"Equal" Justice System? Why Private Prisons Corrupt Our Legal System and Oppress Our People

I hope you have read these two cases and thought about our justice system. In case you are confused I'll break it down for you.

A white upperclassman caught behind a $3 billion dollar fraud was sentenced to 40 months in prison. A poor black man who stole $100 dollars and then turned himself in out of guilt was sentenced to 15 years behind bars.

Let's start with Roy Brown. When robbing a bank he was offered a stack of bills. He took ONE bill. He was not interested in having as much money as possible, he just wanted food and shelter. The next day he returned the money out of guilt and turned himself in to the authorities because his "mother didn't raise him that way". Does this man sound like a danger to society? Even if your answer is yes, is he more of a danger to society than a CEO who was ok with a $3 billion fraud all to get more money that he didn't need but wanted for power? Someone who would risk the consequences he now faces for money? Versus a man who had no intention of hurting anyone but desperately needed some money to stay alive.

How did this happen? I'm sure you are thinking this... he has a home now. The fact that he is happily in jail getting three meals a day is a whole different problem. What about the other men like Roy Brown who have families and prison isn't some safe haven for them? The private prisons in our country can bend a judge any way they want. Like the CEO they'll do anything to make more money. In Roy Brown's case, they found some law stating robbery is a 15 year sentence and presented it to the judge. Whatever happened, I can guarantee you that without private prisons and their will to make money this man would not be behind bars for 15 years. Private prisons are a business who use these poor men as their slaves. Yes private prisons save government spending, but at what cost? "Incarcerating people for profit is in a word wrong" and "As long as our government permits private prisons for profit to operate as legal businesses, the American Criminal Justice System will never have the capacity to develop a credibility that the people of this great nation can respect and feel morally comfortable with" (National Public Service Council to Abolish Private Prisons).

When I first saw these cases paralleled like this I thought, how is this possible? What are the causes? Perhaps that too many Americans have one triumphing goal of making as much money as possible because in this country money is power. It's embedded in our government and society. Its effects are scary and morally wrong. It takes good people and makes criminals out of them where the cycle repeats itself and naturally creates more criminals. We tell more and more people in the name of money we will put their rights aside. What that does is push them farther and farther until they have no other option but to sit and suffer or fight to survive often through criminal acts.

I love living in America. Being white and being in the middle class or higher and living in this country is great. We have so many rights other people around the world are deprived of. I have to think about how I would feel if I was part of a poor minority. Would I feel safe in this country? Equal? Would I be proud to be an American? Or would I feel like a peasant living among nobility where I am not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as the aristocrats and the royalty around me. Back to myself, I don't blame these people for acting in the ways they do. Men like Roy Brown are not evil. That's clear from the reasons behind why he turned himself in. His desperate attempt to acquire food and shelter for survival was an act of crime. The criminal act itself is not the cause of all these mens' troubles, but the symptom. What causes these acts of desperation? Well when these people feel like they have nothing to lose, some values go out the door. By segregating them, giving them less than adequate education, and depriving them of the means to compete in our society, America is cheating them. It's no wonder they are the way they are. By treating them differently, our justice system is just one more part of American society that tells them they are not like us. Can we blame them for not acting as noble as us?

NO ON 26: The New Battle on Abortion. It's Moral and Constitutional Violations.

The state of Mississippi has proposed a constitutional amendment (amendment 26) to face the voters on Nov. 8. It's new definition of "Personhood" would make basically all forms of abortion considered murder and therefore illegal. My response is mainly to things said in this New York Times article. It also gives good background information on the Yes On 26 campaign. This debate is not restricted to Mississippi, but starting to sweep the United States, even on the federal level. Here are some reasons to consider voting no.
1. Even if you are against abortion, for religious or nonreligious beliefs, know that religion is not a reason to justify law in the United States. As a democracy, our constitution states the separation of church and state. We base the values behind our law on the lawmakers' and the voters' individual beliefs, not on a religion. This is why it would be unconstitutional to ban abortion for the reason Brad Prewitt, executive director of the Yes On 26 campaign, has given. He stated, "Personhood is bigger then just shutting abortion clinics; it's an opportunity for people to say that we're made in the image of God." By bringing up "God" he is clearly trying to appeal to the religious crowd. He is saying abortion is wrong because its aborting someone "made in the image of God". He believes it's wrong ultimately because of "God". If he and many other American's find abortion against their religion, when they have to make the choice they can choose to not have an abortion. However, it is unconstitutional to impose that religious belief onto everyone. Voting no would be keeping our original value of separation of Church and State.
2. If abortion is to become illegal, then doctors would be hesitant to save women with life threatening pregnancies. I believe in all cases it's more important to save the pregnant mom, then try and save the embryo. If the mother dies, its very likely that the embryo she was carrying will die too. Simply because it doesn't have a support system to keep it alive anymore. It's not ready to function on its own, hence it wasn't "born" yet. So by not saving the mother, you are probably going to kill the mother and the embryo. If you save the mother even if it means harming the embryo you have only killed the embryo, not the mother and the embryo. Also doctors have a number one responsibility to try their best to save lives. We do not value one life over the other, so by not destroying the embryo that is killing the mother, they have assisted in the murder of the mother.
3. Stare Decisis (let the law stand). In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court of the United States "deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny." It speaks for itself that the Supreme Court, highest law in the United States, values abortion as a "fundamental right". It subjects all laws against abortion to be closely watched. I hope as Americans you all closely watch Yes On 26 and decide if you want a law making it murder if someone aborts the baby that results from a rape or incest, or an embryo made in a lab. A law that makes some birth control illegal and murder as well. Since when are we classifying the right to one's body in the same category as shooting a gun through someone else's chest?

THE DEATH PENALTY: GANDHI AND BUDDHA WOULD BE ASHAMED

The death penalty is a broken system. One reason is because of its ability to differentiate between different races and different classes. Poor defendents are less likely to have access to a good lawyer than a wealthier person defeding against the death sentence. This is already one quick flaw in our equal justice system. Our history in America is filled with times when blacks were less valuable to society than whites. This mindset of these hundreads of years still exists to some extent, no matter how the law is. There is a possiblity that a jury might look at a black man and think he has nothing to contribute to society just because that's how history has trained our brains to think. Even on a subconscience level, blacks are not on an equal level with whites and it's not fair to kill them because of their skin color.
65% of voters in states where capitol punishment exists support the death penalty. This 65% represents an even bigger percentage of our society that values power over everything. When something happens to someone, it's human nature to want revenge. To do the same thing back so you don't appear weak. So you are always the winner in this game of life. We turn to the death penalty because when someone takes away the life of a loved one, we need to get even. We think coping is done best with revenge. We were hurt so bad by the action and the best thing to possibly do now is do the same thing back. But wait! That's not what I learned my whole life. Even in pre-school, I learned if someone hits me, I don't hit them back. I tell the teacher who will probably put the kid in a timeout. It's the basics of moral behavior. You do not get to do something wrong to someone because they did it to you. They will get a punishment to learn what they did was wrong.

Gandhi and Buddha are two of the many historical figures widely known for their will power to do what is right despite the most trying circumstances. I would like to assume our society looks up to their morals, ethics, and values. Their philosophy is the road to world peace. Should we not strive to fulfill their beliefs? These two quotes preach forgiveness not revenge. I believe in a society that models this philosophy. The death penalty has not proven to save money, or to deter crime. It is a moral our society has, that the worst crime deserves the ultimate punishment. It is a moral of revenge, contradicting what both Gandhi and Buddha preached in their lifetimes. The death penalty is the family's revenge on the person who killed their loved one. I don't know how I would react if someone were to murder a family member of mine. I can tell you that I hope I would be the bigger person and not turn to revenge, but to making it right. Putting the person in their "timeout" where they have a lifetime in jail to be reminded what they did was wrong and not accepted by society. I hope that I wouldn't want to hurt their family the way the murderer hurt me. The temptation individuals in our society have to appear strong and powerful is why so many Americans support the death penalty. It is easy and instinctual to get back at someone who has hurt you. However, I do not think that is a healthy way to live. The easy thing is usually not the right thing. Killing someone might make things even, but it does not bring love and happiness into the world. It will not bring back that innocent person, and it is not a healthy way to cope.

Savage Inequalities: Public Education in New York

"Public Education in New York" is the third chapter in the eye opening novel Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol. The brilliance in Kozol's writing is shown by how he opens up this chapter. It's a quote from Lord Acton from roughly 130 years ago on the United States.
"In a country where there is no distinction of class, a child is not born to the station of its parents, but with an indefinate claim to all the prizes that can be won by thought and labor. Americans are unwilling that any should be deprived in childhood of the means of competition."
The last sentence really struck me. If you don't see its connection to our public school system then hopefully this blog will help you see it. I agree with the philosophy behind this quote. No one "in childhood" "should be deprived of the means of competition". Well if the way to "all the prizes" is through "thought and labor" then every child should have the "means of competition". Instead of reorganizing the quote I'll put it into my own terms. No child should be deprived of access to an education because in our society its supposed to be our way to success. We aren't what we were born into, but what we make of ourselves. We're not supposed to be a result of our parents money, but of our hard work. There is a big difference between this quote from 130 years ago, and our society today.
Here's one of Kozol's many examples. "In a class of 22, there are two black children and three Asian. There is a sink and a computer... Walking next into a special class, I see twelve children. One is white. Eleven are black. The room is half the size. There is no computer and no sink." This emphasizes that Americans in today's society are not unwilling to deprive children of the means of competition. The mostly black class is not given the same advantages as the mostly white class. They do not have any of the means to put themselves in a position to strive for "all the prizes" or success in general. A student in the gifted program at the school knows she is not just smarter than the other kids because she was born that way. She says, "We know certain things that other kids don't know because we're taught them." She is simply stating that she was given access to these means of competition by having the ability to learn certain things. Other students' disadvantages are not a result of themselves, but of the fact that they were never taught the same things other students in gifted programs were. They were not given the same means of competition and they can ever be a part of the same race. They are at a disadvantage in becoming successful, unlike the students in the gifted program who are taught more things and handed success. This does not sound like the America Lord Acton wrote so fondly about.

How the Death Penalty Works and Shocking Facts That Might Make You Reconsider It

There are numerous steps taken before the Death Penalty is decided for any specific offender. All the steps and also the amount of time they take do protect the rights of the offender. A long trial takes place first to decide whether or not the person on trial has committed the crime. If convicted, then a separate trial takes place to decide the punishment. If the Death Penalty is being pushed the the prosecution the offender has the right to present his case in court. Any factors that might make him not worthy of death are seen by the jury before they make their choice. If the jury decides to use the death sentence in a particular case, the offender is still not out of luck. He then can appeal his sentence. If the offenders first try is not successful, he can try appealing again to the Supreme Court. All of these appeals are multi step processes with all the factors are looked at again to confirm the decision to execute.

In America's past, there have been five main methods of execution. All of them seem "cruel and unusual" except lethal injection. Hanging, shooting, electrocution, and gas chambers all seem too torturous to me. It all seems backwards and wrong. It screams savage to me and I like to think my government is above that. The reason lethal injection is not as bad is because the person is first put to sleep and therefore unconscious when they are paralyzed and go into cardiac arrest. This method seems pain free and therefore less brutal. It also has the lowest possibility of mistakes than the others. Some other methods either are not instantaneous, or mistakes can be easily made making the death that was supposed to be instantaneous not instantaneous anymore. If it was up to me though, all forms of the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" punishment since a less extreme punishment that has the same effect is always possible. Life in prison keeps the offender from harming the rest of society anymore without having to kill the offender.
According to deathpenaltycurriculum.org the homicide rate is pretty similar in most of the states with a large population and similar lower rates in states with smaller populations. This is no direct relationship with homicide rates and states that use the death penalty. This highlights the idea that the death penalty is arbitrary. Having the death penalty does not show a decrease in the homicide rate, therefore is killing someone after they have already killed someone necessary. Again, they will be of no harm to society if locked up in jail their whole life.
Back when the death penalty was legal in Illinois, there statutes for crimes resulting in possible death sentences   were not anything horrible. It goes into detail basically on any type of murder that someone commits. Murder being premeditated, and not manslaughter which would be an on the spot impulse. None of the conditions on the statute struck me as "the punishment did not fit the crime". The fact that I'm against the death penalty is based on other points. So then why did Illinois abolish the death sentence? According to the Death Penalty Information Center, there have been 20 people in the state of Illinois freed from death row on the count that they were innocent all along. 20 people may not seem like a lot at first. Picture yourself on death row, knowing you are innocent. 20 people were set free, but I have to wonder how many never got that lucky. There must have been many people who were killed that were in fact innocent. To be honest, even just one mistake is one too many. Taking an innocent life is unimaginable, which was why the death penalty was created in the first place. However, my home state of Illinois probably realized the irony in the death penalty and that it has killed innocent people. This is perhaps one of the reasons Illinois does not use the death penalty anymore.
Some more reasons to be against the death penalty:
-"88% of experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder."
-"A study in California found that those who killed whites were over 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death that those who killed blacks."
- The South has the highest most executions, but also the highest homicide rate.
-"The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life."
- Source: Death Penalty Information Center
What do all of these facts mean? First, that the death penalty does not directly prevent people from killing. Second, that getting sentenced to death might not be just based on the crime, but also based on race. And third, for those of you who argue you don't want your tax money to go to some inmate, you might want to reconsider the idea that executing someone might cost more than keeping them locked up their whole life. For the record, if you find money more important than the value of a life you have other problems to deal with than your thoughts on the death penalty anyways.

Savage Inequalities: Other People's Children

If you've been following my blog, you would know that Savage Inequalities is a book I'm reading about the inequalities in the public school system. It is a thought provoking novel written by Jonathan Kozol to expose those inequalities and hopefully inspire the reader to want to do something about it. The chapter I'm replying to is called "Other People's Children". It was given this name because of the chapter emphasis on how some people from the more wealthy part of society don't want "other people's children", mostly the poor, to be integrated and ultimately competing with their own children. The chapter is filled with many more reasons why the schools are so unequal. Kozol quotes a Chicago mother, "The same bank presidents who offer gifts to help our segregated schools, are the ones who have assured their segregation...they are the ones who send their kids to good schools in Winnetka and who vote against the equalizing plans to give our public schools more money. Why should we trust their motives? They may like to train our children to be good employees. That would make their business more profitable. Do they want to see our children taking corporate positions from their children?"
This passage really spoke to me. In a world where people only care about money, and will do anything for it, I don't have a hard time believing or agreeing with this mother. The principles of these inner city Chicago high schools know they can get funding for classes that are more job oriented. Classes teaching students filing skills, not math but "business math", and cosmetology". Classes training students to be good employees. The CEO's and corporations thrive on these workers. I understand why principle of these high school would take the money to fund these classes. It is better than nothing and at least these kids can have basic skills they need to find a job. However, I cannot help but be upset that it teaches these kids they will never be anything more than a secretary. I believe they should be pushed and offered classes where they can learn what interests them, and have dreams to be whatever they like. This book has started to open my eyes even more to problems that are so close to me, yet that I am so segregated from. If I have learned anything, it's that I've been taking my education for granted. I plan on using my good education and turning it around to someday be able to make a difference in the lives of other students less fortunate then me.

Gilad Shalit- A Sign For Peace

If you know anything about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, you would know who Gilad Shalit is. He was kidnapped by Hamas and held captive until Israel would agree to release many Palestinian prisoners. Because many of the Palestinian prisoners are criminals who caused the deaths of many innocent Israeli's, for the past almost 5 years Israel has not been able to agree to this negotiation. However, as of today the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu, has finally made an agreement with Hamas. Gilad Shalit will be coming home to a warm welcome in his homeland of Israel despite people's varying opinions.
I would like to give my input on this historical event. I do not underestimate what this treaty's impact is on the conflict. I always knew peace, especially within my generation, is possible. Now, I hope the world can see it too.  Especially at a time when many people have lost hope, I hope the world will look at this event and not just see "Gilad Shalit is free". No. I hope they see this was a negotiation done by Israeli's and Palestinian's, that sacrifices were made on both sides, and that peace is possible between the two. This issue did take almost 5 years to resolve, and I'm not saying the conflict will be resolved overnight. But it's possible and Gilad's release reminds us all that there are people on both sides who do want peace.

Drug Testing, Strip Searches, and School Officials. The Constitutionality of Searches Within a School.

In both Vernonia School District v. Acton and Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 v. Earls, students and their families filed suit against their public schools for prohibiting the student from an after school activity because he/she would not submit to drug testing. In  both cases, the court backed up the schools. In Vernonia School District v. Acton the court said, "The decreased expectation of privacy, the relative unobtrusiveness of the search, and the severity of the need met by the search- we conclude Vernonia's Policy in reasonable and hence constitutional...". In Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 v. Earls the court said, "Because this Policy reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, we hold that it is constitutional." The main point used by the court in both cases was that preventing drug use in students is a obligation and challenge for the schools to uphold. Because drug testing is a search that helps prevent students from using drugs, the schools have the right to do so.
I agree with the courts ruling. Mainly, because the goal of the government is not trying to catch students doing bad things and punish them. If that was the case, then it would be an invasion of privacy. Passing a drug test is not that hard. Here's the secret. Don't do drugs. The system of Drug Testing in extracurriculars has a goal to get students to stop using drugs. The school is looking out for the students best interest, thier health and safety. I do agree that trying to catch someone doing something illegal without probable cause is violating the first ammendment, but again this is not the case here. The schools are not hoping to catch students involved with drugs, but hoping to stop students from using drugs. I can assure you the school hopes for negative results in every test they do.
The case Safford Unified School District v. Redding had a differing holding in the Supreme Court. To sum up the case, a 13-year-old girl was strip searched based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills. The article says "the Supreme Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional". I agree with this. It's different than the cases reguarding drug testing I spoke about above. With drug testing, schools are trying to encourage students to stop using drugs. With this search, the school humiliated this 13 year old girl just to try and catch her doing something wrong. She speaks about the incident, "I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry." To do this to her, strip search her, was not the appropriate thing to do. Did they have probable cause? Well somewhat, but not enough to strip search her. Another 13 year old student, while getting caught with pills accused Redding of having given them to her. To me that sounds like someone trying to get out of a punishment when caught red handed. This other student wanted to blame someone else and get out of trouble. I'm not saying the school should just ignore this accusation. It might be reason enough to search her backpack and locker. However, before humiliating this girl and invading on her body the school should have gotten a little more knowledge on the accusation which was in fact false.