I thought since the blog discussions were going stale, I'd post this just to revive it a little and to take any special requests for tomorrow's pizza night. If anyone's allergic to any particular topping or has a craving for anything in particular, respond to this with your likes/dislikes (I'm getting 5 larges from Papa John's). Drinks are going to be up to you to bring, since the pizza is breaking my allotted budget for the class and then some.
Also, is everyone doing well with the research paper? I've had a couple of emails on general problems/issues, and if you're still having difficulties on this-and-that, now's the time to get those pesky *little* qualms out of the way... Just respond to this on the blog discussions (if you think everyone can benefit from it) or send an email my way. Either way is fine.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Paris Hilton -- above the law?
On September 7, 2006, Paris Hilton was pulled over by a Los Angeles Police Officer for driving under the influence of alcohol. After giving her a breathalyzer test, the police found that her blood-alcohol level registered at .08. Hilton pleaded not guilty for the DUI and accepted a lesser charge for reckless driving, the punishment being 36 months probation, a $360 fine, and attending an alcohol rehabilitation program.
An additional charge was added to Hilton's sentence, suspending her license from November to March. During that time, Hilton repeatedly violated her probation by driving. On May 4, 2007 Hilton was sentenced to 45 days in jail for the violation with a minimum of 23 days to be served contingent upon good behavior.
On the night of June 4, 2007 Hilton reported to the Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood, California. The conditions of her imprisonment consisted of being isolated in a 12 by 8 foot cell for 23 hours a day. She was allowed one hour for recreational activity that could involve showering, talking on the prison phone, or watching television. After serving a reported "5 days" (3 days, in actuality) in the prison, Hilton was released and given orders to be held under house arrest for the remainder of her sentence.
She was released today because of an undisclosed medical condition.
(Source: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20041354,00.html & http://www.people.com/people/article/0,20038364,00.html)
Group Responses:
No one is above the law, not even Paris Hilton. This case infuriates me because it shows the break down of our judicial system. Bascially, our system says if someone has enough money, he or she does not have to abide by the law. Paris Hilton should be readmitted to the prison and shown that if she breaks the law, she has to suffer the consequences.
(Carrie Henry)
I believe her original sentence was fair-45 days in jail and 23 for good behavior, but I think that Paris being released after 3 days and then to finish her sentence under house arrest in a mansion is absurd. She should have been forced to finish out her sentence in jail like any other person, especially after her blatant disregard for her probation. It wasn't as if she couldn't afford a chauffeur for the six months her license was suspended -- she just wanted to prove the point that she can get away
with whatever she wants. By letting her serve her "punishment" out in a mansion, it appears she succeeded!
(Courtney Ball)
According to People magazine, Paris Hilton stated that "no one is above the law. I surely am not. I do not expect to be treated better than anyone else who violated probation..." If this wasn't Paris Hilton, let's say that it's me, I have a feeling that I would be in jail now and be in there for AT LEAST 23-45 days. Drunk driving is drunk driving, and I feel that there should not be be any way around it. Paris could feel "invincible" now, and she might actually cause people to be in danger the next time.
Besides that, I dislike Paris with a passion, so that may have swayed my point of view a little, but it's still not fair, regardless.
(Kimberly Ann Saunders)
I think that Paris receiving the minimal sentence was beyond fair. This was the chance for the judicial system to show that they have no mercy on celebrities, that every one is created equal. Instead, they showed to the world that celebrities can bend the law and get away with harsh punishment. Nicky Hilton, Paris' sister, stated in People Magazine that "(She) should be punished, but going to jail for a traffic violation is pretty absurd." If Paris would have said that, it would have made more sense since she is a high school drop-out, but Nikki should know better.
(Allison Gunter)
Friday, June 1, 2007
Life or Death?
In the United States, thirty-eight states have crimes punishable by the Death Penalty and Florida is one of them. In Florida, crimes that are punishable by the Death Penalty are first degree murder, felony murder, capital drug trafficking, and capital sexual battery. The three methods of executions used in recent years are via gas chambers, lethal injection, and electrocution.
Recently, the Florida Supreme Court reduced death sentence to life without parole for people with mental illnesses.
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144&scid=10)
* Should all the states abolish the Death Penalty or keep it?
* Should people with mental illnesses receive the Death Penalty?
I have read numerous articles on the death penalty, and I found many pros and cons on this issue. There are many who agree that the death penalty should be dissolved, and there are some who feel that it is a just punishment for the people who deserve it. However, who is to say that the person who is condemned as a murderer is actually guilty or innocent? I found myself wondering, what if the person is innocent? Like the case with Byron Halsey who escaped a death sentence in New Jersey in 1988. Officials found DNA evidence that proved his innocence and found the perpetrator to the sexual assault and murder of the two young children, Halsey's supposed victims. I also came across stories of Jeffrey Dahmer, a notorious serial killer who admitted to his crimes and was not placed on death row but was later killed in jail by his inmates. Police found plenty of proof to condemn him to the death penalty, yet they did not. I found it unlawful that they would allow such a murderer to continue to live in this world after all of the innocent lives he took. I feel he deserved to die... and his inmates obviously felt the same way. I honestly feel that if a person can truly be proven guilty, as in the case with Dahmer, then the death penalty is the only fair thing to do, but if there is a reasonable doubt, then we should definitely not kill someone who might have a chance to be proven innocent. (Shirley R.)
My opinion on the death penalty is open. I believe that it depends on the situation and if the perpetrator really committed the crime. I think that it shouldn’t be taken lightly, for it is a serious matter. I don’t think that those who suffer from mental illnesses should get the death penalty because they don’t know what they are doing. They should be under close moderation to make them well, so that they could either get the death penalty or serve the time they should get when they are in a reasonable state of mind. (Shelby McGahan)
I do not believe in the death penalty. I personally find it immoral and unethical to kill someone when he or she can be removed from society without resorting to capital punishment. Sure, there is the possibility of escape or granting a parole due to an overlooked clerical error.
Many states still practice the death penalty. This surprises me considering the costs involved in bringing the accused through the court system to become the inmate on death row. Trial, sentencing and execution sound simple enough, but there is a lot more to it than that. There is the appeals process, which usually takes years and costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. Conversely, life imprisonment without parole will cost only hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, “The (Timothy) McVeigh case cost taxpayers more than $100 million (the defense spent nearly $20 million, and the government spent more than $80 million)” (Bloom 70). DNA is not infallible, so there is that small percentage of erroneous test results. A tiny fraction of those tests could be correct but mistakenly prove that the accused is guilty. DNA is often critical in post-trial testing to prove the innocence of inmates with a death sentence.
“The (Innocence) Project has represented or assisted… including several death penalty cases, where convictions have been reversed or overturned.” (189). More information about the Innocence Project can be found at their website. http://www.innocenceproject.org/. (Mark Wheeler)
I believe that the Death Penalty should be in every state; however, I think that people who murder are the only people who should receive the death sentence. If you murder someone, you should be murdered. I think the same about people with mental illnesses. It is a sad thing, but I think you should get what you deserve.
(Travis White)
Recently, the Florida Supreme Court reduced death sentence to life without parole for people with mental illnesses.
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144&scid=10)
* Should all the states abolish the Death Penalty or keep it?
* Should people with mental illnesses receive the Death Penalty?
I have read numerous articles on the death penalty, and I found many pros and cons on this issue. There are many who agree that the death penalty should be dissolved, and there are some who feel that it is a just punishment for the people who deserve it. However, who is to say that the person who is condemned as a murderer is actually guilty or innocent? I found myself wondering, what if the person is innocent? Like the case with Byron Halsey who escaped a death sentence in New Jersey in 1988. Officials found DNA evidence that proved his innocence and found the perpetrator to the sexual assault and murder of the two young children, Halsey's supposed victims. I also came across stories of Jeffrey Dahmer, a notorious serial killer who admitted to his crimes and was not placed on death row but was later killed in jail by his inmates. Police found plenty of proof to condemn him to the death penalty, yet they did not. I found it unlawful that they would allow such a murderer to continue to live in this world after all of the innocent lives he took. I feel he deserved to die... and his inmates obviously felt the same way. I honestly feel that if a person can truly be proven guilty, as in the case with Dahmer, then the death penalty is the only fair thing to do, but if there is a reasonable doubt, then we should definitely not kill someone who might have a chance to be proven innocent. (Shirley R.)
My opinion on the death penalty is open. I believe that it depends on the situation and if the perpetrator really committed the crime. I think that it shouldn’t be taken lightly, for it is a serious matter. I don’t think that those who suffer from mental illnesses should get the death penalty because they don’t know what they are doing. They should be under close moderation to make them well, so that they could either get the death penalty or serve the time they should get when they are in a reasonable state of mind. (Shelby McGahan)
I do not believe in the death penalty. I personally find it immoral and unethical to kill someone when he or she can be removed from society without resorting to capital punishment. Sure, there is the possibility of escape or granting a parole due to an overlooked clerical error.
Many states still practice the death penalty. This surprises me considering the costs involved in bringing the accused through the court system to become the inmate on death row. Trial, sentencing and execution sound simple enough, but there is a lot more to it than that. There is the appeals process, which usually takes years and costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. Conversely, life imprisonment without parole will cost only hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, “The (Timothy) McVeigh case cost taxpayers more than $100 million (the defense spent nearly $20 million, and the government spent more than $80 million)” (Bloom 70). DNA is not infallible, so there is that small percentage of erroneous test results. A tiny fraction of those tests could be correct but mistakenly prove that the accused is guilty. DNA is often critical in post-trial testing to prove the innocence of inmates with a death sentence.
“The (Innocence) Project has represented or assisted… including several death penalty cases, where convictions have been reversed or overturned.” (189). More information about the Innocence Project can be found at their website. http://www.innocenceproject.org/. (Mark Wheeler)
I believe that the Death Penalty should be in every state; however, I think that people who murder are the only people who should receive the death sentence. If you murder someone, you should be murdered. I think the same about people with mental illnesses. It is a sad thing, but I think you should get what you deserve.
(Travis White)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)