The Death Penalty: How It Works

1. There are several stages that seem to protect the rights of the accused. During jury selection, the court thoroughly interviews the jurors to ensure that they possess no pre-existing biases or prejudices. Also, the option given to the accused to have either a judge or a jury decide on a sentence ensures that the accused will not be a victim a single individual's opinions or prejudices. The accused in also given the opportunity to appeal their case to the and request post convictions reviews, such as an en banc review; the participation of the entire circuit court is designed to carefully consider the defendant's case once again. After reading about the various stages involved in issuing capital punishment, it seems that the process is thorough enough to ensure that all who are sentenced with the death penalty are indeed guilty.

2. The most humane method of the death penalty is certainly lethal injection. It does not seem to be "cruel and unusual" because it is essentially a painless process for the prisoner; they die while already unconscious due to the anesthetics. However, the methods such as hanging, firing squad, gas chamber are decidedly both inhumane and "cruel and unusual". These methods employ strategies that impart unnecessary amounts of pain and torture onto the prisoner. Seeing as how the United States does not condone the use of torture in prisons, this seems very unusual and against American ideologies.

3. Geographically, it appears that while the death penalty has been adopted by the majority of the states, almost all of the states that do not use the death penalty are in the north (the only southern state to not use capital punishment is New Mexico). The two states that seem to rely most heavily on the death penalty, or at least employ it most heavily as a form of punishment, are Texas and Florida. Although is shrinking in relevance in the the US judicial system and how it may affect one's sentence, one cannot ignore the fact that a disproportionately large amount of blacks are executed in Texas, a state that has a history with enduring racist views, as compared to whites. While this is not sufficient evidence to claim that these death penalty sentences are racially charged and therefore unjust, this fact is nonetheless relevant and ought to be taken into consideration when looking at the geographical distribution of death penalty popularity and frequency.

4. In my previous response, I commented that the South seems to have much higher incidence of the death penalty. I assumed this was perhaps just due to an overall higher crime rate in these states, meaning that it would make sense for the death penalty to occur more often in states that inherently have a higher occurrence of capital offenses. However, while the crime rate in the South is the highest, it not not by a huge margin: as of 2009, there were six murders per 100,00 people, whereas the national average is five murders per 100,000 people; this hardly qualifies as a large enough discrepancy to account for the disproportionately large number of death sentences that are handed out in the South. Overall, it seems that the Death Penalty Information Center is against capital punishment. Many of the statistics included on their page highlight how the death penalty is ineffective in deterring crime as well as having a long history of executing the innocent.

Does Clifford Boggess Deserve to Die?

     Independent of my feelings that, from a practical viewpoint, the death penalty is incorrect, I believe that Clifford Boggess should have been executed because the aggravating factors of the case far outweigh the mitigating factors. Initially, I believed that Boggess' seemingly amiable and stable personality was evidence that he had changed while in prison. However, as several of his family members and acquantinces shared their experiences and thoughts on Boggess, it became clear that his capacity to deceive others had just improved. His ex-girlfriend Phoebe describes Boggess as having "no heart" as well as having an explosive temper, a remorseless attitude, and clearly describes psychopathic tendencies. His uncle, Carl Boggess, also said that there "was always something off about Clifford. He just didn't act like a normal person." Carl Boggess finished his testimony by stating that Clifford "was crazy".
    I suppose to do not believe that people can change. As the film continued, I found myself becoming more and more horrified at Boggess' capacity to manipulate others and make them believe that he has indeed changed. While it is clear that he has taken a deep interest in art and Christianity, these newfound passions and beliefs are overshadowed by his deep-seated unpredicitability and need to kill. As Clifford's uncle Carl Boggess said, "he is a great pretender".
   Listening to the testimony of the victims' families, it was blatantly obvious that Boggess' death did not supply them with any consolation of or sense of justice. Upon receiving a letter from Boggess in which he expressed his (supposed) remorse, Lisa Hazelwood said that while she was certain at that time more than ever that he deserved to die, she did not believe that it was appropriate that he die in the way that he did. She emphasized that his execution made it too easy for him and that he was able to escape his suffering through death. This sentiment was echoed by Mr. Collier, the brother of a victim. Furthermore, Hazelwood voiced her frustration that by executing Boggess, he was able to reach a point of resolution before his death whereas her grandfather "didn't get to when he died." I vehemently agree with Hazelwood's statement that the death penalty affords criminals with an unfair luxury of choosing a death date and allowing them to perhaps reach a point of personal absolution and that if the death penalty's aim is to provide an ultimate form of punishment, it has sorely failed.

"Bullied to Death"

    In the Time article "Bullied to Death?" it discusses the lethal effects cyberbullying can have on teenagers, with an emphasis on the abuse to which many gay teenagers are subjected. A case that caught my eye was the one involving 18 year old Tyler Clementi. As a student at Rutgers University, he was paired with a homophobic roommate who frequently made him feel unsafe. Although Clementi complained to his RA that he and his roommate were not getting along, he complaints did not help his cause. The roommate ultimately posted a video on the internet of Tyler kissing another boy, prompting Tyler to commit suicide by jumping off of a bridge. In light of all of the recent suicides that have been a result of bullying, I think it is tremendously important that schools and universities actively respond to any student's complaint of feeling threatened or unsafe. If schools make it a habit to end bullying and harassment before it prompts the victim to make an irrevocable decison, tragedies such as Tyler Clementi's would certainly decrease in frequency.
   A case that particularly caught my attention was United States v. Lori Drew. In this case, Lori Drew, a suburban mother, starting communicating with Megan Meier while posing as "Josh Evans" on MySpace. Her comments to Meier ultimately turned volatile and resulted in Meier hanging herself. After appealing her case, Drew was acquitted of all charges, which included conspiracy, fraudulent use of the internet, and providing false information to MySpace. I was extremely upset that Drew, who was a large in the not the sole cause of Megan's death, was able to evade punishment entirely. Therefore, I think that there ought to be anti-harassment laws put into effect that apply retroactively, thereby enabling abusive cyberbullies such as Lori Drew to be brought to justice.
    Even though I do not believe that bullying is a very big issue at DHS, there are still certain, perhaps less severe, forms of bullying that are present at our school. Unlike in the film we watched about Jamie Nabozny and several of the other cases we have examined that involve physical bullying at schools, I do not think that this form of bullying is very prevalent at DHS. Instead, any bullying that occurs using involves not what students are saying or doing, but rather what they are not saying or doing. Bullying at DHS frequently manifests itself in the form of isolation. Students who may not wear the latest clothes or have interests that deviate from the norm are often excluded and isolated from other students and activities. Potential solutions to this issue may be simply encouraging bystanders to intervene. Bullying can be a vicious cycle that can only be interrupted by the intervention of an adult or other student. If students are able to recognize when one of their peers may be isolated because of their differences and then choose to reach out to that student, it encourages other students to do the same while simultaneously preventing the negative ramifications of bullying from occurring.

Drug Testing: A Breach of the Fourth Amendment?

In cases such as Vernonia v. Acton and New Jersey v. T.L.O, the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was brought to the attention of several courts across the country. Included in this debate is the issue of drug testing and the potential breaches of personal privacy that it implies. I am very much in favor of drug testing for students.


It seems to be that the paramount concern of those who protest random and required drug testing for students is the fact that it can be conducted without any suspicion that actual drug use is occurring. The drug test, a form of a 'search', is where many see a violation of the Fourth Amendment: the lack of any probable cause seems to directly contradict that which is outlined in the Fourth Amendment. Despite the argument that rejects random drug testing because of the lack of probable cause, I still believe that random drug testing in schools would be nothing by beneficial. When we had a debate in class, the side that was against drug testing argued that drug testing only punishes those who have already used drugs, therefore not truly preventing drug use in the first place. However, by creating a program in which random drug testing is required by all athletes/students who wish to participate in extracurricular activities, students would be able to use this policy as a way to diffuse any pressure to try drugs; a random drug testing policy is an effective excuse for students attempting to avoid drug use. Additionally, the argument made by the opposition that a suspicion-less search or drug test is unconstitutional, must consider the context in which this search is being placed. Schools hold dual responsibilities in providing an education for the students as well as adequately disciplining those who interfere with or present a threat to the learning environment. If a school official was obligated to obtain a warrant before conducting a search or drug test, it would severly interfere with obligation of the school to, according to Justice White, maintain "swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools."

While many would say that by allowing random searches is a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, I believe that if the searches are not overly invasive or practiced with such frequency that they disrupt the learning environment, then they ought to be allowed. After all, students who truly have nothing to hide will not be inconvienced, while the students who were engaging in potentially harmful activities will be appropriately disciplined, thereby improving the environment of the school as a whole.

After reading the ACLU article "U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional," my stance remains the same. It was the disproportionately invasive reaction of the school in response to the accusation that Redding possessed ibuprofen which made the school's actions so inappropriate and ultimately unconstitutional. Since the school did have suspicion that Redding may have had the pills in her posession, I would not necessarily refute their decision to search her backpack. However, the school officials were too extreme in their search and ultimately ended up violating her privacy to such a degree that their actions became violations of the Constitution.

The religious rights of teachers

I read an article that discussed a teacher wh had been fired  by the Mount Vernon school district because of accusations that he had "used a scientific device to burn a cross image onto a student's arm and of keeping a Bible on his desk." This teacher, John Freshwater, was suing the school district for $1 million, claiming that his free speech and civil rights had been violated. I was shocked by Freshwater's outrage; it seemed clear to me that not only had he abused a student by branding the individual with a religion emblem, but had also misrepresented the school's religious affiliation. Public schools are meant to be arenas in which education is the primary concern. Because of the sensitivity of religion and individuals' strong convictions surrounding religion, encorporating religion and allowing it to pervade public school systems would certainly interfere with the students' learning.

Therefore, the Mount Vernon school district's decision to terminate Freshwater's employment was certainly justified, seeing as how, in branding religious symbols on students and clearly showing his own religious convictions, he was acting as his own obstacle in being able to execute his job as purely an educator.

"Seven Days in September"

After watching the film "Seven Days in September" I was particularly struck by the strength shown by the New Yorkers. Through the footage caught while the attacks had just occurred and the towers were falling, I saw how calm everyone seemed. Perhaps "calm" is not the most accurate word to use-- everyone was clearly confused and distraught over the situation that was unfolding around them-- but there was little trace of hysteria or panic. It seemed as though everyone knew that the gravity of the situation as whole superceded their own momentary fears.


This same degree of moral courage was displayed in the footage that was caught a few days after 9/11, especially in the scenes of the crowds debating in Union Park. The intense frustrations that everyone seemed to be carrying was matched only by their levels of compassion for one another. I was particularly struck by the scene in which a man and a woman are arguing, only to realize that they do not understand what they are arguing about and eventually end up embracing each other in tears, admitting their anger as misdirected fear and frustration towards the crisis as a whole. 


While the film masterfully captured the harsh reality of 9/11 and the massive amounts of destruction that occurred as a result, it was comforting to see the focus of the film being on the resultant kindness and unity that was elicited from a group of people who ordinarily lived very isolated from one another.

Why racism can sometimes mean freedom

Recently in class we have been discussing speech codes and their place in universities. One of the activites we completed to explore this issue was visiting FIRE's website. FIRE states their mission is to protect students' freedom of speech and prevent university speech codes from infringing up their First Amendment rights. However, I believe that FIRE is more than slightly overzealous in their mission. While the organization seems to have good intentions, it is necessary that FIRE recognize the dual importance of both tolerance and civility along with the freedom of expression. While I understand how this organization views certain speech codes as restrictive--many are--they are nontheless there as a means to protect students from malicious and harmful behavior that would ultimately negatively impact the educational environment of a university.

I have had some difficulty coming to a clear conclusion on the legitimacy of these speech codes. Having already established that the intent of these codes is not to infringe upon students' rights or make a university a purely totalitarian environment devoid of personal freedoms, the flipside of this issue needs to be addressed as well.

In class we also explored the issue of students at various universities holding "Jim Crow parties" and holding various other racist parties. Although I would personally would wish to see anyone who engages in such tasteless behavior as holding "Jim Crow parties" or insinuating lynchings be severly punished, one must view this issue through an objective lens. Just as one would have to, unfortunately, tolerate a Ku Klux Klan rally in the 'real world', students ought to be afforded the these same rights of self-expression while in college, independent of how offensive they may be to certain individuals.