Abortion

After looking at both sides websites, I truly think that the pro-life website is more organized and extensive. One thing that really made it easy for me on the pro-life side was the medical facts page. I just keep clicking next page after I was done reading and it kept getting more and more facts. The pro-choice website was very scattered while the pro-life website was very organized and on the home page, I could figure out where I wanted to go from there. The pro-life website was also very convincing. Going through the page about how the abortion was actually done disgusted me. Pro-life seems to be winning the debate right now. Their arguments seem to be more focused and direct. One topic that the pro-life really was centered on was “is abortion really safe?” There are many claims and facts that show how abortion is not the safest procedure for women to undergo. After looking at these websites, even though I am pro-choice, the pro-life website did not alter my opinion. I think the pro-life website was stronger and so much simpler but it didn’t change my viewpoint on abortion.

Parents should 100% have to know about their daughters pregnancy and abortion. Yesterday in the article I read, I found out that there are multiple girls who had abortions without telling their parents and they had complications and died the next day. If their parents would have known, that would not have happened. Also, if you can’t tell your parents about how you want an abortion, you probably aren’t mature enough to have sex. Getting an abortion is a medical procedure. Any other medical procedure requires parents’ consent to the procedure. What makes abortion different? It is a medical procedure and can be very dangerous if complications occur.

Yes, the father should also have to be notified of the woman’s abortion. I don’t really think that he can say no to the abortion because he is not the one actually having the baby. However, he is the father of the baby and without him, there would be no baby. Because of that, the father should have as much power in the decision as the mother.

After looking at Illinois abortion law, I agree with most of what is said. I really agree with the young women statement where girls under 18 need consent from their parents. Also, I agree with the spousal consent where the husband needs have consent for the abortion. One thing that I don’t agree with is the insurance issue for some women getting an abortion. The insurance doesn’t cover all women which I think is wrong. Illinois is very against abortion and they are trying to do whatever it takes to get rid of it. Another thing that I like is the Low-Income Women’s access to abortion. I think that is great for women who can’t afford one but might still want an abortion.

Last Abortion Clinic

                The movie that we watched in class titled “The Last Abortion Clinic” taught me a lot about the abortion process, especially in the state of Mississippi. It was very informative and really told the laws about abortion for Mississippi. The topic was brought up in class about if the story was bias towards pro-life or not. I had no idea about how Mississippi was so much for pro-life and was taking over the pro-choice party. I didn’t realize how it was down there and I think that the director and producers did a great job at telling the story how it was. The story was supposed to be focused on how the pro-life party was taking over pro-choice. Yeah, most of the stories and facts were about pro-life and all the information that was told was about the pro-life party, but that was the point of the story. We got to see many interviews of people who were pro-life in Mississippi and I really don’t think the story favored them in any way. The story was told how it was. I actually think that this story was not even close to being bias. I think that by telling the story about the pro-life supporters, it revealed how the pro-choice people must have felt. For example, all the rules and laws that were set in Mississippi seemed to favor pro-life supporters. The law about waiting 24 hours after the first appointment at the abortion clinic to actually get an abortion makes it hard for people to actually get to the clinic. We learned transportation was a big factor because there was only one remaining abortion clinic left in Mississippi. We even saw a women hang up on the abortion clinic because they didn’t have the time in the schedule to accommodate her when she wanted to come in. Another example is the required ultrasound. This gives the pregnant women a chance to actually see the fetus move around in her whom.  As we saw in the video, this causes the women to feel for the baby and sometimes make them keep the baby. These laws favor the pro-life side and the way the producer portrayed this things in the story, makes me almost feel bad for the pro-choice side as well as the pregnant women. We did not hear much from the pro-choice side in the video, but I did see some things that caught my attention. There was a scene where there were pro-life supporters protesting outside of an abortion clinic and they nurses were actually getting harassed by the protesters. It showed that this is a very controversial topic and a tough situation of lots of people. Again, the director and producers were just telling the story how it was. I don’t think in any way they were on the pro-life side because this scene really showed me the situation that was going on in Mississippi. There is no doubt that this story was centered around the side of pro-life, but there was definitely a purpose for that. The director wanted to tell the story about how pro-life is dominating in Mississippi right now and how pro-choice people are suffering, as well as women who need or want abortions.

Governor Ryan and The Death Penalty

After reading Governor Ryan’s speech, I truly believe that his decision to abolish the death penalty in Illinois was just.  Throughout his speech, it was clear that he was torn between both sides and really had a hard time making a decision. He also states that he received more advice on this topic than any other one in his 35 years in office. There is no doubt that he made the right decision and I totally agree with him.  Ryan’s states his first reason to abolish the death penalty as, “The death penalty has been abolished in 12 states. In none of these states has the homicide rate increased.” The main reason to have a death penalty is to punish people for their actions and prevent future murders because of the severity of the death penalty. Ryan’s factual evidence that the removal of the death penalty doesn’t increases homicide rates is a factor that really shows me the death penalty doesn’t decrease homicide rates.

 A big argument that Ryan makes, and I totally agree with, is his statement on the fairness and quality of the death penalty. Should a jury really decide if somebody lives or dies? Ryan states, “In Illinois last year we had about 1,000 murders; only 2 percent of that 1,000 were sentenced to death. Where is the fairness and equality in that? The death penalty in Illinois is not imposed fairly or uniformly because of the absence of standards for the 102 Illinois state's attorneys, who must decide whether to request the death sentence.” There are so many factors in a case. Every case is different, the victim is different, the defendant is different, and the prosecutor is different in every case. Ryan is arguing that the capital punishment system is arbitrary with differences in every trial. Who really has the right to sentence one to death?

After Governor Ryan stated that argument, he goes into a geographical reasoning and states, “Should geography be a factor in determining who gets the death sentence? I don't think so but in Illinois it makes a difference. You are five times more likely to get a death sentence for first-degree murder in the rural area of Illinois than you are in Cook County. Where is the justice and fairness in that - where is the proportionality?” Ryan shows that there is a geographical disparity with capital punishment in Illinois and the system is flawed. Ryan is arguing deterrence here. This relates to that Juan Raul Garza case who was from Texas and one of the arguments was about how more people from the south are executed than any other region. Actually, the south accounts for over 80 % of executions according to the Death Penalty Information Center. This is the same idea as Governor Ryan is arguing about how it is more likely to get the death sentence in the rural area of Illinois than in Cook County.

Many people think that capital punishment is the worst possible punishment a person can receive. People think that by killing somebody, you are punishing them with death. I always questioned that reasoning and thought that by keeping somebody in prison for life without parole, the prisoner would be punished more with having to face the conditions of prison as well as the mental repercussions that come with murdering people. Also, this gives the inmate many years to become a better person and time to think about their crime. This passage from Governor Ryan’s speech really had an impact on my decision about the abolishment of the death penalty being just or not. Ryan states, “Some inmates on death row don't want a sentence of life without parole. Danny Edwards wrote me and told me not to do him any favors because he didn't want to face a prospect of a life in prison without parole. They will be confined in a cell that is about 5-feet-by-12 feet, usually double-bunked. Our prisons have no air conditioning, except at our supermax facility where inmates are kept in their cell 23 hours a day. In summer months, temperatures in these prisons exceed one hundred degrees. It is a stark and dreary existence. They can think about their crimes. Life without parole has even, at times, been described by prosecutors as a fate worse than death.” This is shown the Clifford Boggess case. Over time in jail, Clifford became a better person. This is shown through his faith in religion and is new talent in art. He has come to accept the responsibility for his murders and feels grief to the families. That is shown by his letters that he wrote to the victim’s families. Yet, Clifford shows that he hates prison and can’t stand his cell. He also states that he is “excited to die.” Giving Clifford the death penalty here is wrong. He showed good signs of improvement through his time in jail and killing him is just reliving him of his punishment. The Boggess case as well as the passage from Ryan’s speech really convince me that the death penalty in is wrong in general as well as in Illinois.

Another reason I said getting rid of the death penalty was just, was because of the many innocent people that were put on death row. The capital punishment system is so arbitrary and the justice system isn’t always providing a death sentence to the right person. This piece is from the newspaper article. The author states, “The 1995 execution of Girvies Davis for a downstate murder was long controversial and relied heavily on a disputed confession, one the police got when they took him out of jail in the middle of the night and, according to Davis, threatened him. In fact, Davis confessed to numerous crimes that night and, authorities later acknowledged, many of the confessions were false, with other people later convicted of those crimes. On the other hand, Davis admitted to taking part in other crimes that led to the deaths of innocent people, though he insisted he never killed anybody himself.” How can a person who is threatened to make confessions be sentenced to death? He never admitted to killing anybody but he was put to death because his he admitted to taking part in “other crimes.” This shows the death penalty is way to controversial to decide somebody’s life over. Charts from the Death Penalty Information Center show that Illinois is second behind Florida to the amount of innocent people released from death row. Illinois has released 20 people over time and Florida has released 23. How can the capital punishment system be working if 20 people were proven innocent after wasting years of their life on death row? The arbitrariness in the system in Illinois shows that the death penalty should not be active and Governor Ryan made the correct decision to abolish it.  

Deerfield Cell Phone Law

A current issue that has been brought up in Deerfield the past month is the addition of a new law that prohibits people from using their cell phone in the car without a hands free device. Many people talk on the phone when they drive and I think this law coming to Deerfield is a pretty big deal. The hands free device law has been gaining popularity around the state. In the city, people are required to use a Bluetooth headset or any other device that prevents them from putting the phone to their ear when they talk on the phone. Not just the city but suburbs such as Highland Park introduced this law over the summer on June 1^st. Starting November 1^st, this law will go into effect in Deerfield. They police department stated that for the first few weeks, they will be giving out warnings to people but after that the fins are between 120-500 dollars. That is one big ticket for just talking on the phone. People will now need to spend their money on Bluetooth headsets or other devices to prevent getting tickets in Deerfield.

Personally I think it is great that they are making laws to protect the roads, but I think this law is very unnecessary. Holding the phone up to your ear verse having an ear set in and still talking on the phone isn’t much different. I believe that the problem is you brain is focusing on the conversation rather than the road. It really has nothing to do with if you hand is on your ear or you or not using your hands at all.  Yeah, one can argue that having that extra hand free will help you out. But honestly, who drives with two hands on the wheel these days. That extra hand won’t have much on an effect and with a Bluetooth on; you are still engaged in the conversation and distracted from the road. Personally I try to limit when I drive and talk on the phone because I do feel the distraction when I am on the phone. I just don’t think taking your hand down will resolve the problem. And the fine that will go along with this offense just makes this law more pointless.

The Deadline

More than 80% of the people who have been executed, have been executed for the murder of white victims. How do you account for this? What effect might this have on perceptions of the justice system among people of color?

I really don’t think that you can bring numbers and stats into the justice system like this.  Every single person goes through the same process when it comes to the death penalty. Every single murder case is different because there is a different prosecutor, defendant, and victim. They don’t just give the death penalty out because somebody committed a first degree murder. There is a reason behind every penalty the justice system gives I think it just turned out that way that 80% of the people who have been executed murdered white people. I think this statistic makes the justice system think twice before giving the death sentence for somebody who killed a white person. They probably want to stay away from being prejudice, but still need to enforce the law.

There are currently over 3,000 men and women sentenced to death in the United States. Approximately 65 percent of American voters approve of the death penalty in states where capital punishment is legal. Why do you think the death penalty is so widely supported in this country? What forces do you think shape public opinion on the death penalty?

People support the death penalty because they think of an “eye for an eye” as being the best solution. Most people probably don’t understand everything the death penalty and  the process behind it. These 65 percent of the population think’s that revenge is the best option for a murderer and some of these people probably feel safer if a murderer is killed. I think the media influences the public’s opinion because all they talk about the crime the murderer committed, and how they did it. It makes the public feel bad for the victim and want revenge on the murderer.

What is your reaction to Stephen Bright’s quote about the exonerated prisoners?

“This was the third person released by the journalism students at Northwestern, and of course it doesn’t say much for our legal system when people spend sixteen years on death row for a crime they… didn’t commit. And that ultimately comes to light not because of the police or the prosecution, or the defense lawyers or the judicial system, but because a journalism class at Northwestern took it on as a class project to see whether or not these people were guilty or not. You know, if those students had taken chemistry that semester, these folks would have been executed.”

This quote really caught my ear when I first heard it. It is amazing that students in a journalism class who didn’t know much about the topic were assigned to reenact the case. It is unbelievable that they were the ones to actually prove a prisoner who was on death row for sixteen years. This really shows a loophole in the process of the death penalty. How can somebody who is innocent for that long not be taken off death row sooner? This quote really shows that there might be a problem with our legal system when it comes to capital punishment.

Death Penalty

Overall, I think that the stages in a capital punishment case are pretty fair and protect the rights of the suspect. Between the preliminary hearing and the grand jury stages, there is lots of time and people working to find evidence and decide if the suspect is guilty of his or her crime or not. The defendant will go through the preliminary hearing and it will be decided if there is enough evidence to prosecute a person. If there seems to be evidence, then the trial will move into the  grand jury where 23 people decide if indictments should be issued. Throughout this process, I find it hard to have a loophole in evidence. I think it would be real hard to prosecute an innocent person through those two sets. If the person is being charged with a crime, it moves into the guilt phase trial. Here the defendant goes through a fair trial with all the steps. Once a person is found guilty, they have so many chances and possibilities to appeal. A person then may appeal to all different levels of court, file for proportionality review, and petition to the Supreme Court. Throughout all these steps and phases, I think the criminals are treated with every right they deserve and the process is extremely long which helps the court make sure they have the right person.

The only method of execution that I found somewhat humane was lethal injection. That is why most states have that option today because it provides the least chance for pain and is quick and easy. The only way for the victim to feel anything is if the doctor misses a vain, which could cause pain. The victim is put to sleep and in his sleep he dies. I think that is the most peaceful way to execute somebody. I think the gas chamber, electric chair, and firing squad all should be ruled cruel and unusual by the 8^th Amendment. The electric chair fries a person’s body and it is said to have results where, “the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks. The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. The body turns bright red as its temperature rises, and the prisoner's flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner catches fire....Witnesses hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the chamber.” I think that is absolutely disgusting and very inhuman. It is tearing apart their body and flesh which is not right. The gas chamber is inhumane because I learned that the gas makes the victim feel like they are having a heart attack and their eyes pop. This process seems to be very long as well and not an easy way to die for a person. The firing squad, even though it can be done quick and easy, is not right because putting a black bag over somebodies head and shooting them seems like they are murdering somebody straight of a movie.

After looking at the map and looking for trends, I found that all of the western states as well as the southern states all have death penalty laws. Sorting through the amount of black people vs white people on death row, the numbers seem to be pretty proportional. This proves that there is not much arbitrariness and racial discrimination involved. There are very few women on death row and I don’t think that has anything to do with arbitrariness.

Personally, I think the death penalty shouldn’t allowed in any state but if when the death penalty was legal in Illinois, the rules and regulations regarding capital punishment were fair. Everything on the statement clearly shows that a person who intends to murder another person, with exceptions like a juvenile, will be sent to death.  I think that all the crimes listed are good for capital punishment. For example, “The defendant has been convicted of killing two or more individuals” or “the murder was intentional and inflicted torture.” These statements without a doubt should lead to execution if the state was in favor of the death penalty. The stats from the Illinois death penalty history show that 20 people have been released from death row. I am not sure why Illinois got rid of the death penalty, but I am guessing they thought that too many people are put onto death row that are innocent.

The death penalty information center information is very convicting and the statistics really show that racial discriminations really don’t exist in the death penalty issue. The stats show that more white people are executed than blacks by 21% and there is just about as many black inmates on death row as white inmates. The amount of money to execute an inmate is in the millions and costs 3 million in Maryland. “In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell atthe highest security level for 40 years”. The amount of money that it takes to kill somebody is ridiculous. The stats about the public’s opinion on the death penalty are pretty close. 39% of people said they would like to see no death penalty while 33% of people said they wanted the death penalty. The issue over the death penalty will be debated and debated for a very long time.

Homecoming Friday

            This blog post goes back a couple weeks to the Friday of homecoming, which is the day of pep rally.  This issue regards my freedom of speech at school and its relation with the school dress code. On homecoming Friday, my friend and I wore rootsuits, which are full body spandex suits that have a mask part on the top so it can cover your face as well. You can easily take the mask part on and off. That Friday was class color day and as seniors, my friend and I wanted to go all out and show support for our class. We went out and bought these suits and walked into school that day together. Here is a link to see what these suits look like: http://www.rootsuit.com

            As my buddy and I went into school, we were immediately stopped by one of the deans and principle. We were told to take off the suits or get a detention. We talked about it and then the decision was made we needed to put shorts on over the suit and if the deans got any reports of us putting the mask part on during the day, we would have to take them off.  Even though this was pretty disappointing, I thought this was fair. I agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to wear something with a mask to school because it is distracting to school and potentially cause danger to others and myself.  On a day like this, many pictures are being taken throughout the school day, during and after class.  Would I really be that big of a deal to take some pictures with our suits fully zipped up? It really wasn’t that big of a deal because during class, I wouldn’t have the mask on because it would be hard to concentrate. After class, some teachers loved what I wore and actually asked and let me put up the mask to see what it looked like when I had it on. I was just upset that I had to worry about putting it up after class when people wanted to take pictures.            

            My friend and I followed the dean’s rules for the whole day, and the deans never got any reports about us breaking the rules or being disruptive. I actually talked to a different dean about wearing it to the pep rally and the football game later that night. He said, “ We just need to know who it is under the suit.”  It was time to go the pep rally and all of the seniors gathered together in one of the gyms so we could run in together.  Everybody was getting pumped up and making noise and the senior class was really getting excited. My friend and I decided we should put up our masks and because the day was over, it wouldn’t be a big deal if we ran into the gym and had our masks on for 5 seconds. As we ran as a class into the main gym, one of the deans was waiting for my friend and I and grabbed both of us. He made us take of the mask part and walk into the gym last. That really made me mad and I thought it was ridiculous because the school day was over and the dean who said he just needs to know who is under the suit saw my friend and I when the whole senior class was waiting to walk in together. After the pep rally, we talked to the deans and they wouldn’t let us wear them to the football game even though they knew who was under the suit and it was not during the school day so it was not distracting school. We learned that is a big factor from the Tinker v Des Moines case. There was nothing in the school handbook that talks about what I can’t wear after school hours to a school-sponsored event. There is no reason I shouldn’t have been able to wear my suit to the football game. All the administration talks about is getting people to the games and to cheer, but we try to have a little fun with that and they interfere with it.