Signing of the Constitution 1787

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Pencils Kill People


 


NO  INTERFERENCE!!
The one thing our government has no idea how to actually do, is not interfere. Instead they are constantly writing policies and making laws for us, the US citizens, that fit their agenda in some way. How the heck does a piece of paper stating a law protect me  from someone threatening my life or better yet how does it stop someone who’s breaking the law. It helps to prosecute them after they have been caught and defines what it is you have to do in order to be convicted BUT it doesn’t stop them in the act. If someone is threatening my life am I supposed to hold up a piece of paper with policies to defend myself? Or should I tell them, “hold on so I can call the police to come protect me.” and snap my fingers to freeze them until the police arrive?
How stupid is our government to think that taking away guns from responsible gun owners is going to stop people from being shot? And why does it seem like criminals have more rights then everyone else. If someone is breaking into my home I feel at that point they are threatening my life, whether they have a weapon or not. I feel that someone coming up and telling me to give them all my money, car or whatever is threating my life regardless of their weapon of choice. I can go on and on.
After doing some research about gun control and gun laws and policies I have decided that our government is crazy!! A  NO INTERFERENCE POLICY is one I definitely support!

A policy of no interference is one in which a government decides to let its people protect themselves from criminals, and trusts them with firearms. Thus, there are few or no restrictions on who can own, or who can carry a firearm. Switzerland, as a country, is very close to this idea, and provides a great case study for what happens when a country's citizens are heavily armed. Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, despite very high levels of gun ownership. Also, despite being sandwiched between two aggressive powers during World War II, the country remained untouched, largely due to the heavy rates of private gun ownership. Hitler and Mussolini knew that the heavily armed Swiss population would defend itself fiercely, something it did not need to fear from many of its other, more unfortunate neighbors.

Here in California we have so many restrictions and they keep coming.  Contrary to what we have talked about in class with regards to California citizens being able to carry a firearm as long as it isn’t concealed or loaded is not true. JerryBrown fixed that just recently and it’s disgusting!

Self Defense laws

 http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html

 So the question here is "When is it legally excusable for someone to use deadly force against another?". When I hear this questions I immediately think of self defense laws that have been practiced in thousands of court cases all over the country. This seems to be the only fair reason for someone to use lethal force. I would consider that it is best that when people are defending themselves that they use a non-lethal weapon but not every situation has a non-lethal weapon available. For example, some people carry pepper spray and security guards can carry a taser. If they were attacked and used these weapons there would be no question that they were not trying to kill the person. If you happen to be a person that does not feel threatened you may not carry any kind of weapon and in the event that you are attacked you grab the closest weapon in sight to defend yourself like a knife, or baseball bat. When you defended yourself you may accidentally kill the person. I believe this is fair under the circumstances that you intended to defend yourself and did not mean to kill the person.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57406291/video-shows-zimmerman-with-cops-dad-speaks-out/
Under the circumstances that Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, I don't believe this was an act of self defense.
Martin, 17 year old walking home from convenient store
A point made in this case is that Zimmerman claimed that Martin had attacked him and he shot him because of this. However, when he was brought into the police station there were no documented injuries or marks on his body. Bruises and scars are major factors with cases of brutality and murder, Zimmerman showed no such signs.

Also, now that I have read more into this case, I can see that George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watchman, but he has a record for violence. In July, 15th 2005 He was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence during a friend's underage drinking arrest. Obviously, he is not the angel that some are trying to state that he is.

Zimmerman arrested in 2005 for battery on a peace officer.
This may not be just an issue of race but an issue of a 28 year old man that had nothing better to do than stalk a 17 year old because it made him feel empowered. Zimmerman was a person who was obsessed with taking charge and applying his own idea of order to every little thing he could. Dispatcher reports show that he reported trash in front of kohl's, teenagers playing basketball and climbing a fence, kids playing in the street, a car that he thought was suspect because it was driving slow, black men "prowling" the streets, potholes that might damage cars and even more insignificant reports. This guy had way too much time on his hands. His conversation with the 911 dispatcher shows that he was asked if he was following martin and he stated "yes" yet Zimmerman still pursued martin even after Martin ran away. Zimmerman was the aggressor.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/20/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-before-trayvon-martin-s-death-audio.html



Apparently Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend who told him to run away from Zimmerman because Martin knew he was being followed. Zimmerman decided to take the law into his own hands and shoot Martin without any sign of force. Zimmerman should not be carrying a weapon just because he is a neighborhood watchman. Yes he had a license to carry it but he used it in an act of murder not self defense. He is a vigilante and should suffer the consequences for using excessive and lethal force on an innocent minor. I believe that lethal force should only be used in the act of self defense and lethal only by accident (not intentionally killing the person when defending yourself). It is a shame when aggressors like Zimmerman try to use this defense to hide their actions because they want some kind of empowerment or recognition because they feel they deserve it. I believe Self defense is the only reason to use lethal force but in cases like this it is not applicable.

Friday, March 23, 2012

FIRE ARMS POLICY


I feel that a good firearms law should grant the freedoms afforded to our citizens in The Constitutions but at the same time treat those who use their firearms against another with the greatest level.  I struggle with the Idea of people walking around "strapt," but I am a firm believer that our first ten amendments are sacred and the second affords  people the right to bear arms.  Also because there are subcultures in America where guns are woven into their Identity and a father teaching a son how to shoot and hunt is a coming of age "ceremony" for allot of adolescent males.  I do not believe that anyone has the right to take that identity away from them.  I absolutely believe that every person with a gun should always have the duty to retreat in any circumstance before they use their weapon.  And any kind of incident when another human being kills another should always be investigated with suspicion.  There would be no "make my day" laws and if you murder an unarmed innocent person(whether he looks suspicious to you or not)  you will pay the price.  Gun owners would have a "DUTY" to protect life.  That would mean that if an accident happens they are still liable for the death that was caused by their doing and their firearm.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Our Empire

I must say that I am thoroughly impressed with our group coming together the way that we have, however I know we still need improving. I think this class differs from most that I have taken in the sense that it's a group effort.. With that said I feel like we are coming together more and more each week, and improving our interaction skills with each other. I know myself personally I would like to understand the nation state game better and be more involved, and I know others probably feel the same. I'm excited to see our group continue to work together and I think everyone has a unique quality they bring to the table.

A group is its own worst enemy


A group is its own worst enemy


 I don’t believe anyone did more than their fair when it comes to our group. I do believe that group members input whatever they feel comfortable with putting in. Some members can be outspoken while others will simply agree for the sake of the group. My performance would be an 8 because I have made an effort to communicate with the group and also make sure that we are all comfortable with our progress. The most important part about the article I listed on the link above is that a group can be its own worst enemy if the group does not communicate and/or agree.

 I would not remove anyone from our group. If I were to add another member to our group this person would be in class everyday and would have strong research and communication skills. I think that spending time on research and communicating more is something that our group can work on.

A.  Our group has not been doing so well on showing up. I give it a 7. However we have done well regardless if some of us show up or not.
B.  I have definitely done my fair share by inputting my ideas, providing material and  respecting everyone’s ideas. I give our group a 9.
C.  Being on time is something that most of us have not had a problem with. Either we are here on time or we don’t show up. I give us a 10.
D.  I believe that we all respond on time to one another but I think that communicating outside of the classroom is something that we are lacking. Especially after we had our mid-term I realize that it would have been good if we contacted each other a little bit more before our presentation. I give our group an 8.
E.  We have not had any conflicts within our group. I give our group a 10.
F.  Most of us are attentive and do not allow any phone usage except for research. I give our group a 9.

My 5 rules for having an effective group.
1-Punctuality
2-respect everyone’s opinions
3-Don’t be shy to express your opinion
4-Everyone should be working on something
5-Communicate with each other as much as possible

I replied to the art blog about graffiti and for some reason was not able to share my picture so I decided to do it here if nowhere else. Hope you all don't mind....

I really think that overall our group came together and did a great job on our presentation. I would rate myself an 6 or 7 on our presentation. I feel that I did enough research to not only be able to present my part but I was also able to answer questions from the audience. I like our group dynamics and don’t think I would change much. I do worry sometimes about how our group is affected by one members absence but when they are in class they add to our group and came through on the presentation. Showing up and on time would be rated 10. Doing fair share of work and responding to emails would be rated 9 and conflict and being present in the group would be rated 8.

Here’s a link to a site that I think really does a good job at coming up with rules for an effective group. http://cte.uwaterloo.ca/teaching_resources/tips/teamwork_skills.html Communication is one of the most important rules of working in a group, Individual responsibility and accountability as well as Management and organization.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Midterm Reflection



When given this midterm assignment I almost freaked out because I feared that only half of our group would do their part and the other half would fall short.  I thought for sure that I would have to compensate for someone who didn't do their work.  So I studied every aspect of the death penalty and did 3 blogs to make sure I had enough info on it.  This is  a reflection of my obsessiveness  and my lack of faith in others.  When we got up to do our presentation everyone did great and taught me a lesson in life to have a little faith in my fellow students.
Since I did put so much into making sure everything was covered I of course put my contribution at a 10 but I didn't need to because of my fellow country men and women-ALL HAIL OUR SUPREME EMPEROR.
I don't think I would like to remove anyone I would like a couple of them to pick up the slack and get more involved but I believe that if these persons tried harder and showed some initiative  they could be a valuable asset to this great nation of ours.
A. I believe our group needs to improve when it comes to showing up and doing the work I believe we rate at a 5.
B.I believe that some members need to start doing their fair share we rate at a 6.
C.  When we are their we are on time 9.
D.  I believe we communicate pretty good 8.
E We haven't really had much conflict. 8.
F.  I believe that our group needs to work on not being distracted and paying attention fully to our nation state game. 3.


I feel that in need to be less overbearing to foster unity in our group.

Five rules for having an effective group:

1.  Communication! Communication! Communication!
2.  Be focused on the project at hand.
3.  Compromise is vital.
4.  Respect everyone's point of view
5.  "Fortune Favours The Bold"  Think outside the box

http://www.netplaces.com/managing-people/work-group-dynamics/effective-teamwork.htm

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Should it stay or should it go??


"Should it stay or shold it go now? If it goes there will be trouble, and if it stays it will be double! So come and let me know!?" That is a question that the November Ballots in California will have on them addressing the state’s death penalty. The SAFE California Act qualified for the ballot after receiving 800,000 petition signatures, well over the required amount. The SAFE California initiative will be the first ever statewide vote to replace the death penalty with life in prison with no chance of parole. The SAFE California Act will save the state hundreds of millions of dollars. The initiative sets aside $100 million of the budget savings– $30 million a year, for three years – to solve open rape and murder cases.  
California is wasting so much money when it could be put to so many other uses. I am and have always been for the death penalty but agree with the SAFE California Act. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is constitutional but there hasn’t been an execution in California for six years. With 725 condemned inmates living on San Quentin’s Death Row but no executions since 2006 how can anyone possibly think our states death penalty is “working”.  Jerry Brown says its working and he insists there are no innocent inmates on California’s Death Row but yet also seems to think that to make the death penalty work the state needs to spend more money on the defense lawyers.  It seems like the governments answer to what’s needed to fix a problem or make something work better, of ANY sort, is always “we need more money”. That’s the wrong answer and a line of BS that’s become the standard script for government to say and use as an excuse to not fixing anything. People don’t want to pay more taxes and California is already constantly cutting funding for this or that so when things don’t get fixed that’s the BS excuse we are given. “We need more money and just don’t have it” California would have more money if would do the opposite of that. By getting rid of the joke we call the death penalty here in California we would spend less money that could be used towards other things like solving the huge percentage of unsolved rapes and murders due to lack of funding of our police departments.
The life of a condemned person is very different from any other inmate. Death row protects its occupants from the perils of the prison yard and provides creature comforts denied to other inmates. Every effort is made to keep the condemned mentally and physically fit so that they may, with glaring irony, keep their date with the executioner. However, that execution date is uncertain. Death penalty trials in California take an average of 25 years to execution and more inmates die of old age or illness rather than fulfilling the public's mandate for their execution. Since California voted to reinstate the death penalty in 1978, our state has spent $4 billion to execute only 13 people. These executions did not make us safer, nor has the lack of executions made us less safe,” says Aundre M. Herron who has worked as a lawyer on both sides of the criminal justice system.  WHATEVER! Is the response I have to her and all the others that use this as one of their defenses to abolishing the death penalty. If the states would take a more conservative stance similar to Texas or Virginia and actually execute the inmates that have been given the sentenced of death it would make us safer in two ways. #1 Murders and rapists might fear the justice system and there for not commit the crime. I know people are going to argue the other side to that comment and say that’s not true but I believe it’s true! Just like children who see someone/another kid getting a big trouble for something they did wrong; and they don’t want that (the punishment) to happen to them so they are more likely not to do whatever it was that got the other into trouble. #2 is that if instead of spending billions of dollars on the condemned for 25+ years; maybe if we followed Texas’s example of how their death penalty is run all that extra money could be used to fund programs that prevent crime (ex: youth clubs, after school programs), and protect us (ex: law enforcement, CPS) WE’D BE SAFER cause our communities would be safer.
One of the arguments against the death penalty is that once it has been administered the results are final and the case is over. What if an innocent person was put to death? How can we be sure they aren’t innocent? Does the state want the burden of finding out that the execution they’d carried out was of an innocent person? BLAH!? BLAH!? BLAH!? There is always talk around the fact that DNA testing has exonerated people convicted of crimes they didn’t commit and some of those have been on death row. More than 200 men and women have been wrongfully convicted of serious crimes in California, six of whom were sentenced to death. Here are some of their stories. People who are doing and being convicted of crimes today are being convicted with DNA proving their guilt so it seems to me we should be less worried about convicting innocent people now days and therefore should be less worried about killing an innocent person wrongfully convicted!!!
Then of course you can’t forget about our 8th Amendment Right protecting us against CRUEL and UNUSUAL punishments inflicted on us. I’m totally for protecting our constitutional rights and making sure they are upheld and that government doesn’t abuse their position. BUT oh my God! How many court cases and Supreme Court Judges’ interpretations of cruel and unusual punishment is needed?
The United States Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia, which declared Georgia’s procedure to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it was cruel and unusual punishment, essentially negated all death penalty sentences nationwide. Then it was re-instituted in the United States in the 1976 Gregg v. Georgia decision. Since this Texas has executed over four times more inmates than Virginia (the state with the second-highest number of executions in the post-Gregg era) and nearly 37 times more inmates than California (the state with the largest death row population)! On December 15, 2006, in the case Morales v. Tilton, Judge Fogel ruled that California execution procedures violate the 8th Amendment because inexperienced, untrained prison staff do executions in crowded, poorly-lit settings; Fogel wrote that "implementation of lethal injection" by California "is broken, but...can be fixed. To him I ask, how can they (the prison staff) ever get the “experience” supposedly needed to execute a person and are you kidding me!!?? What kind of ambiance is needed for this special event???? Well there’s 700+ inmates on California’s death row so I’m thinking the inexperienced prison staff can get the experience they need by the time they carry out an 8th of the sentences those 700+ have been given!!!! And just so it’s not unconstitutional based on lighting why not give the condemned prisoner the choice of how they’d like the room lit?? Last meal, last words, last choice of mood lighting?!

PEOPLE! Hello?! Capital punishment cannot be unconstitutional because the Constitution expressly mentions it and two centuries of Court decisions assumed that it was constitutional. There is so much information about all the cases regarding the 8th Amendment and everyone has their own way to twist it to fit their argument on the death penalty including the Judges who take it away, give it back, put it on time out, make up new rules. It’s really hard to sort through it all so then why is it that those opposing the death penalty think they are right in saying it’s unconstitutional and those of us for the death penalty are always to have to prove that it is and jump through hoops to make sure killers are treated with a gentle hand at all times. Were their victims treated with such human regard? HELL NO! Give me a break! I could care less if they are in a little discomfort as they are injected with a cocktail that’s purpose is to make them comfortable in the few minutes before they are injected with that last lethal injection of the cocktail which the whole purpose of it is....TO KILL THEM! A heart attack is painful, an accidental drowning or burning to death is pure agony, cancer is painful and can make for a long and painful death, and the list of how people in the free world die every day. Get over it!
But in the world we live in, people can’t get over it, especially in California!! So as much as I am for the death penalty and think it’s so lame that we are a bunch of pantie wastes that care so much about criminal’s well being and comfort; I am 100% for the SAFE California Act and will be voting for its approval in November. If doing away with California’s death penalty, that I’d like to add is pretty much useless, will free up millions of dollars that are far more needed elsewhere (instead of wasting money on something that seems to me is unfixable, especially in such a liberal state) in our state then so be it. I can always move to a state that takes keeping convicted killers serious and carries out the sentences handed to them!!!!


The ultimate price


            Death is the ultimate price u can pay, sometimes when a crime is carried out that is so horrendous capital punishment is the only option. The first death penalty laws date as far back as the eighteenth century from the code of King Hammurabi of Babylon. In these times they would carry out the punishment by crucifixion, drowning, beaten to death, being burnt alive and impalement. In tenth century Britain William the Conqueror used hanging for any crime, unless they were at war. Capital punishment was brought over to America from England. The first case was carried out in the James Town colony of Virginia in 1608. Captain George Kendall was believed to be a spy for the Spanish which resulted in him being first recipient of the death penalty in America. Today the death penalty is only carried out in 35 of the 50 states. The process is also much longer, a man once stayed on death row for 33 years before his execution was carried out. Now in my own opinion  its a shame to have to take a persons life, but in some circumstances I believe it is necessary.



http://youtu.be/TVMho2cP1NE
http://youtu.be/v3Afr-zI8Ys

FOR OR AGAINST?


Since being given this midterm assignment I have been researching Capital Punishment all week.  Most people have a passionate belief whether they are for or against it.  I am going to try to be as objective as I possible can in this blog. First from what I have gathered people  who are for capital punishment for the most part believe:

  • A person who has committed a crime like killing or raping another person should be given death penalty, which is as severe punishment as the act. It is said that when a criminal is given a capital punishment, it dissuades others in the society from committing such serious crimes. They would refrain from such crimes due to fear of losing their lives. This would definitely help in reducing crime rate in society.
  • If a criminal is jailed, he may again commit the same crime after being released from prison. Giving him capital punishment would make sure that the society is safe from being attacked by criminals. It seems to be an appropriate punishment for serial killers and for those who continue to commit crimes even after serving imprisonment.
  • Some believe that instead of announcing life imprisonment for the convicts, where they would have to live a futile life behind closed bars, it is better to kill them. It is said that imprisoning someone is more expensive than executing him. Rather than spending on a person who may again commit terrifying crime, it is better to put him to death.
  • Capital punishment is equated as revenge for pain and suffering that the criminal inflicted on the victim. Some people strongly believe that a person who has taken the life of another person does not have a right to live. Sentencing such a criminal can give relief to the family members of the victim that their loved one has obtained justice.
  • It is also important for the safety of fellow prison inmates and guards, as people who commit horrifying crimes like murder are believed to have a violent personality and may, in future, attack someone during imprisonment. These reasons emphasize the importance of capital punishment for the betterment of human society. However, there is another section of people who believe that it is an immoral and unethical act of violence.
THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST IT BELIEVE THAT:
  • If we execute a person, what is the difference between us and the criminal who has committed the horrifying crime of killing another individual.
  • Capital punishment is not always just and appropriate. Usually, it has been seen that poor people have to succumb to death penalty as they cannot afford good lawyers to defend their stance. There are very rare cases of rich people being pronounced capital punishment. Also, an individual from minority communities are more likely to be given death penalty.
  • Every human being is entitled to receive a second chance in life. Putting a convict behind bars is always a logical option than killing him, as there is a chance that he may improve. People who have served life sentences are reported to have bettered their earlier ways of living and have made worthwhile contribution to the society.
  • There is also a chance that an individual is innocent and is wrongly charged for a crime he has never committed. There have been cases where individuals were released after being given death sentence, because they were proved innocent. There are also cases where a person's innocence was proved after he was put to death. Hence, it is best to avoid executing a person.
  • It is reported that there is no relation between capital punishment and crime rate i.e giving death penalty does not decrease crime rate in the society. Crimes are prevalent in countries where capital punishment exists and also where it has been abolished.
  • The estimated cost of keeping all prisoners currently on death row in California is about 143 million dollars a year.  To keep those same prisoners in prison for life without possibility of parole would be about 11.5 million a year, saving the state roughly 131.5 million dollars annually.
The question whether capital punishment is a moral or an immoral act in a cultured society, does not have a definite answer. Whether to give capital punishment to a criminal or not, may depend on his previous criminal records and the seriousness of the crime he has committed. But, do we really have the right to take the life of our fellow human beings? 

Capital Punishment...an eye for an eye

I am a firm believer that the punishment should fit the crime, however in this day and age it seems that convicted felons and those serving time for capital crimes are receiving more rights that half of us living in the free world. As an inmate serving life in prison these days means three square meals a day, and access to the Internet, a job that pays, and watching their favorite television shows.

So I ask the question... Why is capital punishment wrong? Because it violates our constitutional rights? If you have taken another persons life, why should you be able to continue living out yours.... especially with all the amenities, with the exception of walking the streets? If you have taken the life of another person and are found guilty by a jury of your peers, then you should be condemned. As far as I am concerned there is no rehabilitation for these convicted of capital offenses. Why should we continue to provide for these people for the rest of their natural life?

Currently there are 34 states that employ the death penalty. One of the largest issues aside from Constitution rights is the cost of putting someone to death. With the lengthy appeal processes and what it costs to try a death penalty case many critics believe it is less expensive to house the convict for the duration. The average cost to convict in a death penalty case ranges from one to three million dollars currently, and the life sentence carries a significantly lower price tag.

The facts are the facts and everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter.... however if your loved ones life was taken.... how would you think justice would be appropriately served? click here to view fact sheets on the death penalty

Is the Death Penalty Necessary?!!



There are many reasons why people feel that the death penalty is necessary but I most certainly disagree. Sure we understand that if someone is aware that a crime is punishable by death that they may not commit a crime but there will be situations in which a person is not guilty and could suffer from the consequences that our court system failed to address. In fact, one aspect of this topic is that punishing someone to death for something such as murder itself is a huge contradiction. For example, someone could have destroyed my career, robbed me for everything I have and because they did this, I kill this person. Then, the society I live in will execute me for doing exactly what I have done, punishing someone by death.

So I think it would be fair to say that if the community does not want to allow people punishing each other by death then perhaps it would be a good idea to lead by example and not execute someone because of something they have done. How is it acceptable for a group of people to have someone killed? If this happens in a court room it is called “Capital Punishment”, If it happens outside of a court room it is called “conspiracy for murder”. In fact, if you google what you call a group of people that try to kill someone the top articles that show up are “street gangs” and “The death penalty”. Obviously these two groups must have something in common.

Given that we are all human and we all share the same vulnerabilities and strengths, what gives any of us the entitlement to tell someone whether or not they deserve to die? Nobody should be given that right and I don’t believe anyone should think that they are qualified to make such a decision. Let’s face it, Law is just like any other area of study, in that I mean that it is constantly changing and there are always things that need to be addressed or altered. This is why the American Constitution has amendments, because those who created it knew that nothing will ever be perfect unless it can be changed. 


So with that being said, it is not possible to believe that every single individual that is tried in a criminal case received a fair trial. Since it is true that there is no such thing as a perfect court system we can’t start killing people because we believe beyond any doubt that this person deserves to die.  Some cases can be found to be unfair if you took the time to research them.  There have been many defendants that were physically attacked and they defended themselves. When they defended themselves they used a lethal weapon (usually a firearm) and killed the attacker. When these situations were speculated some of these people were convicted of murder because it was not considered  an act of self defense because of the use of a lethal weapon which can be consider as excessive force. So with these matters in mind it is possible for anyone to be convicted of a serious crime even if they had reasonable intentions and were given a trial.



Mahatma Ghandi
If someone is killed over a civil matter it is murder, If it is in a war it is called a casualty, if it is in court it is capital punishment. The only difference to me is what word you prefer to call it.
“An eye for an eye” is a very popular excerpt that many people believe in when speaking of justice, However, I would agree with a qoute from Mahatma Ghandi which is

  

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”

Is the Death Penalty Unconstitutional?


Some argue "Absolutely" and others "Absolutely Not". In my research I could not find a definite answer. I believe this topic is far more complicated than the black and white thinking, this falls in the gray area. An example the Fifth Amendment, which the Court believes strongly implies that the Framers did not intend to prevent the use of capital punishment. The 5th Amendment guarantees that no one shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." One could argue that the court is not depriving one of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. That the person themselves did that when they committed the punishable crime. You could also argue that the criminal was given a fair due process of law, which resulted in a sentence to death. "Supporters of the death penalty, however, assert that there are some crimes which are such an affront to human decency and to the norms of society that an individual who commits them surrenders his or her right to live." 


This brings us to the 14th Amendment: Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection. The equal application of the law. People are making the argument that this amendment is being broken by the unfair application of the death penalty. Two people can commit the same crime and their fate lies in the hands of the prosecutor not the law. 

 The eighth amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 
People argue that the lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. They maintain the opinion that evil should not be returned with state-sanctioned evil. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.-Mahatma Gandhi

"Others argue that we can never be 100% confident in the accuracy of trial verdicts and that persons should not be put to death even if their is the slightest chance they may be innocent."

In this nation's ongoing effort to strike the appropriate balance between liberty and order, the death penalty forces each of us to consider fundamental questions about nature of political society, the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the extent of governmental power.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

BAD PLAN FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD


            Recently in Texas women are having to find alternatives in health care. this is do to many planned parenthoods being shut down by the state. these programs were cut by two thirds in the last month leaving many women with out many options. before these women were able to get breast cancer screenings, free birth control and pap smears for cervical cancer. supporters of the cut backs are saying it was based mostly off of stopping abortions. now who its really hurting are low income women.

diego-tuesday-months-edga
http://youtu.be/LVb29M5zBAs

LIST OF EXONERATED MEN! HOW MANY INNOCENT HAVE DIED?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

My first thought after seeing this was "how many innocent people have "We The People murdered?"  No justice system is ever perfect, that is why the finality of Capital Punishment scares me.  I absolutely believe that some people deserve nothing but death for their crimes, but not at the cost of innocent lives.  Vladimer Lenin was once said to remark "better 100 innocent men die than one guilty man go free."  A perfect reflection of the state for which his Bolshevik revolution would create The Soviet Union.  Growing up as a child in the 1980's I am old enough to remember the threat of Communism and I was told by my parents that it and all of its policies were "EVIL" and they were the antithesis to the American way.  I was told that while life isn't fair I lived in one of the most free and fair societies in the world.  I was led to believe that I lived in a country that believed in civil rights, that believed that an innocent life was important.  I was led to believe that I lived in a society opposed to the ideology of Vladimir Lenin.  I was led to believe that I lived in a country that believed better to not put a hundred guilty men to death than murder one innocent man.  Why did my parents lie to me?

Saturday, March 10, 2012

History of Capital Punishment

 1.AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBYA, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZIMBABWE

 2.ALBANIA, ANDORRA, ANGOLA, ARGENTINA,ARMENIA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN, BELGIUM, BHUTAN, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA, CAMBODIA, CANADA, CAPE VERDE,CHILECOLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, COTE D'IVOIRE, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY, GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, HAITI, HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, IRELAND, ITALY, KIRIBATI, LIBERIA, LIECHTENSTEIN, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic), MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITIUS, MEXICO, MICRONESIA (Federated States), MOLDOVA, MONACO, MONTENEGRO, MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NEPAL, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NIUE, NORWAY, PALAU, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAMOA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SENEGAL, SERBIA, SEYCHELLES, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TIMOR-LESTE, TURKEY, TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, UZBEKISTAN, VANUATU, VATICAN CITY STATE, VENEZUELA

Above stands two lists: One a list of countries that have capital punishment laws, the other those countries that have abolished capital punishment.  I use the term abolish because most if not all countries at some point have used capital punishment for numerous reasons.  Whether or not you are for or against capital punishment is vital to understand its history,  here is an extremely shortened history of the death penalty taken from link below.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty#EarlyDeathPenaltyLaws 

Early Death Penalty Laws
The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. The death penalty was also part of the Fourteenth Century B.C.'s Hittite Code; in the Seventh Century B.C.'s Draconian Code of Athens, which made death the only punishment for all crimes; and in the Fifth Century B.C.'s Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets. Death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement.
In the Tenth Century A.D., hanging became the usual method of execution in Britain. In the following century, William the Conqueror would not allow persons to be hanged or otherwise executed for any crime, except in times of war. This trend would not last, for in the Sixteenth Century, under the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed. Some common methods of execution at that time were boiling, burning at the stake, hanging, beheading, and drawing and quartering. Executions were carried out for such capital offenses as marrying a Jew, not confessing to a crime, and treason.
The number of capital crimes in Britain continued to rise throughout the next two centuries. By the 1700s, 222 crimes were punishable by death in Britain, including stealing, cutting down a tree, and robbing a rabbit warren. Because of the severity of the death penalty, many juries would not convict defendants if the offense was not serious. This lead to reforms of Britain's death penalty. From 1823 to 1837, the death penalty was eliminated for over 100 of the 222 crimes punishable by death. (Randa, 1997)
The Death Penalty in America
Britain influenced America's use of the death penalty more than any other country. When European settlers came to the new world, they brought the practice of capital punishment. The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain. In 1612, Virginia Governor Sir Thomas Dale enacted the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, which provided the death penalty for even minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians.
Laws regarding the death penalty varied from colony to colony. The Massachusetts Bay Colony held its first execution in 1630, even though the Capital Laws of New England did not go into effect until years later. The New York Colony instituted the Duke's Laws of 1665. Under these laws, offenses such as striking one's mother or father, or denying the "true God," were punishable by death. (Randa, 1997)











The Abolitionist Movement

Colonial Times
The abolitionist movement finds its roots in the writings of European theorists Montesquieu, Voltaire and Bentham, and English Quakers John Bellers and John Howard. However, it was Cesare Beccaria's 1767 essay, On Crimes and Punishment, that had an especially strong impact throughout the world. In the essay, Beccaria theorized that there was no justification for the state's taking of a life. The essay gave abolitionists an authoritative voice and renewed energy, one result of which was the abolition of the death penalty in Austria and Tuscany. ( Schabas 1997)
American intellectuals as well were influenced by Beccaria. The first attempted reforms of the death penalty in the U.S. occurred when Thomas Jefferson introduced a bill to revise Virginia's death penalty laws. The bill proposed that capital punishment be used only for the crimes of murder and treason. It was defeated by only one vote.
Also influenced was Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and founder of the Pennsylvania Prison Society. Rush challenged the belief that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. In fact, Rush was an early believer in the "brutalization effect." He held that having a death penalty actually increased criminal conduct. Rush gained the support of Benjamin Franklin and Philadelphia Attorney General William Bradford. Bradford, who would later become the U.S. Attorney General, led Pennsylvania to become the first state to consider degrees of murder based on culpability. In 1794, Pennsylvania repealed the death penalty for all offenses except first degree murder. (Bohm, 1999; Randa, 1997; and Schabas, 1997)
Nineteenth Century
In the early to mid-Nineteenth Century, the abolitionist movement gained momentum in the northeast. In the early part of the century, many states reduced the number of their capital crimes and built state penitentiaries.In 1834, Pennsylvania became the first state to move executions away from the public eye and carrying them out in correctional facilities.
In 1846, Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty for all crimes except treason. Later, Rhode Island and Wisconsin abolished the death penalty for all crimes. By the end of the century, the world would see the countries of Venezuela, Portugal, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Brazil and Ecuador follow suit. (Bohm, 1999 and Schabas, 1997).
Although some U.S. states began abolishing the death penalty, most states held onto capital punishment. Some states made more crimes capital offenses, especially for offenses committed by slaves. In 1838, in an effort to make the death penalty more palatable to the public, some states began passing laws against mandatory death sentencing instead enacting discretionary death penalty statutes. The 1838 enactment of discretionary death penalty statutes in Tennessee, and later in Alabama, were seen as a great reform. This introduction of sentencing discretion in the capital process was perceived as a victory for abolitionists because prior to the enactment of these statutes, all states mandated the death penalty for anyone convicted of a capital crime, regardless of circumstances. With the exception of a small number of rarely committed crimes in a few jurisdictions, all mandatory capital punishment laws had been abolished by 1963. (Bohm, 1999)
During the Civil War, opposition to the death penalty waned, as more attention was given to the anti-slavery movement. After the war, new developments in the means of executions emerged. The electric chair was introduced at the end of the century. New York built the first electric chair in 1888, and in 1890 executed William Kemmler. Soon, other states adopted this execution method. (Randa, 1997)
Early and Mid-Twentieth Century
Although some states abolished the death penalty in the mid-Nineteenth Century, it was actually the first half of the Twentieth Century that marked the beginning of the "Progressive Period" of reform in the United States. From 1907 to 1917, six states completely outlawed the death penalty and three limited it to the rarely committed crimes of treason and first degree murder of a law enforcement official. However, this reform was short-lived. There was a frenzied atmosphere in the U.S., as citizens began to panic about the threat of revolution in the wake of the Russian Revolution. In addition, the U.S. had just entered World War I and there were intense class conflicts as socialists mounted the first serious challenge to capitalism. As a result, five of the six abolitionist states reinstated their death penalty by 1920.(Bedau, 1997 and Bohm, 1999)
In 1924, the use of cyanide gas was introduced, as Nevada sought a more humane way of executing its inmates. Gee Jon was the first person executed by lethal gas. The state tried to pump cyanide gas into Jon's cell while he slept, but this proved impossible, and the gas chamber was constructed. (Bohm, 1999)
From the 1920s to the 1940s, there was a resurgence in the use of the death penalty. This was due, in part, to the writings of criminologists, who argued that the death penalty was a necessary social measure. In the United States, Americans were suffering through Prohibition and the Great Depression. There were more executions in the 1930s than in any other decade in American history, an average of 167 per year. (Bohm, 1999 and Schabas, 1997)
In the 1950s, public sentiment began to turn away from capital punishment. Many allied nations either abolished or limited the death penalty, and in the U.S., the number of executions dropped dramatically. Whereas there were 1,289 executions in the 1940s, there were 715 in the 1950s, and the number fell even further, to only 191, from 1960 to 1976. In 1966, support for capital punishment reached an all-time low. A Gallup poll showed support for the death penalty at only 42%. (Bohm, 1999 and BJS, 1997)

Challenging the Death Penalty
The 1960s brought challenges to the fundamental legality of the death penalty. Before then, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were interpreted as permitting the death penalty. However, in the early 1960s, it was suggested that the death penalty was a "cruel and unusual" punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. In 1958, the Supreme Court had decided in Trop v. Dulles (356 U.S. 86), that the Eighth Amendment contained an "evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society." Although Trop was not a death penalty case, abolitionists applied the Court's logic to executions and maintained that the United States had, in fact, progressed to a point that its "standard of decency" should no longer tolerate the death penalty. (Bohm, 1999)
In the late 1960s, the Supreme Court began "fine tuning" the way the death penalty was administered. To this effect, the Court heard two cases in 1968 dealing with the discretion given to the prosecutor and the jury in capital cases. The first case was U.S. v. Jackson (390 U.S. 570), where the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding a provision of the federal kidnapping statute requiring that the death penalty be imposed only upon recommendation of a jury. The Court held that this practice was unconstitutional because it encouraged defendants to waive their right to a jury trial to ensure they would not receive a death sentence.
The other 1968 case was Witherspoon v. Illinois (391 U.S. 510). In this case, the Supreme Court held that a potential juror's mere reservations about the death penalty were insufficient grounds to prevent that person from serving on the jury in a death penalty case. Jurors could be disqualified only if prosecutors could show that the juror's attitude toward capital punishment would prevent him or her from making an impartial decision about the punishment.
In 1971, the Supreme Court again addressed the problems associated with the role of jurors and their discretion in capital cases. The Court decided Crampton v. Ohio and McGautha v. California (consolidated under 402 U.S. 183). The defendants argued it was a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process for jurors to have unrestricted discretion in deciding whether the defendants should live or die, and such discretion resulted in arbitrary and capricious sentencing. Crampton also argued that it was unconstitutional to have his guilt and sentence determined in one set of deliberations, as the jurors in his case were instructed that a first-degree murder conviction would result in a death sentence. The Court, however, rejected these claims, thereby approving of unfettered jury discretion and a single proceeding to determine guilt and sentence. The Court stated that guiding capital sentencing discretion was "beyond present human ability."
Suspending the Death Penalty
The issue of arbitrariness of the death penalty was again be brought before the Supreme Court in 1972 inFurman v. GeorgiaJackson v. Georgia, and Branch v. Texas (known collectively as the landmark case Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238)). Furman, like McGautha, argued that capital cases resulted in arbitrary and capricious sentencing. Furman, however, was a challenge brought under the Eighth Amendment, unlike McGautha, which was a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. With the Furman decision the Supreme Court set the standard that a punishment would be "cruel and unusual" if it was too severe for the crime, if it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or it if was not more effective than a less severe penalty.
In 9 separate opinions, and by a vote of 5 to 4, the Court held that Georgia's death penalty statute, which gave the jury complete sentencing discretion, could result in arbitrary sentencing. The Court held that the scheme of punishment under the statute was therefore "cruel and unusual" and violated the Eighth Amendment. Thus, on June 29, 1972, the Supreme Court effectively voided 40 death penalty statutes, thereby commuting the sentences of 629 death row inmates around the country and suspending the death penalty because existing statutes were no longer valid.
Reinstating the Death Penalty
Although the separate opinions by Justices Brennan and Marshall stated that the death penalty itself was unconstitutional, the overall holding in Furman was that the specific death penalty statutes were unconstitutional. With that holding, the Court essentially opened the door to states to rewrite their death penalty statutes to eliminate the problems cited in Furman. Advocates of capital punishment began proposing new statutes that they believed would end arbitrariness in capital sentencing. The states were led by Florida, which rewrote its death penalty statute only five months after Furman. Shortly after, 34 other states proceeded to enact new death penalty statutes. To address the unconstitutionality of unguided jury discretion, some states removed all of that discretion by mandating capital punishment for those convicted of capital crimes. However, this practice was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court inWoodson v. North Carolina (428 U.S. 280 (1976)).
Other states sought to limit that discretion by providing sentencing guidelines for the judge and jury when deciding whether to impose death. The guidelines allowed for the introduction of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining sentencing. These guided discretion statutes were approved in 1976 by the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia (428 U.S. 153), Jurek v. Texas (428 U.S. 262), and Proffitt v. Florida(428 U.S. 242), collectively referred to as the Gregg decision. This landmark decision held that the new death penalty statutes in Florida, Georgia, and Texas were constitutional, thus reinstating the death penalty in those states. The Court also held that the death penalty itself was constitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
In addition to sentencing guidelines, three other procedural reforms were approved by the Court in Gregg. The first was bifurcated trials, in which there are separate deliberations for the guilt and penalty phases of the trial. Only after the jury has determined that the defendant is guilty of capital murder does it decide in a second trial whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or given a lesser sentence of prison time. Another reform was the practice of automatic appellate review of convictions and sentence. The final procedural reform from Gregg was proportionality review, a practice that helps the state to identify and eliminate sentencing disparities. Through this process, the state appellate court can compare the sentence in the case being reviewed with other cases within the state, to see if it is disproportionate.
Because these reforms were accepted by the Supreme Court, some states wishing to reinstate the death penalty included them in their new death penalty statutes. The Court, however, did not require that each of the reforms be present in the new statutes. Therefore, some of the resulting new statutes include variations on the procedural reforms found in Gregg.
The ten-year moratorium on executions that had begun with the Jackson and Witherspoon decisions ended on January 17, 1977, with the execution of Gary Gilmore by firing squad in Utah. Gilmore did not challenge his death sentence. That same year, Oklahoma became the first state to adopt lethal injection as a means of execution, though it would be five more years until Charles Brooks became the first person executed by lethal injection in Texas on December 7, 1982.










Limiting the Death Penalty

In the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This 1948 doctrine proclaimed a "right to life" in an absolute fashion, any limitations being only implicit. Knowing that international abolition of the death penalty was not yet a realistic goal in the years following the Universal Declaration, the United Nations shifted its focus to limiting the scope of the death penalty to protect juveniles, pregnant women, and the elderly.
During the 1950s and 1960s subsequent international human rights treaties were drafted, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights. These documents also provided for the right to life, but included the death penalty as an exception that must be accompanied by strict procedural safeguards. Despite this exception, many nations throughout Western Europe stopped using capital punishment, even if they did not, technically, abolish it. As a result, this de facto abolition became the norm in Western Europe by the 1980s. (Schabas, 1997)










Limitations within the United States
Despite growing European abolition, the U.S. retained the death penalty, but established limitations on capital punishment.
In 1977, the United States Supreme Court held in Coker v. Georgia (433 U.S. 584) that the death penalty is an unconstitutional punishment for the rape of an adult woman when the victim was not killed. Other limits to the death penalty followed in the next decade.
  • Mental Illness and Intellectual Disability 
    In 1986, the Supreme Court banned the execution of insane persons and required an adversarial process for determining mental competency in Ford v. Wainwright (477 U.S. 399). In Penry v. Lynaugh (492 U.S. 584 (1989)), the Court held that executing persons with "mental retardation" was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia, (536 U.S. 304), the Court held that a national consensus had evolved against the execution of the "mentally retarded" and concluded that such a punishment violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
  • Race
    Race became the focus of the criminal justice debate when the Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79 (1986)) that a prosecutor who strikes a disproportionate number of citizens of the same race in selecting a jury is required to rebut the inference of discrimination by showing neutral reasons for the strikes.
    Race was again in the forefront when the Supreme Court decided the 1987 case, McCleskey v. Kemp (481 U.S. 279). McCleskey argued that there was racial discrimination in the application of Georgia's death penalty, by presenting a statistical analysis showing a pattern of racial disparities in death sentences, based on the race of the victim. The Supreme Court held, however, that racial disparities would not be recognized as a constitutional violation of "equal protection of the law" unless intentional racial discrimination against the defendant could be shown.
  • Juveniles
    In the late 1980s, the Supreme Court decided three cases regarding the constitutionality of executing juvenile offenders. In 1988, in Thompson v. Oklahoma (487 U.S. 815), four Justices held that the execution of offenders aged fifteen and younger at the time of their crimes was unconstitutional. The fifth vote was Justice O'Connor's concurrence, which restricted Thompson only to states without a specific minimum age limit in their death penalty statute. The combined effect of the opinions by the four Justices and Justice O'Connor in Thompson is that no state without a minimum age in its death penalty statute can execute someone who was under sixteen at the time of the crime.
    The following year, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty for crimes committed at age sixteen or seventeen. (Stanford v. Kentucky, and Wilkins v. Missouri (collectively, 492 U.S. 361)). At present, 19 states with the death penalty bar the execution of anyone under 18 at the time of his or her crime.
    In 1992, the United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6(5) of this international human rights doctrine requires that the death penalty not be used on those who committed their crimes when they were below the age of 18. However, in doing so but the U.S. reserved the right to execute juvenile offenders. The United States is the only country with an outstanding reservation to this Article. International reaction has been highly critical of this reservation, and ten countries have filed formal objections to the U.S. reservation.
    In March 2005, Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court declared the practice of executing defendants whose crimes were committed as juveniles unconstitutional in Roper v. Simmons.

    Additional Death Penalty Issues
    The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of executing someone who claimed actual innocence inHerrera v. Collins (506 U.S. 390 (1993)). Although the Court left open the possibility that the Constitution bars the execution of someone who conclusively demonstrates that he or she is actually innocent, the Court noted that such cases would be very rare. The Court held that, in the absence of other constitutional violations, new evidence of innocence is no reason for federal courts to order a new trial. The Court also held that an innocent inmate could seek to prevent his execution through the clemency process, which, historically, has been "the 'fail safe' in our justice system." Herrera was not granted clemency, and was executed in 1993.
    Since Herrera, concern regarding the possibility of executing the innocent has grown. Currently, over 115 people in 25 states have been released from death row because of innocence since 1973. In November, 1998 Northwestern University held the first-ever National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty, in Chicago, Illinois. The Conference, which drew nationwide attention, brought together 30 of these wrongfully convicted inmates who were exonerated and released from death row. Many of these cases were discovered not as the result of the justice system, but instead as the result of new scientific techniques, investigations by journalism students, and the work of volunteer attorneys. These resources are not available to the typical death row inmate.
    In January 2000, after Illinois had released 13 innocent inmates from death row in the same time that it had executed 12 people, Illinois Governor George Ryan declared a moratorium on executions and appointed a blue-ribbon Commission on Capital Punishment to study the issue.
    Support for the death penalty has fluctuated throughout the century. According to Gallup surveys, in 1936 61% of Americans favored the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. Support reached an all-time low of 42% in 1966. Throughout the 70s and 80s, the percentage of Americans in favor of the death penalty increased steadily, culminating in an 80% approval rating in 1994. A May 2004 Gallup Poll found that a growing number of Americans support a sentence of life without parole rather than the death penalty for those convicted of murder. Gallup found that 46% of respondents favor life imprisonment over the death penalty, up from 44% in May 2003. During that same time frame, support for capital punishment as an alternative fell from 53% to 50%. The poll also revealed a growing skepticism that the death penalty deters crime, with 62% of those polled saying that it is not a deterrent. These percentages are a dramatic shift from the responses given to this same question in 1991, when 51% of Americans believed the death penalty deterred crime and only 41% believed it did not. Only 55% of those polled responded that they believed the death penalty is implemented fairly, down from 60% in 2003. When not offered an alternative sentence, 71% supported the death penalty and 26% opposed. The overall support is about the same as that reported in 2002, but down from the 80% support in 1994. (Gallup Poll News Service, June 2, 2004). (See also, DPIC's report, Sentencing for Life: American's Embrace Alternatives to the Death Penatly)

    Religion
    In the 1970s, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), representing more then 10 million conservative Christians and 47 denominations, and the Moral Majority, were among the Christian groups supporting the death penalty. NAE's successor, the Christian Coalition, also supports the death penalty. Today, Fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches support the death penalty, typically on biblical grounds, specifically citing the Old Testament. (Bedau, 1997). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regards the question as a matter to be decided solely by the process of civil law, and thus neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment.
    Although traditionally also a supporter of capital punishment, the Roman Catholic Church now oppose the death penalty. In addition, most Protestant denominations, including Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and the United Church of Christ, oppose the death penalty. During the 1960s, religious activists worked to abolish the death penalty, and continue to do so today.
    In recent years, and in the wake of a recent appeal by Pope John Paul II to end the death penalty, religious organizations around the nation have issued statements opposing the death penalty. Complete texts of many of these statements can be found at www.deathpenaltyreligious.org.



Federal Laws Providing for the death Penalty.  Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics: Capital Punishment 2009.

8 U.S.C. 1342Murder related to the smuggling of aliens.
18 U.S.C. 32-34Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death.
18 U.S.C. 36Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting.
18 U.S.C. 37Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation.
18 U.S.C. 115(b)(3)
[by cross-reference
to 18 U.S.C. 1111]
Retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials.
18 U.S.C. 241,
242, 245, 247
Civil rights offenses resulting in death.
18 U.S.C. 351
[by cross-reference
to 18 U.S.C. 1111]
Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice.
18 U.S.C. 794Espionage.
18 U.S.C. 844(d), (f), (i)Death resulting from offenses involving transportation of explosives, destruction of government property, or destruction of property related to foreign or interstate commerce.
18 U.S.C. 924(i)Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime.
18 U.S.C. 930Murder committed in a Federal Government facility.
18 U.S.C. 1091Genocide.
18 U.S.C. 1111First-degree murder.
18 U.S.C. 1114Murder of a Federal judge or law enforcement official.
18 U.S.C. 1116Murder of a foreign official.
18 U.S.C. 1118Murder by a Federal prisoner.
18 U.S.C. 1119Murder of a U.S. national in a foreign country.
18 U.S.C. 1120Murder by an escaped Federal prisoner already sentenced to life imprisonment.
18 U.S.C. 1121Murder of a State or local law enforcement official or other person aiding in a Federal investigation; murder of a State correctional officer.
18 U.S.C. 1201Murder during a kidnapping.
18 U.S.C. 1203Murder during a hostage taking.
18 U.S.C. 1503Murder of a court officer or juror.
18 U.S.C. 1512Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a witness, victim, or informant.
18 U.S.C. 1513Retaliatory murder of a witness, victim, or informant.
18 U.S.C. 1716Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death.
18 U.S.C. 1751
[by cross-reference
to 18 U.S.C. 1111]
Assassination or kidnapping resulting in the death of the President or Vice President.
18 U.S.C. 1958Murder for hire.
18 U.S.C. 1959Murder involved in a racketeering offense.
18 U.S.C. 1992Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death.
18 U.S.C. 2113Bank-robbery-related murder or kidnapping.
18 U.S.C. 2119Murder related to a carjacking.
18 U.S.C. 2245Murder related to rape or child molestation.
18 U.S.C. 2251Murder related to sexual exploitation of children.
18 U.S.C. 2280Murder committed during an offense against maritime navigation.
18 U.S.C. 2281Murder committed during an offense against a maritime fixed platform.
18 U.S.C. 2332Terrorist murder of a U.S. national in another country.
18 U.S.C. 2332aMurder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
18 U.S.C. 2340Murder involving torture.
18 U.S.C. 2381Treason.
21 U.S.C. 848(e)Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or related murder of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
49 U.S.C. 1472-1473Death resulting from aircraft hijacking.

Throughout history since man has congregated and social classes were created crime has existed.  To counter-act this punishments were created which were meant to deter.  If this form of prevention wasn't to work then the criminal would be shown how brutal punishment is.  Throughout history Capital punishment somewhere is one constant.  The question we must ask ourselves, have we as a culture, a civilization evolved past our current forms of punishment?  We don't stone people to death for growing two different crops next to each other according to Hebrew Law as recorded in Leviticus.  We don't send our criminals to be cooked alive inside our "Brazen Bull" which Draconian Law would have us do.  And we most certainly don't boil our criminals to death as Henry VIII would have us do.  We have thankfully "evolved" from these forms of punishment.   Is it time to re-think our position on capital punishment?  In the beginning of this blog I wrote two paragraphs.  The first the company America keeps,  the second the countries that have abolished the death penalty.  Which grouping of countries do you believe best represents your ideals?