From my point of view, I do not feel that a kid my age should have to tell their parents if they are getting an abortion. At the age of 17 and 18 I feel like an adult, so I should be treated like an adult. If I for some medical mystery became pregnant, I would not want my parents to know that I was getting an abortion. Not only because it would feel like an invasion of privacy, but also because I would feel embarrassed to tell my parents that I was getting an abortion. From a parent’s standpoint, however, I feel like I would want to know if my child was getting such an important operation. I think that the best solution would be for kids to have to tell their parents that they are getting an abortion, however the parents are not allowed to stop them if they disagree with abortions. It is unfair if a kid is unable to have an abortion and is forced to support and raise a child because their parents are against abortion.

I do not think that the father needs to be notified because it is the woman’s body, and no man owns a woman’s body. The fathers are not the ones who have to live with a baby inside of them for nine months. It is the woman’s body so they should have the right to choose whether or not they want to have a child.

After looking at the NARAL’s view on Illinois’ position on abortion, it seems like they think that Illinois is strongly against abortion. They claim that Illinois has a “unconstitutional” ban against abortion, which I do not think is true because according to ROE vs. Wade, abortion is legal in all fifty states. They also say that insurance companies are not covering abortions, which I don’t know if it’s true or not. If it is I definitely disagree with it, and believe that insurance companies should be covering abortions.

Part 4: Charts

One of the ways in which these charts influence my previous response about the issue of equality is that there actually is some issue with this topic that I did not notice before. Even though more white people end up being executed, there are many more black people who are sentenced to death for killing white people than there are white people who kill black people. Fifteen white people were sentenced to death for killing black people, while 246 black people were sentenced to death for killing white people. Either this is because more there is more interracial killings between black people to white people, than white people to black people. Or it is because black people are punished more severely for killing white people. States are paying hundreds of millions of dollars of tax payers dollars for the death penalty. It is close to two million dollars per execution, which is more money than simply sentencing someone to life in prison. The public's opinion on whether they support the death penalty or not is too narrow to change the law now, even though 48% disagree with the law and 47% prefer the death penalty. I really great fact that the Death Penalty Information Center offered is that 88% of Criminologists said that execution does not prevent future homicide rates. Deterrents of future crimes has always played a big role in death penalty cases, and her it is saying how the death penalty does not play a big factor in future crimes. This site is very convincing because it offers a variety of different information in an organized way and an easy to read many. Even though before I disagreed with the death penalty, this only made my feelings against it stronger

Part 3: State Data of Death Penalty

One of the things that I noticed after looking at the map of America and it breaking down the number of executions by state was that white men from the south are the most common executions. Black males from the south come very close to whites, however there are more white male executions than blacks. Asians, Women, Latinos, and Native Americans have the lowest amounts of executions. When looking at the state by state data about the death penalty, most states seem very similar where they started off with hanging, then the electric chair, and now use lethal injection as their way of execution. Something that I saw about Illinois is that they have more sentences than executions, which means that there have been cases where someone was first accused as guilty and then later found innocent of their crimes, or granted clemency. Another thing I saw about Illinois is that there has been a decrease of support for the death penalty, and less people are starting to think that it should be allowed in Illinois. This data does not sure any issues in equality or arbitrariness because there seems to be a solid system for executing people, and there is not an imbalance of executions for whites and blacks. Even though it is not balanced for every other race, I don't think there is an issue of inequality. I do believe though in Texas that their system must be unfair because there is no way that that state can be that much more violent than any other state. There number of executions is about four times as much as the second highest state. It seems like their system must be flawed or unfair to have that many executions.

Part 1: Stages of Death Penalty

After a person is sentenced to the death penalty there are many stages before a person is actually sent to death. However these post-trial stages don’t always seem like they give the person a fair chance. After their sentencing, they can request for a new trial to try to bring up that there was insufficient evidence in the last trial, discuss new discovered evidence, or that there was jury misconduct. This appeal is usually rejected, which seems like they just have these stages to say that they give the person a fighting chance to appeal, but in the end never grant his request for a new trial. The only way to reverse the courts initial decision for an post-judgment trial is if a higher court will review the case and allow the person to have another trial on his or her case. The defendant can bring up new issues about his or her case that were not reflected in the record of the appeal. This is reviewed by the same judge who presided over the original trial, so it seems pretty unlikely that they would change their mind after the first trial. I think that a new person should review the case so that the defendant is given another perspective. Other stages also seem unfair like the “Proportionality review,” which many states have already abandoned, and the “Petition to U.S. Supreme Court,” which is usually denied by the Supreme Court. There are many other stages like this, where the defendant is given these stages to appeal his case, however they can all be easily denied. I think that this is system could work because there are so many stages that will allow people to relook at the case. However, I do feel like new people should be looking at the case to get a different perspective, and there are many times where the stages are just there, but never end up happening because they can easily be rejected.

Part 2: Methods of Execution

After looking over the methods of execution, the only one that I can almost see as a humane way of killing someone would be the lethal injection. Even though it does have its downsides to it, it seems like a much more peaceful and less gruesome way of killing someone. The fact that it puts the convict to sleep as it kills them seems much less painful than the other methods of killing someone. In the way of hanging, there are too many factors that need to go right for this to a painless execution. If one measurement is wrong it can then lead to a very painful method. Not only that, but in a modern day society, we should not be executing people in a way that has been used for hundreds of years. It seems too outdated to be used as a method for today. The firing squad method seems very cruel because if someone does not hit the right spot, not only does the convict not die instantaneously, but it also seems like it would hurt a great amount. It also does not sound too humane by simply shooting a person. The electric chair seems very cruel because of the fact that it may take multiple tries to electrically kill someone. Not only that but the description of the after affect sounds extremely gruesome. The fact that a person's eyeballs hang down to their cheeks on some occasions, seems a tad bit too inhumane to be legal in this country. The gas chamber has been proven to be very painful and can take a very long time, this does not seem like a very good way to execute people. Even though some may argue that the death penalty for these brutal criminals does not need to be humane, I feel that the death penalty in itself is inhumane, and if they are going to have it in our country then lethal injection is the best way to go.

Times Have Changed, and so should the rules of the Death Penalty

Before watching "The Execution" my opinion of the death penalty was that it should not exist. The death penalty lowers ourselves to the criminal's standards. People should not live their life with an eye for an eye mentality. After watching the movie my opinion did not change. The film brought in many good aggravating factors that almost swayed my opinion into letting him die. Boggess killed killed two defenseless old men in a brutal way. Not only that but when in prison he threatened to kill again, which was why it seemed like he would be a threat to peoples' lives in and out of prison. This is one of the big factors for why people support the death penalty because in taking the life of a criminal, they hope that it will save the lives of innocent people that the criminal could have killed in the future. Another big reason for why people support the death penalty is for redemption. The families who lost one of their family members were extremely upset that while their family member was dead, Boggess was alive. They felt that he should pay for what he did, and the only way for him to do that was to die. In the end though, I still felt like the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors.
When put in prison, Boggess was an agressive person who was definitely capable of killing again. As time progressed for Boggess while in prison, he started to become a different person. He began drawing and writing to pen pals, who soon became his best friends. He became very invested in religion, which made him a much more peaceful man. Even though his change was so great, this does not mean that I believe that Clifford Boggess should be free from prison. It just means that he should not have to serve the death penalty and instead serve life in jail. Boggess committed horible crimes, which he should be punished for. How he decides to serve that punishment in jail, whether he wants to be an aggressive person or a peaceful person is up to him, but it does not mean that he has to die. Also it almost seemed like Boggess was happier that he was going to die because he was so invested in religion that he felt that after death he would go straight to heaven. So by forcing him not to die, it was a worse punishment for him because he would not be able to go straight to heaven, which is what it seemed like he wanted.
It is understadable for a person whose family member was murdered to want that murderer to be put to justice. In this case, Boggess would still be brought to justice by serving life in jail. Boggess did change in prison and became a much more peaceful man who would not kill again, but the fact of the matter is that he killed two men. He must pay for what he did through thinking about his actions in prison for the rest of his life, and not simply killed off. By killing Boggess, the families are just lowering themselves to Boggess previous actions. Instead they should force him to stay in jail for the rest of his life, and live with what he had done.

An Introduction to the Columbine Massacre

When I think of Columbine, right away I think of the two ruthless high school students who went on a shooting rampage and killed innocent teachers and students. The book "Columbine" brings a different perspective to the story, and provides more detail than I've ever seen on what happened on that fateful day. The book takes an in depth look at the people that went to the school and the two boys who were involved in the shooting, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The book starts out with the dean of the school telling all of the students before their senior prom to be safe and make smart decisions. This made me feel very connected to the school because a lot of times people forget that Columbine was a normal, good, high school and very similar to ours. That is what makes this incident so much scarier. When looking at the two killers Eric was definitely the more destructive one. He had always fantasized of killing and destroying people. Always was a fan and admirer of Hitler and Nazis and felt the world would be a better place if he were just alone. The book does a good job of showing how Eric feels on the inside because on the outside he had a good group of friends and was not a loner. All of Eric's friends knew he was crazy, however they liked him. Dylan on the other hand was much shyer than Eric. He was a very bright kid who also had two very loving parents who treated him very well. Erica and Dylan were a tag team duo who enjoyed playing video games, watching and making movies, and occasionally getting into trouble. From the outside, these kids did not look like killers. They looked more like teenagers that liked to cause ruckus. The author was not trying to make you sympathize with these teenagers, however he was trying to shine a different light than how the media usually portrayed the killers.