Right now my knowledge of quantum physics is lacking. For those of you who do read this: I apologize for my lack of knowledge on the matter. I intend to gain more knowledge about this subject as I progress.
Generally, I do not think, "I wonder what quantum physics involves!" I actually had no idea what it really was before today. This morning, while on the phone with my boyfriend, he told me to look up a YouTube video to explain Schrodinger's Cat. He had tried to explain a t-shirt he found and I did not think it was funny, nor understand it. Being a curious person, I just HAD to know so I could understand. "Curiosity killed the cat right?" Literally, this involves that saying! I had no idea where that saying came from and now I do!
For those of you who don't know Schrodinger's Experiment, I will explain it to you the best I can. If I am wrong, I will come back and make changes, but this is how I have come to understand it.
The idea begins with putting a cat in a bunker with some gunpowder that has a 50% chance of blowing up and a 50% chance of not doing anything after 1 minute. The gunpowder was actually Einstein’s idea, but Schrodinger used poisonous gas. The point is, until we look in the bunker, we do not know whether the cat is dead or alive. When we finally look in the bunker either the cat is dead or alive. If we do this experiment enough times, you'll eventually see that half of the time the cat survives and half of the time, the cat dies. This seems self-explanatory, but the next part is where it becomes tricky.
The quantum interpretation is that before we look the cat is both dead AND alive. Our act of looking forces nature’s decision. Our "curiosity kills the cat." Then there is the cat prospective that comes into play. Either the cat doesn't see the gunpowder explode and lives or sees it explode and dies. The cat’s reality becomes entangled with the experiment. "It is our observation of the experiment that forces nature to collapse into one option or the other."
"We're like the cat too, either the cat dies and we see it dead, or it lives and we see it alive. So who is observing us to force nature to collapse to one reality? Or do both possibilities happen in parallel within a larger multiverse?"
I had to quote the YouTube video for the harder stuff. I couldn't explain it any better than that! Here is a link to the website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4
Anyway, this caught my attention today, and my boyfriend and I have been debating it. I thought maybe it would spark the mind of others out there. I hope to write more on this later!
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Lost Art
Where did it go? I know I left it around here somewhere!!! Where did my speech for composition class go? Okay, so I didn't actually lose my writing assignment, but I do believe America is losing the ability to fluently speak and have that ability to sound intelligent. For the remainder of this post, I am going to attempt to use improper language. (Which will be quite a challenge!) I will also freeform write and my thoughts may not be cohesive within a paragraph.
Taday in America we gots uh problem with the speach. No one can speek write, and they can't right well either. Whut has happend to us an why did our language gets o sloppy. What whent wrong? Wuz it in the skool system that stewdent faled? I dont think it was our skool system that faled us, I think its jus my generation. Lazeeness has koorupted our society and generation.
Perhaps it began with the use of teknology more n more. Txtng lingo strtd the prblm n then frm thre it escalated dwnwrd. I dunno whut happened but we became lazy, and thats uh fact. Maybe the use of computers didn't help, but we cannot blame it totally on technology. At some point we have to take responsibility for our actions.
I have heard so many people state that they didnt need to kno how to spell write because they have spell check. Let me address the public with this: SPELL CHECK DOESN'T CATCH EVERYTHING! In fact, it doesnt catch a lot of what people believe it should. We stil need to lern to right intellegently and it is importent to lern what is and aint proper grahmer. It drives me nuts wen peple cant or dont spell things write, or put them in a sentence write. Wat even bugs me more than that is wen peple give me there paper to read and then their sentence jus.
Wat also relly cuncrns me is the fact that prety soon our skool sistems are going to stop teaching cursive. Where is our society headed?! It achally makes me sad that im not uh hundred purcent shure on how to form strange cursive leters like "z". im shure its not hard to learn, but if our skools wont even be lerning the students that any more i gess it dont matter.
Writing, reading, and speaking well are now all becoming a lost art. They're all going to be gone soon for Americans. It's not just our school systems messing up, nor our technology use; we must take on some of the responsibility. It is so hard for me to proof read papers that are not well-written. I have tried to proof papers that are written as I wrote above. People don't seem to capitalize, "I," nor use proper punctuation. I have a friend, who is now in college, which cannot spell to save his life. I'm not sure how we are getting away with this in our society. When did we stop caring about speech?
If you do have any thoughts on this, I am all ears to your suggestions on where this art form went.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
My Hat is Off to Teachers!
As a teenager, it is very typical to sit there and look at the teacher in front and think, "I DON'T CARE!" But the truth in the matter is, we really should care. It's our education and we should care about the things they are telling us. Teachers try really hard, and what they're telling us is real. Now, I can't speak for everyone, but I know that when a teacher tells me something it is hard for me to simply believe them unless have previously experienced what they're teaching us about. The point is that, for the most part, teachers really care about what they are sharing with their students. Students often forget that, indeed, teachers are people too. They feel and have emotions....and wait for it.....THEY HAVE LIVES OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL AS WELL! Shocker! Anyway, so many students let these facts slip their mind. The teacher became a teacher for a reason, and a reason other than they just needed a job.
People often don't know the difficulty of teaching until they have to be a teacher.
I came to the realization today of how much respect I have for those whom students have their qualms about. I am a teacher at my local church, where I lead first graders around and try to teach the message of Jesus. Ideally, my job is to simply lead them. I am to lead them from class to class, and at the end review the lesson in, "journal time." Now, I don't know how many of you have worked with first grade students, but convincing them to sit and write in their journals after eight hours in school and two hours of learning at church is nearly impossible!!! I don't blame them; my head would be exploding as well. This non idealistic class gives me a new job; instead of simply leading the children around, I must teach them as well.
The hardest part for teaching elementary students is trying to keep energy, patience, and ideas fresh. Energy requires more than just physical strength, but mental strength as well. As a senior in high school, I am drained by the end of school. Somehow, though, we have to find this extra energy boost inside us to teach these children. We also must acquire patience out of our irritations and aggravations due to the stress levels. This energy and patience comes from the root reason we're there- to share about a matter which is vital and important to us. We care about what we are teaching, and we want the students to care as well. Keeping ideas fresh is also difficult because first graders must have something new and exciting to discover. Making up ideas that are educational, exciting, and new is a challenge.
Teachers are constantly faced with challenges. One of their biggest challenges are parents. Parents seem to always be on the guard and look out for their students. Usually, no matter what really happened, the parent will defend their student. Teachers must be cautious in their actions. If educators are not careful their jobs could quickly be on the line if a parent is perturbed. There is one main challenge that drives most teachers-Atychiphobia. The fear of failure. Most all teachers want to feel success and if the student isn't learning something...they feel they've failed. Teachers merely want the best for their students, and hope to make at least a small mark on the lives of others'. If teachers don't make some sort of dent, they've failed.
My hat is off to teachers tonight! Thank you for all your hard work and care. I now know what it is like to be in your shoes- and some days...it flat out stinks. Just remember to look for the students' smiles and joys because, for whatever reason, that gives us the strength to pursue.
People often don't know the difficulty of teaching until they have to be a teacher.
I came to the realization today of how much respect I have for those whom students have their qualms about. I am a teacher at my local church, where I lead first graders around and try to teach the message of Jesus. Ideally, my job is to simply lead them. I am to lead them from class to class, and at the end review the lesson in, "journal time." Now, I don't know how many of you have worked with first grade students, but convincing them to sit and write in their journals after eight hours in school and two hours of learning at church is nearly impossible!!! I don't blame them; my head would be exploding as well. This non idealistic class gives me a new job; instead of simply leading the children around, I must teach them as well.
The hardest part for teaching elementary students is trying to keep energy, patience, and ideas fresh. Energy requires more than just physical strength, but mental strength as well. As a senior in high school, I am drained by the end of school. Somehow, though, we have to find this extra energy boost inside us to teach these children. We also must acquire patience out of our irritations and aggravations due to the stress levels. This energy and patience comes from the root reason we're there- to share about a matter which is vital and important to us. We care about what we are teaching, and we want the students to care as well. Keeping ideas fresh is also difficult because first graders must have something new and exciting to discover. Making up ideas that are educational, exciting, and new is a challenge.
Teachers are constantly faced with challenges. One of their biggest challenges are parents. Parents seem to always be on the guard and look out for their students. Usually, no matter what really happened, the parent will defend their student. Teachers must be cautious in their actions. If educators are not careful their jobs could quickly be on the line if a parent is perturbed. There is one main challenge that drives most teachers-Atychiphobia. The fear of failure. Most all teachers want to feel success and if the student isn't learning something...they feel they've failed. Teachers merely want the best for their students, and hope to make at least a small mark on the lives of others'. If teachers don't make some sort of dent, they've failed.
My hat is off to teachers tonight! Thank you for all your hard work and care. I now know what it is like to be in your shoes- and some days...it flat out stinks. Just remember to look for the students' smiles and joys because, for whatever reason, that gives us the strength to pursue.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Education- Part lll
The list for, "Flaws of Education," could go on for an eternity. There is one matter that I would like to touch upon- the teachers role in the classroom. One can look at this matter several ways, but no matter what way you look at it, everyone can most likely come to the conclusion that every classroom is different and that there is no specific, "right way," of teaching.
Teacher A provides only the facts to your child. Teacher A gives assigned problems every day with very specific structure, leaving no room for the child's own thoughts to be included. Your child must simply memorize information and spit it back, and must excel through a certain amount of information in a small period of time. If your child fails to complete this, he/ she will be expelled from the school. Your child will be held responsible for learning the information, and if he/ she were to fall behind, or struggle in comprehending any area, they will be required to transfer to another school.
How many people would send their child to this school? I know that this is an extreme version of how some teachers teach, but it makes my point. Some teachers simply throw out the facts; students must jump, leap, and run to retrieve these facts, only to be tested on them just to move on. This is considered, "bad teaching." I realize that some people in this world do not agree that this happens. A teacher just shoving information and testing us over it happens more often than our society would like to admit.
I don't believe that teachers intentionally do this, but school systems have to have these great test scores in order to continue to run. Teacher A is considered the, "bad teacher," and only provides facts and expects children to apply it to their live on their own.
Teacher B begins his/ her lesson by telling everyone what they will cover in the next unit. Teacher B then informs the students how this material will be related in their lives now, and in the future. Then, he/ she will begin to teach the facts after a few days in class covering how this unit will apply to their lives. In this classroom, it is almost care-free and there is a lot of wiggle room for kids'. There is rarely standardized testing, and they are graded over projects that they present. All learning abilities and disabilities are accepted into this classroom.
This classroom would be considered unorganized and having a lack of proper structure. Parents would feel as if their child is not learning anything in this classroom. The dilemma one can find in this classroom is the fact that the students must take the teachers word that what they're learning will one day apply to their lives. Schools have different children coming with different backgrounds and not many backgrounds are the same. This level of teaching is not sufficient or very productive because the kids' aren't able to learn the concrete, stable facts that they will need in life.
The point is that no classroom can be perfect or ideal. Every person has their own mindset of the perfect classroom, but reality tells us that does not exist. The ideal classroom in my mind would be a mix of both teacher A and teacher B. The teacher would tell the students how they will apply the information in their life. After that, they would teach the basic, concrete knowledge of the subject matter. Then before they test, there would be a written assignment of how the child may have already used that concept in their lives. If they hadn't already used it, how they think they may use it in their future.
I can't guarantee this method would work, mainly because I haven't ever seen it in practice. All I know is this: there is no ideal classroom and everyone needs to realize this. A good classroom is possible to achieve, but it takes more effort. Unfortunately, this is effort that most people aren't willing to put in.
A great teacher learns from their mistakes and can admit when they have made one. A bad teacher will make the same mistake several times, but not accept the blame. Teachers should not be deemed a failure until they refuse to take initiative and responsibility for their poor actions. It's okay to make mistakes; we all have to learn some way.
I will leave you with this poem I wrote,
"If I could inhale just one breath and exhale the wind, my mind would surely flutter away. The butterfly wings on the tips of my imagination would thrust into the world. Flapping in the breeze of all I exhaled would be a rise in the next revolution. Changes would erupt and explode as the wind varied in shapes. Gusts of energy would burst as the revolution broke through. Altered, we'd find one another, scattered like leaves that the wind blew about. If I could inhale just one breath and exhale the wind, surely society would change."
-Sydney Pickle
Teacher A provides only the facts to your child. Teacher A gives assigned problems every day with very specific structure, leaving no room for the child's own thoughts to be included. Your child must simply memorize information and spit it back, and must excel through a certain amount of information in a small period of time. If your child fails to complete this, he/ she will be expelled from the school. Your child will be held responsible for learning the information, and if he/ she were to fall behind, or struggle in comprehending any area, they will be required to transfer to another school.
How many people would send their child to this school? I know that this is an extreme version of how some teachers teach, but it makes my point. Some teachers simply throw out the facts; students must jump, leap, and run to retrieve these facts, only to be tested on them just to move on. This is considered, "bad teaching." I realize that some people in this world do not agree that this happens. A teacher just shoving information and testing us over it happens more often than our society would like to admit.
I don't believe that teachers intentionally do this, but school systems have to have these great test scores in order to continue to run. Teacher A is considered the, "bad teacher," and only provides facts and expects children to apply it to their live on their own.
Teacher B begins his/ her lesson by telling everyone what they will cover in the next unit. Teacher B then informs the students how this material will be related in their lives now, and in the future. Then, he/ she will begin to teach the facts after a few days in class covering how this unit will apply to their lives. In this classroom, it is almost care-free and there is a lot of wiggle room for kids'. There is rarely standardized testing, and they are graded over projects that they present. All learning abilities and disabilities are accepted into this classroom.
This classroom would be considered unorganized and having a lack of proper structure. Parents would feel as if their child is not learning anything in this classroom. The dilemma one can find in this classroom is the fact that the students must take the teachers word that what they're learning will one day apply to their lives. Schools have different children coming with different backgrounds and not many backgrounds are the same. This level of teaching is not sufficient or very productive because the kids' aren't able to learn the concrete, stable facts that they will need in life.
The point is that no classroom can be perfect or ideal. Every person has their own mindset of the perfect classroom, but reality tells us that does not exist. The ideal classroom in my mind would be a mix of both teacher A and teacher B. The teacher would tell the students how they will apply the information in their life. After that, they would teach the basic, concrete knowledge of the subject matter. Then before they test, there would be a written assignment of how the child may have already used that concept in their lives. If they hadn't already used it, how they think they may use it in their future.
I can't guarantee this method would work, mainly because I haven't ever seen it in practice. All I know is this: there is no ideal classroom and everyone needs to realize this. A good classroom is possible to achieve, but it takes more effort. Unfortunately, this is effort that most people aren't willing to put in.
A great teacher learns from their mistakes and can admit when they have made one. A bad teacher will make the same mistake several times, but not accept the blame. Teachers should not be deemed a failure until they refuse to take initiative and responsibility for their poor actions. It's okay to make mistakes; we all have to learn some way.
I will leave you with this poem I wrote,
"If I could inhale just one breath and exhale the wind, my mind would surely flutter away. The butterfly wings on the tips of my imagination would thrust into the world. Flapping in the breeze of all I exhaled would be a rise in the next revolution. Changes would erupt and explode as the wind varied in shapes. Gusts of energy would burst as the revolution broke through. Altered, we'd find one another, scattered like leaves that the wind blew about. If I could inhale just one breath and exhale the wind, surely society would change."
-Sydney Pickle
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Education- Part ll
So what went wrong with our education system? Where did it start to fall? What caused our education system to corrupt into a mess of cramming information, memorization, and then test after test after test? Twelve years of testing has brought me to this point in life. A point where I can't get help with what I need because of acts passed by our government.
Our government did not corrupt the school system alone, but it has played a major role in it. Government involvement has its pros and cons in school systems. Schools use to rely on the government for fundings for programs, activities, and food. Now, the government has run dry of money to offer schools, and hardly any money can be given towards education.
The government has tried to assist our school systems by measuring the progress of students so that, "No Child," will be, "Left Behind." This was a great idea, but in practice fails horribly. It isn't that kids' aren't being left behind anymore, they just aren't noticed. This system merely masks the children who need help. It covers them up, so they will struggle all the way through school and never receive the help needed.
For those of you who claim that this never happens; I will share my testimony.
I struggle with reading comprehension, but can read fluently, and I am a great test taker. I needed help starting in elementary school, and at one point my parents noticed this. My parents are the type that will address the school when there is an issue. I am lucky for this because a lot of parents do not care enough, or will never notice that their child needs help. My parents went into the school and told them that I did not comprehend what I was reading.
Can you guess what they did? If you guessed that they pulled out my test records, you were correct. They said, "No, your daughter is doing well in school, she tests quite high; she does not need help." My parents fought for extra help for me for several years, but could not receive it because of my test records. The school fought back and even had me read aloud to people; they then informed my parents that I could read, "big words," very well and that I was a fluent reader. I was, "fine."
Test after test after test, here I am; my senior year, without help on my reading comprehension. I am preparing myself for the next level; one level that I probably won't be able to guesstimate through tests like I do now. I am worried, and quite scared. Do I want help? Yes. Do I need help? Yes. Can I get help? No.
This is only my testimony that standardize testing merely masks the kids who need help. More than half of these kids' who are, "hidden," don't have parents who will fight for them. The government has aided in hiding these children and they don't realize it.
We appreciate what little funding we are able to catch from the government. But is that little amount worth it when our education has been downgraded and lost its' true meaning? Our government seems to think that education is about how much information you can cram into a person and that the perfect student is like a computer. They inhale all this information, and then can spit it back at you. These, "computer-like," kids' get a whole bunch of money for being able to reciprocate information. They may not ever fully grasp the concept or be able to apply it to life, but as long as they can quote books and do the math problems, they are, "smart."
What about the kids' who can't take the information and just spit it at you? What about the kids' who have B's in school, but are actually learning? What do those kids' get? Yes, they'll make it into college, but with hardly any money or help from our government. Why? All because they're actually learning. The purpose of school systems has been lost. It's was an idea and concept that was great, but has lost all of its original roots.
Our government did not corrupt the school system alone, but it has played a major role in it. Government involvement has its pros and cons in school systems. Schools use to rely on the government for fundings for programs, activities, and food. Now, the government has run dry of money to offer schools, and hardly any money can be given towards education.
The government has tried to assist our school systems by measuring the progress of students so that, "No Child," will be, "Left Behind." This was a great idea, but in practice fails horribly. It isn't that kids' aren't being left behind anymore, they just aren't noticed. This system merely masks the children who need help. It covers them up, so they will struggle all the way through school and never receive the help needed.
For those of you who claim that this never happens; I will share my testimony.
I struggle with reading comprehension, but can read fluently, and I am a great test taker. I needed help starting in elementary school, and at one point my parents noticed this. My parents are the type that will address the school when there is an issue. I am lucky for this because a lot of parents do not care enough, or will never notice that their child needs help. My parents went into the school and told them that I did not comprehend what I was reading.
Can you guess what they did? If you guessed that they pulled out my test records, you were correct. They said, "No, your daughter is doing well in school, she tests quite high; she does not need help." My parents fought for extra help for me for several years, but could not receive it because of my test records. The school fought back and even had me read aloud to people; they then informed my parents that I could read, "big words," very well and that I was a fluent reader. I was, "fine."
Test after test after test, here I am; my senior year, without help on my reading comprehension. I am preparing myself for the next level; one level that I probably won't be able to guesstimate through tests like I do now. I am worried, and quite scared. Do I want help? Yes. Do I need help? Yes. Can I get help? No.
This is only my testimony that standardize testing merely masks the kids who need help. More than half of these kids' who are, "hidden," don't have parents who will fight for them. The government has aided in hiding these children and they don't realize it.
We appreciate what little funding we are able to catch from the government. But is that little amount worth it when our education has been downgraded and lost its' true meaning? Our government seems to think that education is about how much information you can cram into a person and that the perfect student is like a computer. They inhale all this information, and then can spit it back at you. These, "computer-like," kids' get a whole bunch of money for being able to reciprocate information. They may not ever fully grasp the concept or be able to apply it to life, but as long as they can quote books and do the math problems, they are, "smart."
What about the kids' who can't take the information and just spit it at you? What about the kids' who have B's in school, but are actually learning? What do those kids' get? Yes, they'll make it into college, but with hardly any money or help from our government. Why? All because they're actually learning. The purpose of school systems has been lost. It's was an idea and concept that was great, but has lost all of its original roots.
Education- Part I
The purpose of a school system is to.....is to....is to what? Why were schools even invented? Why do we need to go to school and become educated? There are numerous amounts of children running around with math assignments in their backpacks that are frustrated and have no concept of why the world is forcing, "hell," upon them. Somewhere along the line, the idea that school benefits you as a human being was lost.
Curiosity slaughtered the cat right? Humanity, when it first began, knew nothing of molecules, atoms, the ozone layer, etc. We use to basically survive. We could get by, but no one ever really LIVED. As we advanced and began to gather more information about the universe as we saw it, we began our education. We did not have formal rooms where everyone sat and could swallow gobs of information as we are, "forced to," now. Once ideas began to solidify and become more concrete, people would pass on these ideas to children. Soon, we had a general school where kids could attend classes to learn and become a productive citizen.
Some of these, "concrete," ideas were eventually disproven, but until that point, they were taught. This still happens today. The point is that these schools were formed in order for children to grow into adults and then a citizen. They could provide their support, and offer more to their communities with this educated background. As we expand our knowledge, we grow into productive citizens and begin to understand and comprehend the world we live in.
As our knowledge became more advanced, jobs requiring a certain skill level began to increase. At first, not every person needed a job to get by. The man could receive an education and the women could tend to household needs and keep standards. After many years, women began to work and had more options than merely staying at home. Eventually, society evolved into how it is now; everyone needs a job in order to survive. Therefore, we have to have an education in order to get the job that we need to survive. We are back to how we were at the beginning in a sense. Everyone is trying their best to survive, and only the rich people are getting to LIVE.
Education has turned into an obligation for children, so that when they grow up they won't be without food, shelter, job, family, etc. Going to school turned from the public seeking for information, and personal growth to certain standards that we must meet from an early age in order to survive.
Curiosity slaughtered the cat right? Humanity, when it first began, knew nothing of molecules, atoms, the ozone layer, etc. We use to basically survive. We could get by, but no one ever really LIVED. As we advanced and began to gather more information about the universe as we saw it, we began our education. We did not have formal rooms where everyone sat and could swallow gobs of information as we are, "forced to," now. Once ideas began to solidify and become more concrete, people would pass on these ideas to children. Soon, we had a general school where kids could attend classes to learn and become a productive citizen.
Some of these, "concrete," ideas were eventually disproven, but until that point, they were taught. This still happens today. The point is that these schools were formed in order for children to grow into adults and then a citizen. They could provide their support, and offer more to their communities with this educated background. As we expand our knowledge, we grow into productive citizens and begin to understand and comprehend the world we live in.
As our knowledge became more advanced, jobs requiring a certain skill level began to increase. At first, not every person needed a job to get by. The man could receive an education and the women could tend to household needs and keep standards. After many years, women began to work and had more options than merely staying at home. Eventually, society evolved into how it is now; everyone needs a job in order to survive. Therefore, we have to have an education in order to get the job that we need to survive. We are back to how we were at the beginning in a sense. Everyone is trying their best to survive, and only the rich people are getting to LIVE.
Education has turned into an obligation for children, so that when they grow up they won't be without food, shelter, job, family, etc. Going to school turned from the public seeking for information, and personal growth to certain standards that we must meet from an early age in order to survive.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
College English Comp. Page 180 AWA #3.
Bilingual education I view as a very important subject. Americans only learning one language is extremely naive and crude. Almost every other country can speak two languages, a least! They speak English, along with their native language. I believe that America should follow this trend of learning to speak another language. It should not be a requirement for just high schoolers, but a requirement from grade school. Little children learn and pick up on information a lot faster than older people trying to comprehend it later in life. In America, this switch would not be an easy, or cost effective one to make; although, it'd be well worth it.
Imagine if some mass chaos erupted and all the countries needed to work together to save the human race, but no one spoke any language other than their own. We would not be able to save the world. Americans are very ignorant compared to some other countries when it comes to speaking multiple languages. I believe that this is a topic that has been sitting on the backburner for awhile now. When will it ever be time to step up and someone shout, "We need better and more advanced education in our school systems!"?
Imagine if some mass chaos erupted and all the countries needed to work together to save the human race, but no one spoke any language other than their own. We would not be able to save the world. Americans are very ignorant compared to some other countries when it comes to speaking multiple languages. I believe that this is a topic that has been sitting on the backburner for awhile now. When will it ever be time to step up and someone shout, "We need better and more advanced education in our school systems!"?
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Mr.Hingstrum's Class. Journals #1, 2, 3, and 4.
Journal #1 Topic:
Journal #2 Topic:
In your own words and thoughts, define the title of the course (Physics). In what ways do you think the material covered in this course will be similar and different to your past science classes? Be specific.
Physics can be defined as the reaction to a specific action; for every action there must be a reaction. This course will be similar to my past science classes because science is all related, and intertwined. I believe physics will be different because it is a different aspect of science. Where in my previous science classes I learned about plants, animals, and cells, in this class I will probably find myself learning more about laws, and motion.Journal #2 Topic:
In science, mistakes or "bad" ideas happen. What were some examples of the class' "failed" ideas from the tube activity? What was gained from these "failed" ideas? How does making mistakes help in your learning?
The class had a lot of failed ideas due to the fact of little previous experience with the tube. The more one studies something the more one realises how foolish some ideas were. This is perfectly fine, as long as knowledge is gained from the original foolishness. An example that failed with the tube were some of the basic ideas, before we really started testing it more and more; such as, if you held down string "x" and pulled on string "y" what would happen. In the end, making mistakes helped us learn what definitely wasn't in the tube; such as a gremlin. One can only better themselves before reaching to others' to point out their flaws. Yet, a person should never be done in trying to better themselves.
Journal #3 Topic:
Journal #4 Topic:
Journal #3 Topic:
Many politicians are arguing for Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes. To what extent do you believe Intelligent Design is scientific. Explain your thoughts. Defend teaching Intelligent Design in science classes or suggest, with reasons, a class where Intelligent Design could be taught/discussed.
I believe that teachers are denying students the right to learn fully all of the theories that are out there. Should teachers preach one way or another? No, certainly not! But only allowing them to discuss evolution is basically forcing children, who do not come with a religious background, one option of how this world came to be. I think that evolution and religion are two very deep and personal subjects; and that they in themselves are very involved in science. It is such a large topic span, that I think they should have another science class made, "The Science Of Creation." In this class they would cover the theory of evolution, as well as the fact that the creator of this theory later on did not even believe in it himself. They would teach about the different religions, and all of the other theories (official and unofficial) that people over the years have conjured up. Teachers would not reveal their own personal beliefs in class, so not to persuade the children one way or another, but teach on both. The instructors could include organized debates for part of a lesson plan. Our school systems are depriving us of a full education, that with the appropriate tactics and right approach could be a very successful class.Journal #4 Topic:
How were you and your classmates creative while doing the measuring activity? Explain in detail how you believe creativity influenced the discovery of two other science ideas you have learned about in the past.
Daniel and I were creative by using me to measure things. We were able to measure my height by me laying on the the table, it is exactly the the same length as my height. In our measuring, we also used Subway boxes to measure the height of the chair. This creativity brought about my previous knowledge of measurements. Everyone can measure something using anything they want, but it might not do anyone else any good, because it's not a standard measurement. If something is three Sydney's tall, it will only benefit me, and any person who might be with me. Standardization is very important when trying to give a person directions, or give them instructions. Monday, May 16, 2011
Death Penalty; The Final Product...
Killing we cannot do for fun, we cannot kill for attention, we cannot kill for revenge, we simply cannot kill. It baffles me why someone wants to kill, or does kill, but unfortunately it happens all the time. Do we put them in time out and just give them a slap on the wrist? NO! So what is the most effective form of punishment? Do we rape the rapist, set fire to the arsonists possessions, and kill the murderer?(Bedau, Hugo Adam)What can constitute as a equal justice for all? Although it is not a simple task to do, studies have proven that the death penalty is an effective way to deal with convicted criminals.
There are many different methods of the death penalty. There is lethal injection, hanging by the neck, firing squad, gassing, and sometimes the use of the guillotine. ( Duhaime, Lloyd) Lethal injection is a deadly drug that the government can inject into the convicted that will kill them once it hits their system. Using lethal injection seems to be the most humane way, but some people want others' to fire guns at them, or hang them by the neck.
DNA has proven that more than one hundred Americans have been sentenced to death row, although they were innocent. Some believe this may be due to false confessions that police officers have manipulated them into making. Also, along with false confessions, eye witnesses don't always see accurately; after all, everyone makes mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone; no one is without fault. All crimes are irreversible because we cannot turn back time, should punishments be irreversible too? The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. Our government must be fair and give justified punishments, but shouldn't use more violence and hate than necessary. (Bedau, Hugo Adam)
Will there always be the risk of executing an innocent person? Yes, unfortunately there will be. Thanks to DNA testing though, there is a less likely chance. People toss around this aspect quite often. Some people believe that everyone in America should be willing to risk one life for the safety of a lot others. A few people think the death penalty is justice killing a person, but since when has justice become a murder? It almost seems like it would be counterproductive to murder somebody for murder; simply making our justice system a giant hypocrite.(YouTube- Death Penalty.) There have been studies proving that the death penalty is effective; including one that showed that for every executed convicted killer, between three and eighteen lives could be spared. Also, for every convicted killer executed, it would result in five less homicides, but for every put-off execution it results in five more homicides. If the execution process were to be sped up, and each convicted criminal spent 2.75 less years on death row, it'd save at least one life. (Tanner, Robert.)
Often times you can find people making a mockery out of this controversial topic. You will find mentally ill criminals on death row who are simply wanting to die. That was their goal the entire time, to be executed. (Rodgers, Walter.) In some other cases, you'll find the bystanders expressing their thoughts through pictures or comics. Many of which are merely mocking our justice system. (Fairrington, Brian.)
We find ourselves living in a vengeful society; a place where murder can be confused with justice. Today, we can find ourselves debating pros and con's of almost every topic and wined up nowhere ahead of the game, but only in the same place. Our society seems to be standing still in time, not progressing forward in any controversial areas. As our technology grows, we should be growing. But we aren't; we have stopped addressing the important stuff. Instead, we find ourselves acting as a little kid not wanting to clean his room. We are sliding things under the rug and ignoring that they are still there, creating a mess, and not being handled appropriately. We are running full speed ahead, trying to figure out what to do about this, and that...but we are running on a treadmill. We are on a treadmill in our living room. The very same place we were before we started running. We are tired, hot, sweaty, but in reality, we have not gained an inch. Nothing has been solved. (Rodgers, Walter.)
The death penalty has raised a lot of questions, and eyes to what is and isn't acceptable in our country. This topic often plainly stops at what is and isn't morally correct, so it never gets to the point of if the death penalty is even effective. I believe that is the first question people should ask, and the answer is yes. But is it too effective when you have an innocent persons' life on the line? That you must decide on your own.
Will there always be the risk of executing an innocent person? Yes, unfortunately there will be. Thanks to DNA testing though, there is a less likely chance. People toss around this aspect quite often. Some people believe that everyone in America should be willing to risk one life for the safety of a lot others. A few people think the death penalty is justice killing a person, but since when has justice become a murder? It almost seems like it would be counterproductive to murder somebody for murder; simply making our justice system a giant hypocrite.(YouTube- Death Penalty.) There have been studies proving that the death penalty is effective; including one that showed that for every executed convicted killer, between three and eighteen lives could be spared. Also, for every convicted killer executed, it would result in five less homicides, but for every put-off execution it results in five more homicides. If the execution process were to be sped up, and each convicted criminal spent 2.75 less years on death row, it'd save at least one life. (Tanner, Robert.)
Often times you can find people making a mockery out of this controversial topic. You will find mentally ill criminals on death row who are simply wanting to die. That was their goal the entire time, to be executed. (Rodgers, Walter.) In some other cases, you'll find the bystanders expressing their thoughts through pictures or comics. Many of which are merely mocking our justice system. (Fairrington, Brian.)
We find ourselves living in a vengeful society; a place where murder can be confused with justice. Today, we can find ourselves debating pros and con's of almost every topic and wined up nowhere ahead of the game, but only in the same place. Our society seems to be standing still in time, not progressing forward in any controversial areas. As our technology grows, we should be growing. But we aren't; we have stopped addressing the important stuff. Instead, we find ourselves acting as a little kid not wanting to clean his room. We are sliding things under the rug and ignoring that they are still there, creating a mess, and not being handled appropriately. We are running full speed ahead, trying to figure out what to do about this, and that...but we are running on a treadmill. We are on a treadmill in our living room. The very same place we were before we started running. We are tired, hot, sweaty, but in reality, we have not gained an inch. Nothing has been solved. (Rodgers, Walter.)
The death penalty has raised a lot of questions, and eyes to what is and isn't acceptable in our country. This topic often plainly stops at what is and isn't morally correct, so it never gets to the point of if the death penalty is even effective. I believe that is the first question people should ask, and the answer is yes. But is it too effective when you have an innocent persons' life on the line? That you must decide on your own.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Sydney's Thesis Statement
Although it is not a simple task to do, studies have proven that the death penalty is an effective way to deal with convicted criminals.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Bedau, Hugo Adam, and others. "Reasonable Doubts: The Growing Movement Against the Death Penalty." American Prospect Vol. 15 No. 7. July 2004: A1-A23. SIRS Researcher. Web. 10 May 2011.
Why a whole special report on the death penalty? For one thing, the growing movement to reform and eventually abolish capital punishment in America suggests that heterodox currents are alive and thriving in these seemingly conservative times. For another, the movement against the death penalty offers a wider window on reform of the criminal-justice system generally.
Thanks in part to DNA evidence exonerating more than a hundred Americans wrongfully sent to death row, the broad public is questioning the logic of the death penalty itself. Families of murder victims are among those leading the challenge. And it was a conservative Republican governor, George Ryan of Illinois, who was so appalled by the findings of his own death-penalty commission that he commuted the sentences of everyone on that state's death row, pending broad reforms.
The first of those reforms, now implemented, requires videotaping of confessions and sequential lineups of suspects. Why? Because police have been known to manipulate prisoners into making false confessions. Because it is too easy for prosecutors to put a favorite suspect into a lineup with dissimilar ringers. And because eyewitnesses make mistakes. Yet the flaws and injustices of the death penalty are so intrinsic that it is hard to investigate seriously without concluding that the only real cure is abolition.
Beyond procedural reforms, the American public and the courts are entertaining serious doubts about whether the state should ever take a life, even if it is sure that it has the right person. And although the courts are increasingly stacked with hard-liners, the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2002 voted that mentally retarded people should be spared execution, and it may well hold similarly regarding juveniles. Likewise the citizenry: Two Oklahoma juries could not conclude that the state should execute convicted bomber Terry Nichols.
Punishments short of execution are, of course, reversible. But many of the same reforms--improved representation of defendants, videotaped confessions, sequential lineups---are needed to prevent other miscarriages of justice.
The death penalty is not only the ultimate punishment; it is also one of the most arbitrary. This special report, produced in partnership with the JEHT Foundation, examines the death penalty in its multiple facets: the movement for reform as well as the resistance to change; the dynamics of who ends up on death row; the status of America as an international outlier. It was edited by Dorian Friedman and Robert Kuttner. For more information on capital punishment, visit our special Web site at www.movingideas.org/issuesindepth/.
Dostoyevsky wrote, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." By that test, Abu Ghraib indicts not just our military guards and our generals but our domestic prison system and our society. Yet in entering the very bleakest corner of American prisons--death row--we see not only barbarism but hope.
By Hugo Adam Bedau
• Public opinion is shifting against the death penalty. What will it take to abolish it?
As we enter the 21st century, Americans have never been more divided over the proper role of the death penalty. Some of us (still a minority) would like to see it entirely abolished--and we have achieved this goal in a dozen states, beginning with Michigan in 1847 and most recently in Vermont in 1987.
At the other extreme, a smaller minority wants an expanded death penalty--a goal unlikely to be achieved given recent DNA findings, court rulings, and shifts in public opinion. A plurality of the public at present believes there is a proper, albeit rather narrow, role for capital punishment, confined to the most egregious crimes, notably first-degree murder with multiple victims, serial killings, terrorism, or murder committed by a recidivist. Such support weakens still further when respondents are offered the alternative sentence of life without parole. In the face of these facts, America's seeming infatuation with the death penalty looks about an inch deep and a good deal less than a mile wide.
Defenders of execution typically rest their case largely on three grounds: deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. When the death penalty was a lawful punishment for many different crimes (as recently as the 1960s), deterrence and incapacitation were the primary rationales. But today, empirical support for any special deterrent effect receives little or no endorsement from the nation's professional criminologists. And even if there were some such effect, society is not entitled to that benefit as long as criminal-justice systems operate with gross unfairness in deciding who should receive a death sentence. As for incapacitation, the experience in a dozen abolition states and internationally shows that convicted murderers can be safely incarcerated and need not be executed in order to prevent them from being a threat to the public (or to guards, visitors, or other prisoners).
Retribution is another matter. Because it is not an empirical principle, retribution cannot be defended or criticized on empirical grounds. Instead, the case for retribution rests on moral considerations, chiefly the proposition that murderers deserve to die. The rebuttal from abolitionists often takes the form of a challenge: Do rapists deserve to be raped? Do kidnappers deserve to lose their children? Should arsonists have their dwellings burnt? If they should, why don't our laws reflect this fact? If they shouldn't, why do we make an exception in the case of murder? All parties to the death-penalty controversy must agree that in the vast number of cases where crimes are punished under law, there is simply no way to tell, a priori, exactly what an offender "deserves." What punishment does an embezzler deserve? How about an unlicensed deer hunter? Answering questions about desert in the abstract is virtually impossible. No wonder our criminal-justice system confines the role of desert to answering the question, who deserves to be punished? (Answer: the guilty.) That leaves the other question--what punishment does the offender deserve?--to criteria set by legislatures and courts.
Many who might naturally be the most vocal in demanding retribution in fact turn out to oppose the death penalty. Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, for example, has become a leading opposition voice in the debate over capital punishment.
Opponents of the death penalty typically rely on three main moral principles. First, there is the right to life. Even if this right is not absolute, it places a heavy burden on the practice of execution by the state. Second is the principle that the administration of any criminal-justice system must be fair. Yet fairness in the selection process--who shall live and who shall die--is routinely undermined by such widespread practices as the provision of incompetent defense counsel and racial bias, which increase the risk that innocent defendants will be executed. Third, there is the principle that governments ought to use no more violence in pursuit of a just end than is necessary to achieve that end (and there is accumulating evidence that the death penalty serves no necessary criminal-justice purpose).
Canada, Mexico, and all European nations (as well as many other countries) no longer use capital punishment. Our professed global advocacy of human rights becomes suspect when one considers the extent to which our government tolerates a death-penalty system that looks to many other nations like flagrant indifference to the international law of human rights.
Public policy on the death penalty is not determined only by public opinion, empirical evidence, or moral principles. Our appellate courts, notably the state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, have modified many aspects of capital jurisprudence by constitutional interpretation. The most recent such narrowing occurred in 2002, when the Court ruled that a person suffering from mental retardation could not be subject to a death sentence. The next most likely such limitation will come in the form of barring the execution of juveniles (persons under 18 at the time of the crime)--a prohibition endorsed years ago by most nations and guaranteed in the laws of more than two dozen American death-penalty jurisdictions. Both of these issues represent important practical constraints, even if they fall short of a constitutional prohibition of capital punishment.
In recent years, public opposition to the death penalty has been chiefly focused on the risk of executing the innocent and on the narrow escapes of death-row convicts who had the good fortune to have their innocence vindicated before a death sentence could be carried out. During 2002 and 2003, national attention was concentrated on Illinois, where Governor George Ryan imposed a moratorium on executions and created a special commission to recommend improvements in the administration of the death penalty. As he left office, Governor Ryan stunned the nation by canceling all of Illinois' death sentences on the ground that the system that produced them was too flawed, too unreliable to accept its product.
During the past decade or so, arguments over the innocence of death-row convicts (as well as of many other prisoners) have taken on a new form thanks to the development of DNA testing. Both sides of the death-penalty controversy have effectively agreed to abide by the results of such tests, thereby removing the controversy over innocence in particular cases to a level of scientific objectivity hitherto unavailable. Unfortunately, however, DNA testing is often of no use in the kind of case that gives rise to most of the worst errors in capital cases: a conviction based on perjured testimony, incompetence of the trial attorney, unavailability of expert witnesses, or racial bias in the police station, prosecutor's office, or jury room.
Opponents of the death penalty confidently insist that it is just a matter of time before a well-documented case occurs in which an innocent defendant is executed. Friends of the death penalty take comfort in their belief that, so far, there is no case on record (in recent times) in which the innocence of the executed prisoner is beyond doubt. Meanwhile, it remains unclear whether the moratorium created in Illinois will prove to be the vanguard of a national movement or only a singular exception (as it has been so far) owing to the large number of documented cases of innocents on Illinois' death row.
What are the prospects for the future of the death penalty in the United States? Although states like Texas seem as wedded to capital punishment as ever, the realization that hundreds of innocent prisoners have been on death row has caused an overdue shift in public opinion and public policy.
In addition to court rulings and state laws limiting capital punishment, 13 states have recently set up death-penalty commissions. The North Carolina Senate passed a bill in 2003 imposing a moratorium on executions until troubling issues of fairness, due process, and racial bias are addressed. Last year, there were fewer executions (65) than in the modern peak year of 1999, and outside the Deep South only three states carried out any executions. Even in Texas, the state most vigorously committed to capital punishment, the Senate passed a bill to create an innocence commission. Texas Governor Rick Perry signed legislation providing $20 million for legal defense of indigent defendants in capital cases. At the federal level, the House--by a margin of 357 to 67--passed the bipartisan Innocence Protection Act, including funding for DNA testing and grants to states to improve the quality of legal defense for those who could face the death penalty. The Senate is expected to take up the bill.
So, rather than a complete end to the death penalty in the near future, we may see a gradual narrowing and a de facto semi-abolition. This would represent progress. A century ago lynching flourished in the Deep South, and the rest of the nation struggled to bring it to an end. Perhaps before too long we may come to regard the death penalty with the same horror with which we have learned to view lynching. The only way in which the nation as a whole could rid itself of the death penalty is by federal constitutional interpretation, relying on such principles as equal protection of the law, due process of law, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. However, given the conservative mood of the Supreme Court, these piecemeal reforms and narrowings, though heartening, are not likely to lead to complete repeal anytime soon. The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was right: The more one learns about the death penalty, the less inclined one is to support it. The slender majority of the public that still supports executions is unlikely to see its numbers grow.
Thanks in part to DNA evidence exonerating more than a hundred Americans wrongfully sent to death row, the broad public is questioning the logic of the death penalty itself. Families of murder victims are among those leading the challenge. And it was a conservative Republican governor, George Ryan of Illinois, who was so appalled by the findings of his own death-penalty commission that he commuted the sentences of everyone on that state's death row, pending broad reforms.
The first of those reforms, now implemented, requires videotaping of confessions and sequential lineups of suspects. Why? Because police have been known to manipulate prisoners into making false confessions. Because it is too easy for prosecutors to put a favorite suspect into a lineup with dissimilar ringers. And because eyewitnesses make mistakes. Yet the flaws and injustices of the death penalty are so intrinsic that it is hard to investigate seriously without concluding that the only real cure is abolition.
Beyond procedural reforms, the American public and the courts are entertaining serious doubts about whether the state should ever take a life, even if it is sure that it has the right person. And although the courts are increasingly stacked with hard-liners, the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2002 voted that mentally retarded people should be spared execution, and it may well hold similarly regarding juveniles. Likewise the citizenry: Two Oklahoma juries could not conclude that the state should execute convicted bomber Terry Nichols.
Punishments short of execution are, of course, reversible. But many of the same reforms--improved representation of defendants, videotaped confessions, sequential lineups---are needed to prevent other miscarriages of justice.
The death penalty is not only the ultimate punishment; it is also one of the most arbitrary. This special report, produced in partnership with the JEHT Foundation, examines the death penalty in its multiple facets: the movement for reform as well as the resistance to change; the dynamics of who ends up on death row; the status of America as an international outlier. It was edited by Dorian Friedman and Robert Kuttner. For more information on capital punishment, visit our special Web site at www.movingideas.org/issuesindepth/.
Dostoyevsky wrote, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." By that test, Abu Ghraib indicts not just our military guards and our generals but our domestic prison system and our society. Yet in entering the very bleakest corner of American prisons--death row--we see not only barbarism but hope.
Death's Dwindling Dominion
By Hugo Adam Bedau
• Public opinion is shifting against the death penalty. What will it take to abolish it?
As we enter the 21st century, Americans have never been more divided over the proper role of the death penalty. Some of us (still a minority) would like to see it entirely abolished--and we have achieved this goal in a dozen states, beginning with Michigan in 1847 and most recently in Vermont in 1987.
At the other extreme, a smaller minority wants an expanded death penalty--a goal unlikely to be achieved given recent DNA findings, court rulings, and shifts in public opinion. A plurality of the public at present believes there is a proper, albeit rather narrow, role for capital punishment, confined to the most egregious crimes, notably first-degree murder with multiple victims, serial killings, terrorism, or murder committed by a recidivist. Such support weakens still further when respondents are offered the alternative sentence of life without parole. In the face of these facts, America's seeming infatuation with the death penalty looks about an inch deep and a good deal less than a mile wide.
Defenders of execution typically rest their case largely on three grounds: deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. When the death penalty was a lawful punishment for many different crimes (as recently as the 1960s), deterrence and incapacitation were the primary rationales. But today, empirical support for any special deterrent effect receives little or no endorsement from the nation's professional criminologists. And even if there were some such effect, society is not entitled to that benefit as long as criminal-justice systems operate with gross unfairness in deciding who should receive a death sentence. As for incapacitation, the experience in a dozen abolition states and internationally shows that convicted murderers can be safely incarcerated and need not be executed in order to prevent them from being a threat to the public (or to guards, visitors, or other prisoners).
Retribution is another matter. Because it is not an empirical principle, retribution cannot be defended or criticized on empirical grounds. Instead, the case for retribution rests on moral considerations, chiefly the proposition that murderers deserve to die. The rebuttal from abolitionists often takes the form of a challenge: Do rapists deserve to be raped? Do kidnappers deserve to lose their children? Should arsonists have their dwellings burnt? If they should, why don't our laws reflect this fact? If they shouldn't, why do we make an exception in the case of murder? All parties to the death-penalty controversy must agree that in the vast number of cases where crimes are punished under law, there is simply no way to tell, a priori, exactly what an offender "deserves." What punishment does an embezzler deserve? How about an unlicensed deer hunter? Answering questions about desert in the abstract is virtually impossible. No wonder our criminal-justice system confines the role of desert to answering the question, who deserves to be punished? (Answer: the guilty.) That leaves the other question--what punishment does the offender deserve?--to criteria set by legislatures and courts.
Many who might naturally be the most vocal in demanding retribution in fact turn out to oppose the death penalty. Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, for example, has become a leading opposition voice in the debate over capital punishment.
Opponents of the death penalty typically rely on three main moral principles. First, there is the right to life. Even if this right is not absolute, it places a heavy burden on the practice of execution by the state. Second is the principle that the administration of any criminal-justice system must be fair. Yet fairness in the selection process--who shall live and who shall die--is routinely undermined by such widespread practices as the provision of incompetent defense counsel and racial bias, which increase the risk that innocent defendants will be executed. Third, there is the principle that governments ought to use no more violence in pursuit of a just end than is necessary to achieve that end (and there is accumulating evidence that the death penalty serves no necessary criminal-justice purpose).
Canada, Mexico, and all European nations (as well as many other countries) no longer use capital punishment. Our professed global advocacy of human rights becomes suspect when one considers the extent to which our government tolerates a death-penalty system that looks to many other nations like flagrant indifference to the international law of human rights.
Public policy on the death penalty is not determined only by public opinion, empirical evidence, or moral principles. Our appellate courts, notably the state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, have modified many aspects of capital jurisprudence by constitutional interpretation. The most recent such narrowing occurred in 2002, when the Court ruled that a person suffering from mental retardation could not be subject to a death sentence. The next most likely such limitation will come in the form of barring the execution of juveniles (persons under 18 at the time of the crime)--a prohibition endorsed years ago by most nations and guaranteed in the laws of more than two dozen American death-penalty jurisdictions. Both of these issues represent important practical constraints, even if they fall short of a constitutional prohibition of capital punishment.
In recent years, public opposition to the death penalty has been chiefly focused on the risk of executing the innocent and on the narrow escapes of death-row convicts who had the good fortune to have their innocence vindicated before a death sentence could be carried out. During 2002 and 2003, national attention was concentrated on Illinois, where Governor George Ryan imposed a moratorium on executions and created a special commission to recommend improvements in the administration of the death penalty. As he left office, Governor Ryan stunned the nation by canceling all of Illinois' death sentences on the ground that the system that produced them was too flawed, too unreliable to accept its product.
During the past decade or so, arguments over the innocence of death-row convicts (as well as of many other prisoners) have taken on a new form thanks to the development of DNA testing. Both sides of the death-penalty controversy have effectively agreed to abide by the results of such tests, thereby removing the controversy over innocence in particular cases to a level of scientific objectivity hitherto unavailable. Unfortunately, however, DNA testing is often of no use in the kind of case that gives rise to most of the worst errors in capital cases: a conviction based on perjured testimony, incompetence of the trial attorney, unavailability of expert witnesses, or racial bias in the police station, prosecutor's office, or jury room.
Opponents of the death penalty confidently insist that it is just a matter of time before a well-documented case occurs in which an innocent defendant is executed. Friends of the death penalty take comfort in their belief that, so far, there is no case on record (in recent times) in which the innocence of the executed prisoner is beyond doubt. Meanwhile, it remains unclear whether the moratorium created in Illinois will prove to be the vanguard of a national movement or only a singular exception (as it has been so far) owing to the large number of documented cases of innocents on Illinois' death row.
What are the prospects for the future of the death penalty in the United States? Although states like Texas seem as wedded to capital punishment as ever, the realization that hundreds of innocent prisoners have been on death row has caused an overdue shift in public opinion and public policy.
In addition to court rulings and state laws limiting capital punishment, 13 states have recently set up death-penalty commissions. The North Carolina Senate passed a bill in 2003 imposing a moratorium on executions until troubling issues of fairness, due process, and racial bias are addressed. Last year, there were fewer executions (65) than in the modern peak year of 1999, and outside the Deep South only three states carried out any executions. Even in Texas, the state most vigorously committed to capital punishment, the Senate passed a bill to create an innocence commission. Texas Governor Rick Perry signed legislation providing $20 million for legal defense of indigent defendants in capital cases. At the federal level, the House--by a margin of 357 to 67--passed the bipartisan Innocence Protection Act, including funding for DNA testing and grants to states to improve the quality of legal defense for those who could face the death penalty. The Senate is expected to take up the bill.
So, rather than a complete end to the death penalty in the near future, we may see a gradual narrowing and a de facto semi-abolition. This would represent progress. A century ago lynching flourished in the Deep South, and the rest of the nation struggled to bring it to an end. Perhaps before too long we may come to regard the death penalty with the same horror with which we have learned to view lynching. The only way in which the nation as a whole could rid itself of the death penalty is by federal constitutional interpretation, relying on such principles as equal protection of the law, due process of law, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. However, given the conservative mood of the Supreme Court, these piecemeal reforms and narrowings, though heartening, are not likely to lead to complete repeal anytime soon. The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was right: The more one learns about the death penalty, the less inclined one is to support it. The slender majority of the public that still supports executions is unlikely to see its numbers grow.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
YouTube - Death Penalty. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 28 Nov. 2007. Web. 08 May 2011. .
I thought this video, along with the many comments it recieved was interesting. This video brought many people to speak their opinions strongly. One said, "So what happen if there's innocents on death row? Pro death penalty supporters never addressed this issue. We still have the higest murder rate in this country even those having a death penalty. We should put this rapist to work and pay the victim's money in return. and what about cameron todd willingham? Go look him up on YT and see. i think death is too easy on rapistsand life w/o parole would be more painful. Not saying i support crinimals or anything because our justice sytem is flawed." Another questioned, "death penalty is "Justice" killing somebody, since when is justice a murderer?"
Finally one other bold statement that got my attention is as follows: "Let's say that for 10 suspects, 1 is innocent. SO WHAT? You would fret over ONE innocent life in exchange for the safety of thousands of people? Previous leaders DIDN'T become leaders by making such irrational decisions. It's not that I disregard that one life, but because I'm wiling to take the risk for countless others."
Finally one other bold statement that got my attention is as follows: "Let's say that for 10 suspects, 1 is innocent. SO WHAT? You would fret over ONE innocent life in exchange for the safety of thousands of people? Previous leaders DIDN'T become leaders by making such irrational decisions. It's not that I disregard that one life, but because I'm wiling to take the risk for countless others."
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Tanner, Robert. "Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime." Lincoln Courier (Lincoln, IL). 11 Jun 2007: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 05 May 2011.
Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.
The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations--pointing out flaws in the justice system--has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.
What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument--whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.
So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive."
But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.
"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters)--what am I going to do, hide them?"
Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory--if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).
To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.
Among the conclusions:
•Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).
•The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.
•Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.
In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.
The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"
"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."
Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.
Critics of the findings have been vociferous.
Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.
"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."
"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished."
Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.
"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."
The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.
Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.)
Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven't gotten that kind of scrutiny.
At least not yet. The academic debate, and the larger national argument about the death penalty itself--with questions about racial and economic disparities in its implementation--shows no signs of fading away.
Steven Shavell, a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School and co-editor-in-chief of the American Law and Economics Review, said in an e-mail exchange that his journal intends to publish several articles on the statistical studies on deterrence in an upcoming issue.
The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations--pointing out flaws in the justice system--has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.
What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument--whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.
So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive."
But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.
"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters)--what am I going to do, hide them?"
Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory--if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).
To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.
Among the conclusions:
•Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).
•The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.
•Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.
In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.
The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"
"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."
Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.
Critics of the findings have been vociferous.
Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.
"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."
"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished."
Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.
"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."
The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.
Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.)
Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven't gotten that kind of scrutiny.
At least not yet. The academic debate, and the larger national argument about the death penalty itself--with questions about racial and economic disparities in its implementation--shows no signs of fading away.
Steven Shavell, a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School and co-editor-in-chief of the American Law and Economics Review, said in an e-mail exchange that his journal intends to publish several articles on the statistical studies on deterrence in an upcoming issue.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Rodgers, Walter. "America's New Drug of Choice: Revenge." Christian Science Monitor. 29 Nov 2010: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 04 May 2011.
The United States seems increasingly obsessed with vengeance at every level of society. Unable or unwilling to try to fathom the complexities of our times, we find solace in revenge. It is our narcotic. And it dulls public thinking by excusing us from having to address the moral and political complications we choose not to deal with.
I spent much of last summer in New England, arguing over dinners with friends as to whether Steven Hayes, a habitual criminal convicted of torturing and savagely murdering a Connecticut mother and her two daughters, deserved to be executed.
A jury decided he did.
My friends, along with the jury, believed the case so heinous that the perpetrator deserved to die. But isn’t every murder heinous?
A Shameful History
The issue, then, is not whether Mr. Hayes and his yet-to-be-tried alleged accomplice, Joshua Komisarjevsky, merited the death penalty. Hayes clearly wants to die. He smiled when he heard the verdict. His attorney called the sentence “suicide by the state.” The issue is the death penalty itself.
The indisputable fact remains that as long as the death penalty is available to judges and juries, we will execute people to satisfy people’s lust for revenge, and often mistakenly. As a nation we have a shameful history of executing innocents, from Salem’s alleged witches, to cattle rustlers, to “uppity blacks” and alleged murderers who we later discovered had incompetent defense attorneys. The only way a civilized people can prevent execution of the innocent is to outlaw the death penalty as an option.
Until only recently, when the Supreme Court forbade it, American courts were even executing the mentally retarded and juveniles, employing the Connecticut rationale that the crime was too heinous.
As a reporter, whenever I interviewed a murder victim’s surviving parents or spouse, it was clear they passionately wanted an eye for an eye.
A Connecticut friend, an educated physician, said she wanted Hayes and his partner to die. When I exclaimed, “That’s revenge!” my doctor friend said, “That’s right!”
A Vengeful Society
There is no question as to the grievous injustice a victim’s family suffers. And there is no question as to the moral wrong of murder and base criminality. But awful crimes can also be committed when vengeance masquerades as justice. And revenge has become our drug of choice.
In 2003, in Nineveh Province in Iraq, an officer in the 101st Airborne pointed to one of his men and in a hushed tone said, that soldier “wants to be here because he lost family in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.” I was led to understand that this soldier eagerly killed more than a few Iraqis to avenge the death of kin, despite the fact Iraqis had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. It would seem Iraqis are Muslims, and that seemed to slake his need for vengeance.
But American politics, too, is riddled with a quest for vengeance. The recent midterm elections were rife with a strong element of revenge. The tea party was out to punish President Obama because he hasn’t mended everything they think is wrong with America. In recent years, Republicans wanted vengeance because they felt a sense of entitlement to the White House.
Speaking to the Heritage Foundation shortly after the election, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell articulated the Republicans’ chief goal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Justice or Revenge?
We are assailed on every front by subtle attempts to legitimize vengeance. Watching an NFL football game on TV, I saw a commercial for “Faster,” a new movie featuring a big dude--Dwayne Johnson (The Rock)--with a huge gun. He announces that he is going to avenge the killing of his brother. A voice says “They’re going after everyone on his list.” Johnson then intones, “God can’t save you from me.”
I rather thought that in democratic societies justice is meted out in the courts. Does no one remember that law is the glue that holds societies together? Individual score-settling is a criminal act.
Only a Hollywood film? No, it’s art imitating life. The Associated Press recently reported that administrative judges who hear Social Security disability cases have faced more than 80 threats in the past year from disgruntled claimants “angry over being denied benefits or frustrated at lengthy delays in processing claims.” The same Social Security vigilantes also target the judges’ families.
People may have strong feelings about the need for Connecticut to execute Hayes for murder, but let’s be honest: Capital punishment is itself about killing. It is a conjoined twin of vengeance, which is blatantly immoral. Do we really find any moral high ground in executing someone for murder, especially when we do not need to kill to punish them?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Duhaime, Lloyd. "Death Penalty Definition." Duhaime.org - Bringing Legal Information To The World. Web. 04 May 2011. .
Death Penalty definition:
Also known as capital punishment, this is the most severe form of corporal punishment as it is requires law enforcement officers to kill the convicted offender.
Forms of the death penalty include hanging from the neck, gassing, firing squad and has included use of the guillotine.
Death Penalty
Is the death penalty effective?My research topic is going to be based on this controversial question. I know it's a morbid thought but I am unaware of my stance on the issue. I thought I always agreed with it to a point, until my father once asked me, "Could you kill another person for a living?" I honestly don't think I could, I could not kill a person and go to bed at night without a guilty conscience. I will do my research and then discover where I really stand on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)