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.

Don't laugh at me, don't call me names, don't get your pleasure from my pain

The game has changed when it comes to bullying due to advancements in technology. Even though most bullies are not physically hurting kids anymore, cyber bullying has been shown to be just, if not more effective than physical bullying. When looking at the packet, "When Cyberbullying Turns Deadly," there are many cases where kids are cyberbullied into suicide. The reason why cyber bullying is so effective is because it is so public. Instead of a kid being pushed into a locker, the whole school can find out that a kid is gay, bisexual, or a lesbian. Inner secrets can be unleashed to everyone, which makes everything much more embarrassing. More kids verbally abuse kids by cyberbullying, rather than physically abusing a kid because it is not face to face. Anyone can do it because all you have to do is send a text or write a message on the Internet with no repercussions from the kid that is being bullied.

One case that was mentioned in the packet was the suicide of Jeffrey Johnston. Johnston was a different looking kid in middle school because of his height and long hair that he was growing out for Locks of Love, which were some of the reasons for why he was consistently picked on. Johnston was picked throughout middle school and through the beginning of high school. He was called a stalker and verbally bullied online after breaking up with a girl, and someone hacked into his video gaming account and wrote many rude comments. He never could get over all of this abuse, and he later hanged himself in his room. Because it is so easy to continue on verbally abusing someone online, kids do it and because it is so frequent, it ends up being more affective than physically bullying.

After doing research on some of the cases read in the packet, and other cases relating to cyberbullying outside of the packet, the main question that is raised from the suicides is whether it was the cyberbullying that caused the suicide. Jeff Glor of CBS News was reporting on Alexis Pilkington, who also committed suicide after numerous accounts of cyberbullying. Glor reported that about 42% of kids claim that they have been cyber bullied, which is why it is so hard to accuse people for causing suicide by cyberbullying because so many people are affected by it and do not end up committing suicide. Although laws have been passed in some states, it is still extremely hard to pin someone done for cyberbullying because it his difficult to determine whether it was the cyberbullying that caused the suicide.

In Deerfield High School I do believe that cyberbullying exists to a certain extent. Kids are made fun of and lightly verbally abused on the internet, however when it gets too abusive the school takes notice and stops it. Even though it may be outside of the schools control, that flexibility that schools are granted allows for the schools to limit cyberbullying so that kids to not kill themselves. There is also a very limited amount of physical bullying that occurs at our school, which is why I feel that our school does not have a very big bullying problem. I'm sure verbal abuse does occur at our school, but not enough for the school to make any new changes. Some of the things that the high school could do is show a presentation of people who were affected by cyberbullying, and how they were able to cope with it. A Challenge Day could also be beneficial, but it does not seem like that would be taken too seriously at our school. The best thing for the school to do is if there is ever a case where someone is being bullied too much then they talk to that person to help them cope with it, and eventually stop the bullying.

Is Drug Testing Right? No. Is Drug Testing Effective? Yes.

Drug testing in high schools is a complete violation of students privacy and Fourth Amendment. However high school is a different environment than the outside world. In high school there is much more flexibility of the laws in the Fourth Amendment. In the Majority Opinion of the the New Jersey v. T.L.O case, the Majority Opinion talked about how hard it is for schools officials to maintain order in the school, which is why they need to be able to bend some of the rules. "We have recognized that maintaining security and order int he schools requires a certain degree of flexibility in school disciplinary procedures, and we have respected the value of preserving the informality of the student-teacher relationship." High schools have very little control of their students and without more rules then school would fail. Although the rules seem unfair, and against the United States Constitution, they are necessary to help prevent drug use in high school. Drug use is abused at an extremely high rate in high school, and it effects students in athletics, during classes, and other extra curricular activities.

A random drug test would allow schools to crack down on this problem by enforcing strict penalties if found positive for drug use. One of the main arguments against drug testing is the privacy issue. If done right then this can be considered not an issue anymore. If they allow the student to go into a stall by themselves, then it is just like going to the bathroom at a restaurant. Drug testing is something that from a student's view point is annoying because they feel that it is an invasion of privacy and it is the school policing the students. Drugs are illegal, in and out of school, so if drug testing is the way to stop kids from abusing drugs, then schools are going to do it.

Schools can take this power of a flexible Fourth Amendment too far. One instance of this was when there was a lock down search in Missouri and students purses, backpacks, and more were searched by the police department. Even though this was random searching, it was disrupting the school day, and crossing the line in going into students privacy. These were intense searches that gave off a hostile environment at the school. Another case where schools take invasion of privacy too far was at Safford Middle School. Savana Redding was accused of giving a student two ibuprofen pills. She was strip searched by the nurse at the school and Redding said that she never felt so embarrassed in her whole life. The school went way too rough on this student, and definitely pushed the limit of invading a students privacy by forcing them to strip and then be searched. This is why there must be a good balance of invading students privacy to maintain order, but not go too far because it can end up making students feel uncomfortable and end up disrupting a school day.

Religion is a Good Source of Knowledge

After looking at the polls completed during the 2010 core questions survey, it made me realize how little people know about the issues having to do with freedom of speech and religion. Only 23% of the people asked in the survey knew that freedom of religion is a specific right guaranteed by the First Amendment. I was surprised by many of the answers to the questions in the survey. The question that surprised me the most was the one about the president proclaiming a day of prayer. 58% of the people strongly agreed that this day should happen. If the president performed a Christian prayer for the nation, then that would make it seem like America was a Christian nation. I think that people around America who are not Christian would feel uncomfortable that the leader of their nation was praying for a religion their practice. America is supposed to be a country with no one religion, and having a Christian day of prayer would contradict that policy.
A really important aspect over the debate of freedom of religion is how much religion should be taught in public schools. One article that I read talked about the importance of religion in public schooling. Religion has been a big part of different art, literature, movies, and more. It has always played a big role in history over the years, and without it being taught students will lose a whole aspect of history and culture. There have been controversies in the past whether to determine if a teacher is teaching about a religion, or preaching about a religion. In my classes in the past there has always been a definite line between teaching and preaching. I am glad that I have gotten to learn about different religions besides my own because it gave me a good grasp of different cultures and how religion has influenced history.