Original Post: Death Penalty by Pablo Bruno
In this original editorial, my colleague, Pablo, makes some very solid points regarding the death penalty as a punishment for capital offenses. He states that punishing someone to death is not doing justice, but is rather cruel and morally wrong. He goes on to affirm life-long incarceration as a better form of punishment. I agree with Pablo.
Murder is wrong. I believe this statement is something nearly all of us can agree on. However, in some cases it is considered "justified" and legal by the law. This is the capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty. To me, the death penalty is counterproductive and hypocritical. It validates the very crime that is desired to be discouraged.
In 1972, there was a criminal case, Furman v. Georgia, in which the SCOTUS held, in a 5-4 decision, the death penalty to be in violation of the 8th and 14th amendments of the Constitution. This resulted in a suspension of capital punishment. Though in 1976, the death penalty was unfortunately reinstated. Since then, 1442 United States' citizens have been executed for the crime(s) they have committed. I also believe the death penalty to be unconstitutional. I understand it to be in violation of the 8th amendment, as the death penalty does fit the criteria as "cruel and unusual punishment."
Just for a second, imagine that you're confined to a solid brick room, 6'x8', twenty-three of the twenty-four hours, everyday for years. With nothing more to do but sit on your bed and stare at the wall. Now, take into account the fact that you're sitting on death row, awaiting your execution. You have your lawyer frantically running around, attempting to get your case reviewed once more before your long anticipated death in hopes of changing the outcome. This right here, is mentally exhausting and truthfully torturous.
This brings me to my next point, while subjecting someone who is guilty to the torture described above, imagine subjecting an innocent person to this type of treatment. There have been several accounts of wrongful execution. Take for example the execution of Claude Jones. Mr. Jones was executed in 2000 for the murder of a liquor store clerk in 1989. From the moment of his arrest to the moment of his death, Mr. Jones claimed he never entered the store and continually professed his innocence. "Proof" that he was the one who committed the murder relied on a strand of hair retrieved from the crime scene, which was said to be his. In 2007, the Innocence Project and the Texas Observer filed a lawsuit to obtain a strand of hair and run it through more modernized DNA testing. In 2010, the results were that the strand actually did not belong to Claude Jones. In conclusion, this is just another reason why the death penalty should not exist. It is unconstitutional and unjust in many ways.
15 December 2016
02 December 2016
Plugging into the Future
In a previous post, I made an argument against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Rather than spending the $3.7 billion on a pipeline that would transport fossil fuels (oil and natural gases), I say that the money be directed towards advancing the use renewable resources.
Renewable resources refer to resources that are naturally replenished and thus can be used again, such as solar, water, wind, and biomass energies. Though fossil fuels are also created naturally (through the remains of dead plants and animals), they differ from renewable resources in that fossil fuels take around three hundred million years to be formed. Because of the time fossil fuel development requires, they are interchangeable with nonrenewable resources. Renewable resources are also environmentally friendly, aiding in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Take solar energy for example, "1.5 kilowatt of [photovoltaic] system, will keep more than 110,000 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere for the next 25 years" (altenergy.org). This would save approximately 60,000 pounds of coal from being burned. A society completely dependent on solar energy would result in a society entirely free of pollution. There would be no smog or acid rain, allowing for a cleaner and healthier environment for everyone.
However as a community and a nation primarily dependent on fossil fuels (approx. 80%+ of the U.S. total energy), it is going to take a great load of effort to transition to renewable energy sources. Government public policy would need to promote the upgrade of a power grid capable of delivering renewable energy to the public for use. The $3.7 billion would be better spent in upgrading the public power grid to transfer and deliver power from renewable sources.
Right now, energy from renewable sources costs more money than fossil fuel generated energy because the power grid in place was built for fossil fuel use. In order to make renewable energy economically competitive, the government would have to invest in upgrading in the public power grid. The power grid would connect to solar and wind farms (i.e. West Texas, Arizona, and California) to collect and transport the renewable energy to power station. By our government investing $3.7 billion dollars this way, it would bring a return that paid off in clean energy for the rest of time.
Renewable resources refer to resources that are naturally replenished and thus can be used again, such as solar, water, wind, and biomass energies. Though fossil fuels are also created naturally (through the remains of dead plants and animals), they differ from renewable resources in that fossil fuels take around three hundred million years to be formed. Because of the time fossil fuel development requires, they are interchangeable with nonrenewable resources. Renewable resources are also environmentally friendly, aiding in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Take solar energy for example, "1.5 kilowatt of [photovoltaic] system, will keep more than 110,000 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere for the next 25 years" (altenergy.org). This would save approximately 60,000 pounds of coal from being burned. A society completely dependent on solar energy would result in a society entirely free of pollution. There would be no smog or acid rain, allowing for a cleaner and healthier environment for everyone.
However as a community and a nation primarily dependent on fossil fuels (approx. 80%+ of the U.S. total energy), it is going to take a great load of effort to transition to renewable energy sources. Government public policy would need to promote the upgrade of a power grid capable of delivering renewable energy to the public for use. The $3.7 billion would be better spent in upgrading the public power grid to transfer and deliver power from renewable sources.
Right now, energy from renewable sources costs more money than fossil fuel generated energy because the power grid in place was built for fossil fuel use. In order to make renewable energy economically competitive, the government would have to invest in upgrading in the public power grid. The power grid would connect to solar and wind farms (i.e. West Texas, Arizona, and California) to collect and transport the renewable energy to power station. By our government investing $3.7 billion dollars this way, it would bring a return that paid off in clean energy for the rest of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)