Abortion

There is a major differences between the NARAL site and the National Right to Life site. The information was presented very differently. The National Right to Life sit seemed to be using the scare tactics that the NARAL site said they would use. The harsh tactics seem the argument less compelling to me. The information is presented in a document type file and is also difficult to read. It seems as though they are trying to impress viewers with vocabulary rather than lay out their opinion. The NARAL site gives a strait forward solution and proposal to people. It seems as though the present the pros and cons of abortion and give their input as to why they think a pro- choice lifestyle is better. They make the myths clear and they present it in a very convincing way. I do, however, like the information used in the National Right to Life site. It seems as though the research has been done thoroughly even though it seems as though research for the other side has been not represented. My opinions did not seem to be altered by either site. No site made such a convincing argument to steer me away from my opinion. The NARAL site, however, provide important facts to incorporate my pro- choice attitude.
I feel a parent has a right to know everything about their child who is under the age of 18. However, they should not have a say whether or not the abortion should be carried out. As a seventeen year old I feel as though I can make hard decisions. I can weigh the pros and the cons and make my own decision. I feel the same would be true for any girl who was making the same decision about abortion. Parents should not have a right to consent to their children having an abortion. As much as adults would like to have us think, we are not children anymore. We are given responsibilities as school and in our personal lives. Why should making this big decision be different? Should a child have to obey their parents to study a religion if they do not believe it? Should a child not be him or herself if their parents do not support their choices? Why should parents have a say in abortion? They don't know better.
A father really should not be allowed determine whether or not a women should have an abortion. He is not the one who is going to be pregnant for nine months. Nor is he the one who will have to spend a lot of time raising the baby. More often than not, the father is not around. It seems logical. If a pregnancy was unplanned, the couple was not ready or was not willing to have a baby. This makes fathers nervous and more likely to bail on their partners. A child is forever, marriage or relationships may not be.
I do not agree with the law that states a women must have spousal consent. I agree that it is different because they are married but I do not think that anyone except for the women should have a decision. Compromises must be made in marriages and in this battle, the women wins. Although I agree with the pro- choice laws that do exist I would change the length of the allowed abortion. There is no evidence that a fetus ever feels pain in an abortion. Illinois law states that abortions can be banned as soon as 12 weeks of pregnancy. Why twelve? Why can't this be extended to help suit a womens need. This is a major decision in a womens life and, often times, they need time to think about it.
-Igor

Death Penalty #3

Response to the Stages:
The Preliminary Hearing in the pre-trial is designed to protect the innocent. This part of the pre-trial determines whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused. The accused will only go to trial if sufficient evidence is presented. Then the judicial session can also be used to protect the accused. This is where a jury determines if they are arguing the fact of the crime or the statue of the law. The jury selection phase offers the accused to a fair jury. The jury selected will weigh both the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case to make a fully educated decision. After the person has been proven guilty, if they have, they will then discuss the aggravating and mitigating factors of the punishment. This protects the guilty because after a decision is made the jury then needs to make another educated decision on their penalty. Also the jury sentence recommendation protects the guilty because a group of people must make a decision on their lives. The defendants have the option of having a jury decide the outcome. This is beneficial to them because it rests their lives in the hands of many rather then the hands of one. Also, in the direct appeal, if new evidence is presented the defendant can re-state their case. Also, to protect the guilty, the defendant can appeal to a higher court to get an even better decision. Although unlikely, the Supreme court can also take a case. Also, in Federal Habeas Corpus the guilty may plead that the imprisonment of someone is illegal. This only further protects the accused. Then, the governor, in the company of advisors, may or may not grant clemency to the accused.
I do think that this system is incredibly thorough. It seems as though, unless there was no evidence, the guilty would get what they deserved. After hearing through so many decisions the accused have every opportunity to prove themselves guilty if they are. Also, if they really deserve the a life sentence then this process, along with adequate lawyering, should prove that. There is no reason that this process would leave an open hole that allows for an innocent man to be set to death or vice versa.

Response to Methods:
Hanging is absolutely inhumane. The possibility that someones eyes can pop out of their head is too much. This is not a quick process either. Finding a sandbag of equal weight to the prisoner may take a while. The necessary tests may take even longer. This does not sound like a humane method.
The firing squad is more humane then hanging but is still ridiculous. The possibility that someone can die a slow painful death is not worth it. I do not understand why the shooters have to stand twenty feet away and why they only have one round to fire.
The electric chair almost seems like torture. I could not imagine staying alive after the first 30 second interval. It sounds like the most painful thing in the world.
I think the gas chamber is more humane than the above but takes too long. Why can't the execution be faster?
There is nothing wrong with lethal injection.
All except for lethal injection should be considered cruel and unusual. There is no suffering in lethal injection and an inmate is not exposed to any pain.

Response to State Data:
It seems as though everybody uses lethal injection. What surprises me were the states that let the inmates choose. It sees like an impractical decision. Nobody knows what dying feels like so how can anyone make a good choice. All states should require death by lethal injection. Also, I noticed that the majority of the states offer life without parole. In the time lines it seems as though the death penalty has become more sophisticated. This is interesting because it makes me wonder of the future. What is in store for the death penalty? What surprised me most was the Texas, one state, had 35% of the executions.

Response to Chart:
The death penalty is the death penalty. The fact that more black people are executed cannot account for anything. This is based on the courts and the reasons that they were proven guilty. The comparison to the population is not valid. The death penalty can only be judged on the basis of guilt. In California, the cost to execute cost more than one hundred million more dollars. In Texas, the case is similar. However, in some states it is much cheaper to keep the prisoner locked up for life. The public is almost equally split on their decisions on the death penalty. This information is not very convincing for me. There are factors that play into each case that I do not know about. I think it is unfair to make a general statement with such a personal issue. The circumstances of each case is unique.

-Igor

Clifford Boggess

Clifford Boggess should have been executed. Everything he said that had to do with remorse was an act. He seemed like he did not feel sorry for what he did. He talked about it as though it was an everyday activity. Clifford Boggess would say things like "here is a picture of one of my victims" and think nothing of it. However, he did seem to actually feel sorry. Clifford Boggess claimed he would be a functioning member of society. He was a painter. How would being a painter change what he did when he killed his victims. I feel as though if he was let go he could go back to his criminal ways. Another reason Clifford Boggess should have been put to death was because he did not feel sorry for the victims family at all. When he wrote the letter to one of his victim's granddaughter he was preaching to her. This would make me feel very uncomfortable and I would not feel comfortable with this person not dying. It seems as though the victims families can not live a normal life knowing that this man is alive still making decisions. I completely agreed with what the granddaughter said. Clifford Boggess chose the day he died and my grandfather did not. Clifford Boggess was allowed to make decisions whereas his victims lives were brutally ended. Clifford Boggess is a cold hearted criminal and it seems as though he will always stay cold hearted. He feels little remorse and seems to not care for others feelings. He is not able to change. He didn't just kill the first man by pulling a trigger. He beat him and slit his throat. He did all of this with his hands and he was bragging about it. At the time of the first murder Clifford Boggess was on top of the world. Any man who can do that and not feel sorry about it is insane. There is no changing a man like him.
Even if Boggess was taken off of death row and put into prison for life he would still not be a functioning member of society. He would continue doing his artwork and preaching to his victims families. This is not fair to the families of the two victims. His death did bring them the justice they deserved. There was nothing more that could have happened. They got everything that could have possibly happened. Clifford Boggess was killed and that's that. There is nothing more they could ask for. As bad as it sounds, they wont get their family members back.

Bullying

The movie we watched in class, Bullied, showed a more personal level of how bullying affects people. Before watching the film I thought that the school should do little to prevent bullying. I thought that physical violence should be either handled by the student or by the authorities. At first I agreed with the Middle School Principle. She said that "boys will be boys", and at first I agreed. However, after seeing the physical and emotional affect on Jamie Nabozny I completely changed my opinion. The school did not do anything to protect him or punish the bullies at all. Some sort of punishment should have been enforced. When it came to the point that Jamie Nabozny had to go to the hospital, it was time for the school to step in. Jamie's security was seriously threatened every time that he went to school. This is a serious problem that the school had to handle. Verbal harassment should have different consequences than physical harassment. I do not think it is right that the verbal harassment wasn't handled immediately. Growing up in and around Deerfield, I have always witnessed people getting in trouble for something they said. I would say that verbal harassment is the most common type of offense that students at Deerfield High School commit.

In the case of Nabozny vs. Podlesny , the court ruled in Nabozny's favor. Jamie won a total of close to one million dollars. This was the first case in the United States that had to address anti- gay violence in public schools. Also, this case led to more programs to accepting gay people. This case was truly a breakthrough case.

In our own high school, I do not feel as though bullying is a problem. Physical bullying is not present in the school; this may be because of past cases similar to Nabozny vs. Podlesny. Our school is defiantly "clicky". People have their friends and only associate with them. This leaves little room for bullying because no one is forcing people to hang out with other people that they don't like. Deerfield High School is not different from other schools. Other schools may have some more problems with physical bullying but I feel as thought the level of verbal harassment is the same. I also think that it is difficult to stop verbal harassment. Cyber bullying is too easy and as long as students have Facebook or text messaging, it is possible.

Potential solutions to stop bullying involve taking one step at a time. It is easy to say that bullying is bad. Everybody knows that. However, it is more difficult to talk about different ways to accept LGBT students. I do think, however, that more lectures and accepting values should be incorporated into the school environment. This may be through activities such as challenge day. What really influenced me my freshman year were the SAGA and Minority Report panels. It made me realize that in high school it is important to understand that there are those different from you in our own school. You never know when a joke may affect someone or whom it may affect. I think it is important to continue freshman panels just to increase awareness. Obviously our school has a very strict policy and discrimination. If one student makes a bad decision and discriminates they are very likely to get in trouble. This sends the right message to everyone else in the school. It is important that everyone knows that there will be consequences.

-Igor

Student Searches

Students, like in the case of Samantha Redding, should not be subjected to unreasonable searches. Samantha Redding was strip searched and embarrassed when strip searched under false accusations. Probable cause was not evident and this was clearly a mistake by the school. Subjecting a girl in eighth grade to a strip search can be truly costly. The feelings of uncomfert will carry through Samantha forever. What the school did was rape her. They made her expose her private parts for no clear reason. Also, Samantha Miller did not know the reason of her search. Her feelings of confusion and uncomfert were the result of a search taht unvealed nothing. What would they have done if they found prescribed pills? Most likely, the pills would have been prescribed to her. They were looking for evidence that would not have solved anything. There would have been no proof that the pills that she had were the same as the ones that were found on the student.

Also, the case of the Missouri school  and random lockdowns shows students a bad lessson. When students are subject to searches like this, they are presented with unamerican values. These suspicionless searches completely go against the Fourth Amendment. There is no reason for these searches and the students are subjected to exactly the opposite of what they are learning in school. Schools should insure that students have constitutional rights, at least to some extent.

Drug Testing

Students should be subject to drug tests no matter what. What should they have to hide? If the law states that all students are innocent until proven guilty, let the students prove themselves innocent. If the students have nothing to hide then there should be no question that drug testing should be allowed. It is better to get students help and invade their privacy then to find out later that they have suffered a drug related injury. It is best to use preventative measures and upset a few students. It would be worth it.

 School officials, however, should be cautious of the searches that they do. I believe that in order to drug test a student there must be probable cause from a credible source. For example, in the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O, the principle had no right to keep rummaging through the purse looking for more evidence. He found what he had probable cause to find and should have left it at that. Reasonable cause is important. A new case, the case of Samantha Redding and Safford Middle School, there was not probable cause from a credible source. The vice principal had no right to strip search a middle school student with the intent of finding prescribed painkillers. Also, the voice of a student in trouble is not a credible source of accusation, especially if the student is not backed up by evidence.

Students, like in the case of Veronia School District v. Acton, should be subject to drug testing with probable cause. If a student wishes to represent there school in either a sport or a club they should be subject to drug testing. This makes perfect sense. If I ran a school, I would want my school represented by students who obeyed the law and didn't use illegal substances. In this case, the drug testing would be used based on "individualized suspicion of wrongdoing". If there was a probable cause to test a student then it would make sense to test them. This is not a random generalized search of a group of students. This is a scenario where one student is suspected of violating rules and this is the probable cause needed to test them.

Also, I do not believe that drug testing is an issue of privacy. What can be so embarrassing that can show up in a drug test? If you are on a medication then there should be no shame for it to come up and for one person to see it. If it proves your innocence of illegal substances then it is worth it. Students who refuse drug testing should also be a probable cause. What can be the reason a student didn't want to be drug tested other than them taking illegal drugs? If there is nothing to hide, then taking a drug test should not be a problem.

Drug testing is different than strip searching. There is a major privacy breach when it comes to stripping down a middle school student looking for prescribed medicine. Drug testing, however, is for the overall good of the community. Finding out if someone has a drug problem early can be a major life changer. Students may be unhappy about this, but it is worth it in order to get help for students who need it.

9/22 Freedom of Religion

After reading the statements of people who were concerned with the government and First Amendment, I was truly surprised. What surprised me was that so many people thought that First Amendment did a lot of good. The First Amendment promises freedom of religion. However, what religion do they specify? The survey showed that 38% of people agreed that the U.S Constitution is written about a Christian Nation. This is an overwhelming majority as most other survey participants said that they either mostly agree or moderately agree. The topic I researched on the First Amendment in schools were religious holidays. As the First Amendment stands, schools are allowed to take days off of schools for religious holidays. Schools are at their own discretion for this. I think this is because if a school doesn't allow a day off for religious holidays, most students will be out practicing and have to miss school anyway. However, any student who wishes to miss school for a religious reason cannot be punished for doing so. They must be allowed to make up any work that they have missed. Still, they are not required to close if they do not think necessary. The article I chose was "Texas School District Accused of Trying to Ban Christmas". The article spoke of a school in Texas that refused students to have a holiday party. Parents were mad because they thought that the school in Texas was trying to ban the holidays in Texas all together. Only in Texas, right? In fact, they didn't want any student to be embarrassed of any religion. They wanted a fair environment for all. I really think that it is absurd that these crazy parents would even think that the school is banning a holiday. They are, in fact, doing the opposite. They are encouraging all other holidays as well as Christmas.
-Peace

September 11th Documentary

The 9/11 Documentary was not only interesting because it revealed some of the mysteries that occurred on that Tuesday but also the seven days following the attack. I feel as though this is a period in time that no one reflects upon. Apart from watching the video, I have never heard of the bomb threat that occurred in the Empire State Building. It is interesting to see the reactions of New Yorkers to these types of events. One thing that made me upset about the video were the people cheering on the rescue workers on the bridge. Although showing your support is nice, they needed more rescue workers, not cheerleaders. If you want to make a difference, you should be out there with everyone else at ground zero. I appreciate their support, but in a national disaster you don't need more cheerleaders. The acts later in the week following 9/11 also really showed the true character of New York. They proved to everyone in the world that they were going to rebuild and get through their loss. The interview with the child still surprises me. It shows how different people can be in times of disaster. The child was so sophisticated that he was almost speaking like an adult. Another thing that really surprised me was the chalk writing. People have all the right in the world to write that. However, in a time were everyone is frantic that is not the time nor place. Respect should be expected. What the lady did was basically the same as burning the American Flag at the funeral of a dead soldier. It is uncalled for and disrespectful.
Peace- Igor  

Issues Raised in Activity

We did an activity that talked about the speech code violations at certain colleges. Many of the students that were getting in trouble at these parties were "disturbing the educational process". The students were engaging in racist activities such as black face and stereotyping black students. The activity "Jim Crow on Frat Row" showed the segregation colleges face many decades after the Jim Crow Laws were taken out of effect. I do not agree with what these students did. They should be punished. Imagine being a black student at a college were everyone is supposedly equal. I would feel uncomfortable and threatened if I saw parties like this taking place. This is defiantly disturbing the learning process of African American students. They are no longer at a place where they can learn and not be bothered. Now they are submerged in an experience that threatens their education. Also we researched F.I.R.E, which is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the speech codes that they impose on schools. These speech codes violate your speech in an effort to promote an equal education. They are protecting the educational values that colleges stand for. I did research on Stanford University, my first choice, and found that they have a zero tolerance racism policy. This is enforced my speech codes to protect students of minority. However, I do not see it as protecting them. I see it as insurance that they will receive equal treatment as minority students. -Peace out