Lethal Injection: Why the Killer Gets a Choice

    Judge Jeremy Fogel, a U.S. district judge opted not to halt the execution of murderer-rapist, Albert Greenworth Brown. Brown is one of the seven hundred and eight inmates on California's death row. Unlike most of his his fellow inmates, Brown has exhausted all of his appeals. Brown was convicted of aggravated murder when in 1980, he raped and murdered a fifteen-year-old girl named Susan Jordan. He committed this crime just after being released on parole after rapping a fourteen-year-old in 1977. Brown's actions deserve punishment. For years, people have questioned the morality of Capital Punishment.

Corrections officials have built a new new lethal injection chamber that is four times larger than the original gas chamber used for executions in the past. The facility was unveiled on Tuesday.

      Brown petitioned Fogel's court last week to try and gain an outcome similar to his inmate's, Michael Morlaes. In 2006, Fogel put a halt to to the execution of Morales because he felt that he needed to deeper investigate the processes of lethal injection because Morales claimed that it was against the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Fogel found that conditions were too cramped in the gas chamber where the lethal injections were issued, and that there was insufficient training of the those administering the execution. For this reason, Fogel prompted corrections officials to make conditions better. However, Judge Fogel does not feel completely good about using the three injection method to execute the killers.
     Judge Fogel did not halt Brown's execution, but he did give him a choice between the one injection method, and the three injection method. It is customary in California to use the three injection method, but his research shows that there are is a possibility that it causes the person great pain and suffering. Only Washington and Ohio have used the one injection method, but they have reported it to be effective.
     The Judge's decision to allow Brown a choice resulted from official's insurance that the one injection method would be ready for Brown by Wednesday, the upcoming date of his execution. Although it was considerate of the judge to allow him to choose, it is still widely speculated that the lethal injection is inhumane and immoral.
     It is a constitutional right for people to be spared from cruel and unusual punishment. Thirteen criminals have been killed by Capital Punishment in California since its reinstatement in 1976. I beleieve that murderers
deserve to be punished, but I do not fully support the death penalty. Some say that it is more practical to persecute and execute those terrible offenders instead of financially supporting their life imprisonment. I believe that it is wrong to kill, and that no matter how hard we try to make their induced deaths less painful, we will never understand how much the person is suffering. Judge Fogel was right in trying to make it so that Brown will be allowed the presumably least painful form of execution by giving him the choice of methods. Capital punishment is controversial because it is a matter of government supported life or death.

Source: Williams, Carol J."Judge Clears Way for Killer to Die" . Los Angeles Times. The Sacramento Bee. 25, September.2010

Legal Marijuana: Perhaps a Stoner's Throw Away in California

     On the California 2010 ballot, voters will have the option to vote for or against Proposition 19, the proposition to legalize recreational use of marijuana throughout the state. As of right now, there is no clear way to determine what the outcome of this election will be. Both those who oppose the substance legalization and those who support have fair arguments, making the division on prop 19 very close.
     Those in favor of legalizing Marijuana see its ratification as a means to increase state-revenue. If the drug were to become legal, people over the age of 21(the same legal drinking age in California) could possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal use. Californians could grow marijuana gardens that measure up to 25 square feet on their private properties. Should prop 19 pass, cities and counties would be responsible for   deciding  whether to allow sales and taxation of marijuana within their boundaries. Some argue that it would limit crime because people would be growing the marijuana legally. Finally, in regards to the argument for prop 19, is the idea that drug trafficking and violence would decrease in the boarder towns of Mexico. For years, Mexico has been advised to legalize marijuana because it would allow for government control of its production, and decrease the activities of drug lords and the crazy boarder violence. If California were to pass prop 19, then there would not be as big of an issue with boarder control because supply and demand would make it so that cities such as LA and San Diego would no longer be fueling the illegal drug trafficking from Mexico. The president of Mexico asks for  there to be international drug regulation, and the passing of prop 19 could indeed help support this.

This poster implies that Prop 19 could be part of  a peaceful solution to the drug wars in Mexico

     On the opposite end of the spectrum, people argue that passing Prop 19 will increase crime rates in California. It is argued that car accidents would increase with an increased amount of citizens driving under the influence of the drug. Others argue that it would be difficult to prevent people from being high in the workplace. Morally, people argue that it is not a good message to be sending to children and young adults to make this drug legal. Some feel that prop 19 will promote drug abuse. Some say that it is sinful to use a sinful substance to earn money for the state.People also fear that it will create issues with the illegal smuggling of drugs to other states. It this becomes an issue, then it could become a national problem with interstate commerce.
     There is much debate surrounding prop 19 and it remains one of the more controversial topics on the November 2nd ballot. Candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties are opposed to its validation. Perhaps they fear persecution from those strongly opposed to the issue. I remain neutral on the topic. I do not support drug abuse, and I do not support the younger generations of California getting mixed messages about drug use. But I also feel that if it were to be legalized, it would need to be treated like alcohol, and have laws enforced just like alcohol abuse. There would need to be serious traffic laws, age qualifications, and workplace authorities set up. I feel that there does need to be an end to the drug wars in Mexico, because the violence has gotten out of hand and is devastating. I feel that if prop 19 can help put an end to drug wars, than it is worth considering passing. I understand that it is immoral to condone drug use in order to collect revenue through taxation. With all of this being said, it is understandable that  recent polls indicate that the vote is pretty evenly divided. Hopefully whatever happens, young ones will know that drug free is the way to be.

Indivisable

     Yesterday was September 11^th and the ninth anniversary and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There has been a considerable amount of controversy surrounding proposed construction of an Islamic Cultural Center near the sight of the Twin Towers in New York City. Vociferous groups who oppose the building of the Islamic Cultural Center, argue that it is irreverent for those who lost their lives in the  Towers due to the terrorists, who they claim, were Muslim . Thousands of lives were lost on September 11^th, 2001, many of which were Muslim. People of all colors and religions were killed that day, therefore this argument proves poor. It just so happened that this year, the Muslim holiday, Eid al-Feit  fell on September 11^th. Out of respect for the day of reverence, many American Muslims pledged to hold prayer services and service projects instead of celebrating. On the opposite end of the civil spectrum, a preacher in the South Terry Jones, declared September 11^th: “International Burn the Quran” day. This zealous preacher wished to make a statement against the Muslims and was furthering protests against the building of the Islamic Cultural Center in New York. 

  President Obama  said the U.S. is at war with al Qaeda and its allies, but it "never will be at war with Islam.''

      President Obama stated that burning the holy book of Islam would cause our soldiers danger over sea. Yesterday his speech at the September 11^th memorial spoke of what it means to be American. He said that what the terrorists wanted to do on 9’11 was threaten America, he said they wanted to threaten what we stand for and to divide us . The president said that if we continue down a path of religious intolerance, as demonstrated in the threats by the preacher to burn Korans and the national objections to the construction of the cultural center, then the terrorist will have succeeded. The president calls us to remain true to American ideals. He said that we are, in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance “One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”. Obama asserted that we must remain a nation that shuns religious intolerance. I believe that the President was right in saying so. The pastor, thankfully, did not follow through with burning Quran.  I hope people consider the words of Obama, and remember that America is a place of religious and cultural tolerance, and I fully support the building of the Islamic Cultural Center because everyone is entitled to their house of worship and community, and because September 11^th   

^{weighs heavy in the hearts of people of all Americans, no matter what religious affiliation they belong to.}  

Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oIdZS6l2Wg

Sayonara Dr. Laura

     Radio talk-show psychologists  jumped for joy singing "Ding-dong the witch is dead" after discovering that their vial competition, Dr. Laura Schlessinger resigned. Dr. Laura, for years, has had the reputation of an inconsiderate, condescending, bully. When callers came to her for psychological assistance  via live radio, they were slapped around and spoken down to. Dr. laura recently resigned after controversy sprung up after she made racist remarks on air. When an African-American woman, Jade, was hurting due to family and social skepticism regarding her marriage to a caucasian man, she phoned Dr. Laura to discuss her feelings, and to ask how she should react to the people in her life, including her husband, who were causing her pain. Schlessinger responded to the woman's sound issue saying : "If you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry out of your race". She continued to belittle Jade's situation when she said that she was being too sensitive to people's use of the word N*****. She continued to spew the word on live radio eleven times. Shortly after the show aired, she apologized publicly to Jade, but screamed to the world that she was the one victimized in this situation. What Dr. Laura said on her show was clearly racist and opinionated, which is why I believe that General Motors and Motel 6 were justified in their pulling their sponsorship from her radio show. Schlessinger appeared on Lary King Live, where she asserted that her 1st Amendment rights are in jeopardy. She spoke directly about her sponsors leaving her after the whole ordeal: "I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special-interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I’m sort of done with that." She also stated that she would now be able to express herself using different forms of media which include her blog, YouTube channel, and television. 

     Dr. Laura's claim that her First Amendment rights, which include freedom of speech, are under attack is a load of bull. Yes, she is getting reprimanded for what she said, but I feel that she is more concerned about her funding running dry. She is free to say what she wants, but that does not mean that there will not be consequences. The companies are free to support whoever they want at their own discretion, and the government is not the one telling them to retract their funds. Therefore her 1st Amendment right is in working order. She said racist comments that were hurtful, and quite frankly stupid. I feel that her switch to  online media has to do with her keeping up with a new economic opportunity, rather than staying with the ship which she sunk herself. She does not want to stay with the penniless program because she will suffer economically, not because her "freedom of speech" is in danger. I am glad that she is off radio, and that the 1st Amendment allowed for others to express their opinions and take her down. Sayonara Dr. Laura. 


Holms, Linda. "Good News, Dr. Laura: Your First Amendment Rights are Still Yours" <http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/08/18/129275433/laura-schlessinger-gets-back-the-first-amendment-rights-she-always-had>