Wrongfull Convictions...Death Penalty?

I decided to write about the death penalty because a friend/co-worker of mine asked me how I felt about the death penalty....My initial response was that I have no issues with the death penalty, if a person murdered another person then that person should be put to death as well, like the saying "an eye for an eye."

I don't really think she had any intentions about taking the conversation further but that night I went home and did some internet reading about the death penalty only to discover some interesting facts.

I read in a The Justice Project article, since the death penalty was reinstated in the 1970s, 130 "convicted" people have been pulled from death row in 26 states due to faulty evidence. That right there made me re-think my thoughts on the death penalty...how can the justice system claim to be "ethical" and give "fair trails" if that many people have been exonerated from death row? I also came across another article in the Austin American Statesman about a man named Todd Willingham who was executed in 2004 based off faulty evidence...??? Another red flag in my book, the scary thing is Gov. Perry replaced the chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission because he was going to "expose" what really happened (read the article, it's interesting).

The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases because of all of the process that must happen in order for the conviction to stand ie..pre-trial time will be needed to prepare cases, more attorneys will be provided for the defense and the prosecution, the process of finding and housing jurors, multiple trials will occur and they take longer than non-death penalty trials. Think about it this way: If the person on trial for murder can't afford an attorney the state is required to provide legal representation to that person which means somewhere down the line the tax payers might be paying for the trail and representation for that person.

With this little bit of information I found I kind of questioned the in's and out's of our trial system and the death penalty. There are plenty of statistics out there that show its "cheaper" to keep someone on a life sentence with out the option of parole than to sentence someone to death in many different states but I still find my self wanting a truly and rightfully convicted murder to be sentenced to death but I just don't know if it's fully possible for someone to have a "fair" trial.

Pragmatist...Obama??

Jonah Goldberg wrote an article titled, "Where did Obama the pragmatist go?" it was published in the Dallas Morning News paper along with The Los Angeles Times and the New York Post. In this article Goldberg discusses his views and opinions based off a sentence that President Obama said in his speech when he accepted the Democratic bid for presidency in Denver. Goldberg feels that Obama isn't holding up to that part of his speech.

Jonah Goldberg it the founding editor of National Review Online and is currently the editor-at-large. He also was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his column in the Los Angeles Times. Currently his column is carried by 4 major newspapers. Goldberg is also the author of Liberal Fascism a book that hit number 1 on Amazon.com and The New York Times. I feel like Goldberg has a good political head on his shoulders. He probably understands politics a lot better than I, however I feel that most people that have the drive to follow politics like he does becomes bias towards their political party of choice. I just don't see how someone can write and article of any kind with out the haze in their minds.

I kind of feel like Goldberg isn't just talking about one thing in this article, in the beginning of the article he is talking about the war in Afghanistan and then he talks about the economy in the United States and then back to Afghanistan. Goldberg even throws Joe Biden's name in the ring with one sentence. I guess ultimately Goldberg feels that Obama isn't acting as a pragmatist (a person who thinks practically).

As I have said before, I have never kept up with politics but it seems that Obama was given a nation that was already in some form of depression and NO ONE can just turn things around with the drop of a hat...things change and people change. It's not like Obama has suddenly taken on Republican or Liberal Views. He gave that speech over a year ago...a lot has happened since then, even I know that.

A look at youth violence

I came across the article "Combating Root Causes of Youth Violence," written by Clarence Page on the Dallas Morning News web site. In the article Clarence writes about youth violence in Chicago and the negative effects it could have on Chicago's bid for the Olympics in 2016. He mentions some of the recent violence in Rio de Janeiro as well.

In 1972 Clarence Page contributed his work to the Chicago Tribune Task Force articles on fraudulent voting, which won the Pulitzer Prize. He also won the Edward Scott Beck Award in 1976 for reporting overseas on the changing politics in South Africa. After I read his bio I feel like he is a very reputable columnist.

In the article Page mentions that some Chicagoans feel like Chicago is too unsafe to host the Olympics, he then brings up recent violence in Rio but fails to mention anything "unsafe" about the other cities (Tokyo and Madrid) in the bid for the Olympics. Before I finished the article I thought "if he is writing about the potential host cities for the Olympics then why not mention the flaws about ALL of the cities... However by the time I finished reading the whole article I realized that Page might have just mentioned Chicago's bid for the Olympics as a starting point for what he was really arguing for.

I think that Page is really arguing for some kind of support for social reform in Chicago (and Rio)... (since he really doesn't mention anything about the other cities) and using the Olympics as a "tool" for his argument. Page states, "that most of the violence happens in parts of the cities where no tourist would normally go." So it makes it easy to turn a blind eye to the problem...

At the end of the article (this is where I feel that the point of Page's argument is made) Page mentions an organization based out of Washington that has come up with a "violence-free zones" around neighborhoods and schools where there are adults (advisors) with clean background but have the street smarts to build trusts with kids to help keep them out of trouble. This program is set up in Milwaukee, Baltimore, Atlanta, Dallas and Richmond as well. The president of the organization Robert Woodson says, "Kids are targeted not for being in a gang but for coming from a different neighborhood." Page argues, "Effective advisors might be able to act as an antibody to the kids in a toxic atmosphere so that they will feel more comfortable (and not be accused or punished by other kids for snitching) when they report violence in the neighborhoods."

Page is probably targeting the parents of the children in these situation to encourage them to speak up and out about violence they come across from other children. He might also be trying to encourage other adults to become an advisors in other cities to help control violence.

I enjoyed reading the article although I thought that it would be more about the Olympics (based on his opening) and how to handle the violence if Chicago wins the bid.

On a completely random side note, I think It's funny that spell check thinks I spelled "advisor/s" wrong!!