David Keaton was sentenced to death in Florida. Seven years later, he was proven innocent of the crime, exonerated, and released. In Deadline, his brother says, “Growing up black in this state, you know, you really didn’t have a chance when it came to a crime. You know, they say that justice is blind, but justice really isn’t blind.” How would you respond to this statement? From watching the film, what role do you think race plays in capital cases?
I agree that the justice system in the United States, as far as the death penalty is concerned, is undeniably corrupt. Juries and judges are influenced by racial stereotypes and prejudices, and often defendants cannot afford an experienced and competent lawyer to defend them. Justice is not blind, it sees race, gender, and social class, and, as a result, innocent lives are sacrificed. The race of persons on trial for homicide as well as their economic status, may condemn them, rather than the facts of the case or the evidence against them. \
The film frequently references the 1972 Furman v. Georgia decision that the death penalty was in violation of the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. The 8th Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” How does this constitutional issue play a role in your opinions for or against the death penalty?
This issue is one of the most influential pieces of reasoning that have shaped my views on the death penalty. While I often drift to abolish the penalty when I hear of innocents suffering, then back to re-instating it when truly evil, guilty people are allowed to live, I feel that society as a whole will soon ready for the end of the death penalty. Each method of capital punishment is cruel in itself. Hanging, gunfire, gas, injection. All are painful, and can be botched, leading victims to gruesome ends. I predict that society will soon out grow the need for such barbaric methods of enforcing justice, and so, I am against the death penalty.
John Allen Muhammad (one of the Washington D.C. snipers) and Timothy McVeigh (one of the Oklahoma City bombers) both received the death penalty after widely publicized trials. Their respective counterparts, Lee Boyd Malvo and Terry Lee Nichols were also found guilty of their crimes in similar trials, yet they received life sentences rather than the death penalty. How do you account for this apparent discrepancy in sentencing for heinous crimes?
In cases such as these, the corruption of the justice system becomes vividly apparent. Why is it that two criminals can escape death, while two are killed for the same crimes? The media is the answer. Politics is the answer. Politicians, newspapers and television networks want to entertain and appeal to the public, this is how they gain support. Because Muhammad and McVeigh's cases were highlighted by the media, everyone involved in the case felt the need to act to improve their own images, rather than to seek justice. The public likes it when horrible people are sentenced to death. That is why two men can be killed in the public eye, while two are allowed to live. This is a massive issue with the justice system. Criminals can slip under the radar, or be thrust under the spotlight. Which place one receives is all too arbitrary, and the outcomes of both are all too final to be left to the mere whims of the public.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Life and Death Decisions: Examining the Death Penalty
The standard capital offense case is an eight-stage process ending in either life in prison, years in prison, or execution. Within this process, there are several stages designed to protect the rights of the accused and guard against wrongful execution. One of these is the preliminary trial. Because police are often pressured to find suspects, plenty of innocent people may be accused for capital crimes. It is up to the jury of the preliminary hearing to determine whether or not a person who has been accused may be prosecuted. If the offender is prosecuted, they sit before a judge and grand jury of 23 people (who should be unbiased). The jury will examine both aggravating factors (those that strengthen the prosecutor's case) and mitigating factors (those that strengthen the defendants case). By allowing the review of mitigating factors, the jury can decide if extenuating circumstances (such as mental disablilty, bad background, etc.) play a role in the defendent's life and could give them a more lienient sentance. The defendent also has the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the burden of the prosection to prove guilt, the defendent need not prove their innocence, though they should introduce evidence to affirm it or weaken the prosectuion's accusation of guilt. If the defendent is proven guilty, they no can no longer assume innocence. Now, they must prove that their was some mistake in the proceedings during the appeal process. The defendant can appeal to higher courts, and even petition the Supreme Court for a writ of Ceritorairi (though such cases are rarely accepted). Finally, the defendant can petition the governor of the state or the president for clemency (mercy), otherwise they face execution.
I do not believe that this system is perfect by any means. If a person is wrongfully accused in the first place, and then is convicted, their sentance could be a result of jury bias or other factors. Also, it is a difficult and rigorus process to appeal a case, and if the defendent's representative fails or makes a mistake in the proceedings, they may lose their chance at a new trial, and life. Then, since so few cases are accepted by the Supreme Court, the defendant depends on clemency to save them from execution. If this fails, their execution could be carried out by hanging, gas chamber, leathal injection, electrocution, or firing squad.
All of these methods strike me as cruel and unusual in one way or another. Leathal injection, for instance, is not carried out by a proffesional doctor, which often leads to mistakes that cause inmates extreme pain during execution. As for the firing squad, the execution can either be a quick loss of conciousness as blood is cut off from major vessels and the brain, or, if the squad misses, a slow painful process of bleeding to death. If the methods for hanging are not correctly set up, the inmate can die from slow asphyxiation. Victims of gas chamber executions "nodded their heads" when they felt pain, and doctors likened the process to that of a heart attack, which causes a great deal of pain and anxiety.
Looking at a map of the death penalty and its use, certain trends appear. For instance, the most executions took place in the South (in those states in which the death penalty still exists). Also, the number of inmates on death row was larger in the South/South-East. There also seemed to be a positive correlation between the number of homicides committed in state and the number of executions (more murders may mean more executions). Perhaps the majority views on the death penalty are different depending on the region. This may affect the jury views and cause some bias or risk of arbitrary sentencing in those states where the death penalty is more widely accepted as a norm.
The former IL capital punishment murder statute states the grounds for a perpetrator to receive the death penalty. These include the cold and premeditated murder of an individual, murder caused by hijacking, terrorism, murder of disabled persons, murder of government personnel, school personnel, doctors or EMTs and other emergency responders (ex. firefighters), use of torture on a victim and so on. These are all heinous acts which I believe could warrant a death penalty sentencing. However, I feel that IL has made a mature and just decision in abolishing the death penalty. I would infer that the government did so based on changing public opinion and the gradual change of societal viewpoints on execution as punishment in this day and age.
I am surprised at how expensive the death penalty is for taxpayers compared to sentences of life without parole and so on. One would assume that the one injection costs less than the years in prison, but the numbers say otherwise. I still believe that IL made the right decision in eliminating capital punishment, it appears to be saving taxpayers money. I also believe it was the right choice because of arbitrary sentencing caused by racial discrimination. I was shocked to see the graph that depicted the number of persons executed and wether or not the victim was white and the defendant black or the defendant white and the victim black. Only 17 white defendants were executed for killing black victims, yet a whopping 255 black defendants were executed for killing white victims. This is a huge discrepancy that I believe contributes to a cycle of prejudice, bias, and arbitrary execution based on race, which is unacceptable. Where there is high support for alternative sentencing and such striking examples of abuse, I believe it is the role of the state to abolish the penalty before more innocent people are subjected to needless suffering and more guilty people have their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments revoked. I mainly agree with the position of the death penalty information center, which appears to be against the death penalty and in favor of more humane methods of punishment. Yet, I still find myself waffling on this issue when I think of the families of victims and what kind of closure they need to deal with their loss. It depends on the circumstances of the individual case, including aggravating and mitigating factors, and even then, I wonder if we even have the right to decide issues of life or death. Punishment that is so extreme cannot be taken back and should by no means be given lightly or arbitrarily.
I do not believe that this system is perfect by any means. If a person is wrongfully accused in the first place, and then is convicted, their sentance could be a result of jury bias or other factors. Also, it is a difficult and rigorus process to appeal a case, and if the defendent's representative fails or makes a mistake in the proceedings, they may lose their chance at a new trial, and life. Then, since so few cases are accepted by the Supreme Court, the defendant depends on clemency to save them from execution. If this fails, their execution could be carried out by hanging, gas chamber, leathal injection, electrocution, or firing squad.
All of these methods strike me as cruel and unusual in one way or another. Leathal injection, for instance, is not carried out by a proffesional doctor, which often leads to mistakes that cause inmates extreme pain during execution. As for the firing squad, the execution can either be a quick loss of conciousness as blood is cut off from major vessels and the brain, or, if the squad misses, a slow painful process of bleeding to death. If the methods for hanging are not correctly set up, the inmate can die from slow asphyxiation. Victims of gas chamber executions "nodded their heads" when they felt pain, and doctors likened the process to that of a heart attack, which causes a great deal of pain and anxiety.
Looking at a map of the death penalty and its use, certain trends appear. For instance, the most executions took place in the South (in those states in which the death penalty still exists). Also, the number of inmates on death row was larger in the South/South-East. There also seemed to be a positive correlation between the number of homicides committed in state and the number of executions (more murders may mean more executions). Perhaps the majority views on the death penalty are different depending on the region. This may affect the jury views and cause some bias or risk of arbitrary sentencing in those states where the death penalty is more widely accepted as a norm.
The former IL capital punishment murder statute states the grounds for a perpetrator to receive the death penalty. These include the cold and premeditated murder of an individual, murder caused by hijacking, terrorism, murder of disabled persons, murder of government personnel, school personnel, doctors or EMTs and other emergency responders (ex. firefighters), use of torture on a victim and so on. These are all heinous acts which I believe could warrant a death penalty sentencing. However, I feel that IL has made a mature and just decision in abolishing the death penalty. I would infer that the government did so based on changing public opinion and the gradual change of societal viewpoints on execution as punishment in this day and age.
I am surprised at how expensive the death penalty is for taxpayers compared to sentences of life without parole and so on. One would assume that the one injection costs less than the years in prison, but the numbers say otherwise. I still believe that IL made the right decision in eliminating capital punishment, it appears to be saving taxpayers money. I also believe it was the right choice because of arbitrary sentencing caused by racial discrimination. I was shocked to see the graph that depicted the number of persons executed and wether or not the victim was white and the defendant black or the defendant white and the victim black. Only 17 white defendants were executed for killing black victims, yet a whopping 255 black defendants were executed for killing white victims. This is a huge discrepancy that I believe contributes to a cycle of prejudice, bias, and arbitrary execution based on race, which is unacceptable. Where there is high support for alternative sentencing and such striking examples of abuse, I believe it is the role of the state to abolish the penalty before more innocent people are subjected to needless suffering and more guilty people have their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments revoked. I mainly agree with the position of the death penalty information center, which appears to be against the death penalty and in favor of more humane methods of punishment. Yet, I still find myself waffling on this issue when I think of the families of victims and what kind of closure they need to deal with their loss. It depends on the circumstances of the individual case, including aggravating and mitigating factors, and even then, I wonder if we even have the right to decide issues of life or death. Punishment that is so extreme cannot be taken back and should by no means be given lightly or arbitrarily.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Play Time
Shakespeare is daunting. Whether it's the iambic pentameter, the archaic language, or the sheer volume of the works, some synapse in student's minds translates the name to "torture." Why? Because it is, more often than not, tough, boring, and silent work to read an annotate. Even with the margin notes, it is sometimes impossible to comprehend. So, it is no wonder that my English class let out a collective groan when we heard that our next book was Hamlet. I could see, sitting in my desk, book in hand, how the next month or so would play out. I could picture the late nights (I tend to do any reading homework last, for no apparent reason) staring alternately at the black and white page and the clock, watching the lines on both blur in and out of focus. I would contemplate just spark-noting the thing and having done with it. I would decide that it wasn't worth it. Then, I would keep going until I was too tired or too frustrated to continue, whereupon I would throw the book onto my backpack and leave the fate of my performance on the quiz to some higher power.
This year, however, it is not so. Hamlet is, above all things, a play. And this is something my teacher has recognized. Therefore, we are reading it (for the most part) aloud, together. Now, seemingly meaningless phrases take on life. The characters have passion and fear. The audience (our class) has interest. It is still slow work, finding the right emphasis, using the right tone, but it is engaging. Shakespeare reaches its full potential not when it is read, but when it is performed. It should, above all things, be entertaining. It is not a lecture or a brief or a textbook passage. It's active and fun to watch and perform. That's why it's called a "play."
This year, however, it is not so. Hamlet is, above all things, a play. And this is something my teacher has recognized. Therefore, we are reading it (for the most part) aloud, together. Now, seemingly meaningless phrases take on life. The characters have passion and fear. The audience (our class) has interest. It is still slow work, finding the right emphasis, using the right tone, but it is engaging. Shakespeare reaches its full potential not when it is read, but when it is performed. It should, above all things, be entertaining. It is not a lecture or a brief or a textbook passage. It's active and fun to watch and perform. That's why it's called a "play."
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Eating Animals: Semiotics and Suffering
I am another chapter into Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals, and having waded carefully into this book of introspection and macro-views, am pleased to find I'm learning new things. In this chapter Foer discusses words and their meanings (appropriate, as the chapter's name is "Words/Meaning"). Words like fresh and free-range on food packaging normally conjure up images of lush green valleys, healthy animals, and general peace and happiness. Foer dispels the illusion in just a few quick blows. First, however, he talks about humanity and how we view animals as separate from ourselves. Most humans are anthropocentric, we believe we are the "pinnacle of evolution, the appropriate yardstick by which to measure the lives of other animals, and the rightful owners of everything that lives" (46). Does this give us the right to be cruel? To most widely accepted religions and moral codes, no. And yet, we turn a blind eye to the harsh realities of animal treatment, especially treatment of those unlucky creatures that will become breakfast, lunch, and dinner for so many.
Lets talk about chickens. Lots of folks eat chicken. Chicken was the last land-based meat substance I gave up as a child. I used to enjoy chicken nuggets with the best of 'em. Then, I began to equate the little breaded dinosaur shapes with the fluffy, yellow chicks I saw on farms and at petting zoos. Too cute. Then I thought about the feathered birds, their beady black eyes, their squawks and flapping. Too real. Too alive. Nothing like the little breaded lumps that were in the oven and then on my dinner plate. Chicken went off the menu. Eggs, however, stayed on.
"The typical cage for egg-laying hens allows each sixty-seven square inches of floor space. . .[the size of] a sheet of printer paper." (47). These cages are piled one on top of another for stories and stories of cramped, frightened, birds. The wire floors cut their feet. Some can't even stand, their cages are so tight. In order to get a feeling for the bird's feelings, Foer asks us to imagine an elevator, "an elevator so crowded you cannot turn around without bumping into (and aggravating) you neighbor. The elevator is so crowded you are often held aloft. This is kind of a blessing, as the slanted floor is made of wire, which cuts into your feet. After some time, . . . some will become violent; others will go mad. A few, deprived of food and hope, will become cannibalistic. . . No elevator repairman is coming. The doors will open once, at the end of your life, for your journey to the only place worse (see: Processing)." (47).
But that's okay. One can just eat free-range chicken and eggs. No sweat. No cruelty. Right? RIGHT???
Wrong, says Foer. Free range implies room to roam, sunshine, food, all the comforts your future chicken nuggets/ omelette layers could ask for. What it really means is this: "access to the outdoors,' which, if you take those words literally, means nothing." Chickens that are free-range simply are not in cages. They can be cramped, stuffed, crawling over and under each other, in their own feces, starving for air in a warehouse, but they are not in cages. And that outdoor access? There's a little window at the top of the warehouse that someone theoretically could open to let in a little light. Maybe.
Well that's just disgusting, one might say. It's a good thing my chicken comes fresh in nice, clean packages at the grocery, shiny and ready to be cooked/eaten. That's another word. Fresh. Which Foer tells us is "more bullshit. According to USDA, 'fresh' poultry has never had an internal temp. below 26 degrees or above 40 degrees Fahrenheit. . . Pathogen-infested, feces-splattered chicken can technically be fresh, cage-free, and free-range, and sold in the supermarket legally (the shit does not need to be rinsed off first)." This is the last time I put eggs on the grocery list, assuming they're from a factory farm.
Factory farming is a term that "is sure to fall out of use in the next generation or so, either because there will be no more factory farms, or because there will be no more family farms to compare them to" (59). This generation is the food industry's animals' last chance. If we continue to purchase and promote goods from factory farms which privately ignore and even condone animal suffering (when it makes the corporation more money to starve chickens or put male chicks from egg layers in a shredder, why not?), we may see any truly humane farms die out.
If that doesn't make you put down the nuggets and the egg carton, I don't know what will.
Lets talk about chickens. Lots of folks eat chicken. Chicken was the last land-based meat substance I gave up as a child. I used to enjoy chicken nuggets with the best of 'em. Then, I began to equate the little breaded dinosaur shapes with the fluffy, yellow chicks I saw on farms and at petting zoos. Too cute. Then I thought about the feathered birds, their beady black eyes, their squawks and flapping. Too real. Too alive. Nothing like the little breaded lumps that were in the oven and then on my dinner plate. Chicken went off the menu. Eggs, however, stayed on.
"The typical cage for egg-laying hens allows each sixty-seven square inches of floor space. . .[the size of] a sheet of printer paper." (47). These cages are piled one on top of another for stories and stories of cramped, frightened, birds. The wire floors cut their feet. Some can't even stand, their cages are so tight. In order to get a feeling for the bird's feelings, Foer asks us to imagine an elevator, "an elevator so crowded you cannot turn around without bumping into (and aggravating) you neighbor. The elevator is so crowded you are often held aloft. This is kind of a blessing, as the slanted floor is made of wire, which cuts into your feet. After some time, . . . some will become violent; others will go mad. A few, deprived of food and hope, will become cannibalistic. . . No elevator repairman is coming. The doors will open once, at the end of your life, for your journey to the only place worse (see: Processing)." (47).
But that's okay. One can just eat free-range chicken and eggs. No sweat. No cruelty. Right? RIGHT???
Wrong, says Foer. Free range implies room to roam, sunshine, food, all the comforts your future chicken nuggets/ omelette layers could ask for. What it really means is this: "access to the outdoors,' which, if you take those words literally, means nothing." Chickens that are free-range simply are not in cages. They can be cramped, stuffed, crawling over and under each other, in their own feces, starving for air in a warehouse, but they are not in cages. And that outdoor access? There's a little window at the top of the warehouse that someone theoretically could open to let in a little light. Maybe.
Well that's just disgusting, one might say. It's a good thing my chicken comes fresh in nice, clean packages at the grocery, shiny and ready to be cooked/eaten. That's another word. Fresh. Which Foer tells us is "more bullshit. According to USDA, 'fresh' poultry has never had an internal temp. below 26 degrees or above 40 degrees Fahrenheit. . . Pathogen-infested, feces-splattered chicken can technically be fresh, cage-free, and free-range, and sold in the supermarket legally (the shit does not need to be rinsed off first)." This is the last time I put eggs on the grocery list, assuming they're from a factory farm.
Factory farming is a term that "is sure to fall out of use in the next generation or so, either because there will be no more factory farms, or because there will be no more family farms to compare them to" (59). This generation is the food industry's animals' last chance. If we continue to purchase and promote goods from factory farms which privately ignore and even condone animal suffering (when it makes the corporation more money to starve chickens or put male chicks from egg layers in a shredder, why not?), we may see any truly humane farms die out.
If that doesn't make you put down the nuggets and the egg carton, I don't know what will.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Drug Testing in Schools: Unacceptable Infringment or Necessary Evil?
In two cases, Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls, student's right to privacy and their right to be "secure in their persons" as stated in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is threatened by school-mandated drug testing. In both cases, in order for a student to participate in extracirriculars (or in athletics, in Vernonia) they must sign a form and submit to urinalysis tests that search only for drugs, are not turned over to law enforcement officials, and are given to teachers only on a need-to-know basis. Students challenged the school's ability to make the drug test mandatory for participation in extracirriculars and claimed it was an infringment on their Constitutional rights.
In both cases, the Court held in favor of the school. In Vernonia, they ruled that "the decreased expectation of [student's] privacy, the relative unobtrusiveness of the search, and the severity of the need met by the search . . .[make] Vernonia's Policy. . . reasonable and hence constitutional. The Court ruled similarly in Board of Ed. v. Earls. Their reasoning included similar arguments, including that "students who participate in competititve extracirricular activites voluntarily subject themselves to many of the same intrustions on their privacy as do athletes." In both cases the Court agreed that students relenquish some of their rights when entering extracirricular activites. In the Vernonia majority opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court also held that the compelling nature of the subject of the searches makes them reasonable. Scalia stated that "School years are the time when the physical, psychological, and addictive effects of drugs are most severe. . .[and] have been demonstrated to pose substantial physical risks to athletes." In the interest of gaurding student safety and health and combatting the national drug problem, some rights must be sacrificed. Also mentioned in Vernonia was the disruption of education caused by drug use on campus. "A large segment of the student body, particularly those involved in interscholastic athletics was in a state of rebellion. . ." Action was needed to maintain a healthy school environment that facilitates learning. In the Board of Ed. v. Earls decision, the Court goes on to say that "drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society." It is vital that officials target this issue and protect children from the detrimental effects of drug abuse.
I have never been a proponent of drug use. Wasting time abusing drugs is a vile waste of one's life when there are so many other opportunities to explore. Not only that, but drug use is detrimental to one's health and well-being. I agree wholeheartedly with the court's decisions to protect students, rather that their right to privacy in these two cases. When students become involved in activities affiliated with the school that are not mandatory (that is to say, privileges) they do surrender some of their rights. In both cases, students had a choice: sign the form and receive the urinalysis test, or don't participate in athletics/extracurricular. This rule was not made to squashing student's rights, but to squash a huge campus-wide problem of drug use. A problem that was distracting from the educational responsibility of the school and the responsibility of the school to provide a safe, controlled environment for students. Also, because neither urinalysis test would subject students to invasions of privacy outside what they would normally experience in a locker room or public restroom setting, I agree with the Court that in these cases, the school has right to enforce drug testing policies. The health and safety of students is more important than a right to privacy that they would lose upon walking into any public restroom anyway.
That being said, sometimes the school goes too far. In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding an eighth grade girl was needlessly strip searched because another student, caught with ibuprofen pills, threw her name out when questioned and threatened with punishment. First of all, people will say anything to get them off the chopping block when they're in trouble. The school should not have taken the student's suggestion that she'd received the pills from Redding so seriously, as Redding had never had a breach of discipline and was an excellent student. If, however, they had cause to believe that Redding could have pills, the search of her locker and backpack would have been enough to disprove them. The strip search was violating, wholly unnecessary, and completely ignores the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches. In a case such as this, where student's safety is not threatened (the painkiller equivalent of two Advil pills is NOT an immediate threat to safety), and the reasonableness of the search (based on Redding's record and the foolishness of the accusation) I would agree with the Court and say that the balance of rights is not in line. The school trampled on Redding's rights to privacy of her person, and should be held accountable.
Being a fan of drug abuse prevention and student health, I like the idea of drug sniffing dogs. The dogs sniff school property such as lockers, and student property such as backpacks and cars on campus lots. They do not search people themselves. Chief Clark states that the point of the searches is to "make it as hard as possible for anyone to bring drugs into the school." In the interest of protecting students in the unique school environment, some rights must, in part, be relinquished. Random dog searches are a good way to keep students on their toes and make sure they know that if they choose to bring illegal substances to school, they will be caught.
The balance between student's rights and school's obligations is a delicate one. In many cases it becomes necessary to shift the balance in favor of the school's decisions, based on the protection and education of students. However, when the balance becomes ridiculously weighted towards the State, we must fall back on the Constitution to defend student's rights as all other citizen's rights. Based on the Court's decisions in these last few cases, it is clear that the balance being maintained, at least at the Supreme Court level, is appropriate.
In both cases, the Court held in favor of the school. In Vernonia, they ruled that "the decreased expectation of [student's] privacy, the relative unobtrusiveness of the search, and the severity of the need met by the search . . .[make] Vernonia's Policy. . . reasonable and hence constitutional. The Court ruled similarly in Board of Ed. v. Earls. Their reasoning included similar arguments, including that "students who participate in competititve extracirricular activites voluntarily subject themselves to many of the same intrustions on their privacy as do athletes." In both cases the Court agreed that students relenquish some of their rights when entering extracirricular activites. In the Vernonia majority opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court also held that the compelling nature of the subject of the searches makes them reasonable. Scalia stated that "School years are the time when the physical, psychological, and addictive effects of drugs are most severe. . .[and] have been demonstrated to pose substantial physical risks to athletes." In the interest of gaurding student safety and health and combatting the national drug problem, some rights must be sacrificed. Also mentioned in Vernonia was the disruption of education caused by drug use on campus. "A large segment of the student body, particularly those involved in interscholastic athletics was in a state of rebellion. . ." Action was needed to maintain a healthy school environment that facilitates learning. In the Board of Ed. v. Earls decision, the Court goes on to say that "drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society." It is vital that officials target this issue and protect children from the detrimental effects of drug abuse.
I have never been a proponent of drug use. Wasting time abusing drugs is a vile waste of one's life when there are so many other opportunities to explore. Not only that, but drug use is detrimental to one's health and well-being. I agree wholeheartedly with the court's decisions to protect students, rather that their right to privacy in these two cases. When students become involved in activities affiliated with the school that are not mandatory (that is to say, privileges) they do surrender some of their rights. In both cases, students had a choice: sign the form and receive the urinalysis test, or don't participate in athletics/extracurricular. This rule was not made to squashing student's rights, but to squash a huge campus-wide problem of drug use. A problem that was distracting from the educational responsibility of the school and the responsibility of the school to provide a safe, controlled environment for students. Also, because neither urinalysis test would subject students to invasions of privacy outside what they would normally experience in a locker room or public restroom setting, I agree with the Court that in these cases, the school has right to enforce drug testing policies. The health and safety of students is more important than a right to privacy that they would lose upon walking into any public restroom anyway.
That being said, sometimes the school goes too far. In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding an eighth grade girl was needlessly strip searched because another student, caught with ibuprofen pills, threw her name out when questioned and threatened with punishment. First of all, people will say anything to get them off the chopping block when they're in trouble. The school should not have taken the student's suggestion that she'd received the pills from Redding so seriously, as Redding had never had a breach of discipline and was an excellent student. If, however, they had cause to believe that Redding could have pills, the search of her locker and backpack would have been enough to disprove them. The strip search was violating, wholly unnecessary, and completely ignores the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches. In a case such as this, where student's safety is not threatened (the painkiller equivalent of two Advil pills is NOT an immediate threat to safety), and the reasonableness of the search (based on Redding's record and the foolishness of the accusation) I would agree with the Court and say that the balance of rights is not in line. The school trampled on Redding's rights to privacy of her person, and should be held accountable.
Being a fan of drug abuse prevention and student health, I like the idea of drug sniffing dogs. The dogs sniff school property such as lockers, and student property such as backpacks and cars on campus lots. They do not search people themselves. Chief Clark states that the point of the searches is to "make it as hard as possible for anyone to bring drugs into the school." In the interest of protecting students in the unique school environment, some rights must, in part, be relinquished. Random dog searches are a good way to keep students on their toes and make sure they know that if they choose to bring illegal substances to school, they will be caught.
The balance between student's rights and school's obligations is a delicate one. In many cases it becomes necessary to shift the balance in favor of the school's decisions, based on the protection and education of students. However, when the balance becomes ridiculously weighted towards the State, we must fall back on the Constitution to defend student's rights as all other citizen's rights. Based on the Court's decisions in these last few cases, it is clear that the balance being maintained, at least at the Supreme Court level, is appropriate.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Reading Eating Animals (And Not Eating Animals)
Eating Animals, by Jonathan Safran Foer, is not a book about vegetarianism. It is a book about right, wrong, and thoughts on what we eat in consumer America today. As a vegetarian, I am often asked about what I eat, why I eat it, and why I don't eat what I don't eat. The questions began when, in the sixth grade, I became a vegetarian, like my mother and sister (who has recently returned to what we playfully call "the dark side" and now eats meat). Since then I have fluctuated between vegetarian and pescitarian (fish only), finally deciding on being a true blue veggie in high school. The reason? The questions I was asked made me think, what makes fish different from any other animal, what justifies the slaughter and consumption of one creature but not that of another? In the first two sections of his book, Foer asks this question more directly and more bluntly than anyone I have encountered in his chapter "All or Nothing or Something Else."
"Dogs," says Foer, "are wonderful. . . But they are remarkably unremarkable in their intellectual and experiential capacities. Pigs are every bit as intelligent and feeling, by any sensible definition of the words. They can't hop into the back of a Volvo, but they can fetch, run, and play. . . So why don't they get to curl up by the fire? Why can't they at least be spared being tossed on the fire?" Already, on page 25, Foer has asked a question i've asked myself, and been asked, for years. Why are some animals better than others? Why do we, as Americans, think it taboo to eat a dog, but perfectly commonplace to consume cow or pig or chicken or fish? Foer discusses fish in special detail when he describes gaffing, the process of taking a kind of pickaxe and slashing it into the side, gill, or eye of a fish to haul it into a boat. Do that to a dog and it would be heinous, disgusting, cruel to any sane person. But do it to a fish, and it's "okay". To put things in a new perspective, Foer asks the reader "If we were to one day encounter a form of life more powerful and intelligent than our own, and it regarded us as we regard fish, what would be our argument against being eaten?" Is it that we feel pain? That we think? What made me feel guilty about eating animals (when I did) were the kinds of questions Foer asks, questions that Americans ought to consider when they go to restaurants and the grocery.
What we eat says a lot about how we think as a society, and the kinds of questions we are willing to (or remain unwilling to) ask ourselves. Having asked myself these questions and thought hard about who I am and what I eat, I became a vegetarian long ago. Now I am interested in others' views on eating animals. I hope to, by reading Eating Animals, discover how carnivorous/omnivorous America justifies itself. Any thoughts?
"Dogs," says Foer, "are wonderful. . . But they are remarkably unremarkable in their intellectual and experiential capacities. Pigs are every bit as intelligent and feeling, by any sensible definition of the words. They can't hop into the back of a Volvo, but they can fetch, run, and play. . . So why don't they get to curl up by the fire? Why can't they at least be spared being tossed on the fire?" Already, on page 25, Foer has asked a question i've asked myself, and been asked, for years. Why are some animals better than others? Why do we, as Americans, think it taboo to eat a dog, but perfectly commonplace to consume cow or pig or chicken or fish? Foer discusses fish in special detail when he describes gaffing, the process of taking a kind of pickaxe and slashing it into the side, gill, or eye of a fish to haul it into a boat. Do that to a dog and it would be heinous, disgusting, cruel to any sane person. But do it to a fish, and it's "okay". To put things in a new perspective, Foer asks the reader "If we were to one day encounter a form of life more powerful and intelligent than our own, and it regarded us as we regard fish, what would be our argument against being eaten?" Is it that we feel pain? That we think? What made me feel guilty about eating animals (when I did) were the kinds of questions Foer asks, questions that Americans ought to consider when they go to restaurants and the grocery.
What we eat says a lot about how we think as a society, and the kinds of questions we are willing to (or remain unwilling to) ask ourselves. Having asked myself these questions and thought hard about who I am and what I eat, I became a vegetarian long ago. Now I am interested in others' views on eating animals. I hope to, by reading Eating Animals, discover how carnivorous/omnivorous America justifies itself. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)