Death Right

Capital Punishment - the lawful infliction of death as a punishment; the death penalty

In the United States the subject of capital punishment is a highly contentious issue with many moral, political, and constitutional arguments.  Even within America’s highly polarized political climate there are divisions within political parties which create more fiery arguments about the death penalty.  Though it is widely accepted that the liberal, or Democratic, point of view opposes capital punishment and the conservative, or Republican, view is a proponent of the death penalty.  Let’s look at some facts about what capital punishment is and how it is enforced.

Capital Punishment, or the death penalty, is the highest form of punishment currently possible and is reserved for those individuals who commit the most heinous of crimes, i.e. murder, treason, and espionage.  In some countries it is also used as a punishment for corrupt government officials, rape and other similar violent sexual crime, and major financial crimes.  The death penalty is now banned in most countries in the world, including all of the European Union, but the four most populous countries, India, China, Indonesia and the United States of America still enforce it.  Out of the 50 States in the United States of America, 36 of them enforce the death penalty and 14 have abolished the use of it.

Opponents of capital punishment argue three main points.  The first is that the death penalty does not deter violent crime nor bring closure.  Opponents argue that a criminal does not consider the consequences of their actions before committing a crime.  The opponents’ second argument is that capital punishment costs a larger sum of money than the alternative sentence which is life without parole.  In the state of Indiana, a recent statewide analysis concluded that a capital punishment trial cost the state an average of $450,000 while a Life-Without-Parole trial cost an average of $50,000.  The third argument is that it is morally and ethically wrong to take another humans life, regardless of the act or acts in which that person perpetrated.  There is also an ongoing argument that according to the 8^th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, that forbids cruel and unusual punishment, which, by definition, the death penalty is unconstitutional and therefore should be abolished.  William J. Brennan, Jr., JD, former US Supreme Court Justice, in a July 2, 1976 Gregg v. Georgia, dissenting opinion, stated the following:  "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment; therefore the principle inherent in the Clause that prohibits pointless infliction of excessive punishment when less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates the punishment." 

 

Supporters of the death penalty argue that it has many benefits.  The supporter’s first and most important argument is that capital punishment saves lives.  The basis for this argument is that if a criminally violent individual is deceased they cannot harm anyone else.  Kent Scheidegger, JD, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, in a National Online Youth Summit of the American Bar Association website section (accessed Aug. 7, 2008) and titled "Spring 2001: Does Capital Punishment Have a Future?,": offered the following:  "The death penalty serves three functions. First, for some crimes any lesser punishment is inadequate as a matter of basic justice... Second, an executed death sentence absolutely guarantees the killer will never kill again. A life sentence does not. There are many cases of people killed by murderers who were paroled, escaped, killed within prison, or who arranged murders from within the prison... Third, I believe that an effective, enforced death penalty deters some murders." A second argument is that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to potential criminals.  Supporters argue that if a person is thinking about committing a capital crime, and know the consequence could be their death, they may not commit that violent act.  Proponents of capital punishment also support this argument with statistics showing that countries that still use capital punishment have lower crime rates than countries without.  Lastly, supporters of the death penalty argue that the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail for life far exceeds the short term costs of having a capital punishment trial.  The average cost to the United States per prisoner a year in a maximum security prison in 2011 is $30,439.71 with an inflation rate averaged at 3%.  That means that if a 25 year old male convicted and sentenced to life-without-parole lived 40 years in prison starting today, because the average capital crime is committed by a male in their twenties with an average life expectancy in the United States of 75 years old for a male reduced due to prison life to 65, it would cost the United States a minimum of $3,971,820 which far exceeds the cost of a $500,000 capital punishment trial with 20 years in prison before execution which would add up to around $1.6 million dollars.

I am of the opinion that we should have the death penalty.  Death literally is the ultimate and final punishment and should be on the books.  People say an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.  I say that the second a person decides to take the life of another human being for any reason, except in the defense of another life, the person forfeited their right to live in society and on this planet.  We cannot encourage, defend, justify, or reward heinous acts of evil.  It is unsafe and immoral in and of itself.  Now, do I believe that our current justice system in the United States is effective and can intelligently, fairly, and consistently prosecute those individuals charged with capital crimes and ensure that the person convicted is 100% guilty every time?  No, definitely not. One in seven people sentenced to death in the last 50 years have had their sentences commuted either through lack of evidence or innocence. But it would be a terrible idea to take the death penalty off the books due to the inherent fallibility of man.  Would you rather have unfair taxes than no taxes?  Poor schools or no schools?  An inefficient police force or no police force?  I doubt you would.  The United States truly does need to refine is law system but as far as letting murderers and rapists live in relative comfort.  No, just plain no.

Change, Adapt, Overcome

I am going to convince you, my reader, by the end of this post that we, as a country and world, should act to save the environment regardless of whether or not you choose to believe in global warming. Our very planet and lives are at stake and there is no sane and reasonable person who would argue that the human race gamble its very existence for something as trivial as political ideology and material wealth. Furthermore, I can also prove that if the United States of America, and preferably every other nation on our planet, acts in an immediate, significant, and long term process of being environmentally savvy , energy efficient, and using renewable resources that we can not only help the planet, but combat our economic problems as well. So please, all I ask while you read this post is that you use the common sense that I know you have and see if my logic and reason behind this post is sound.

In the United States of America, and world, there is an extremely politically charged atmosphere around the topic of global warming, or as some have come to call it now, climate change. America has one side, the Democrats, arguing that global warming is happening right now and our nation has to do something to change it now. On the other side of the debate in the United States, the Republican party argues that the planet goes through hot and cold people cyclically as the Earth wobbles on it’s axis as it orbit’s the sun. This is a debate that absolutely should not happen. As of right now, over 95% of the world’s scientific community agrees that the human race has already and is directly affecting the environment and global climate.

Right now the main argument against broad sweeping reform and change in environmental law and statutes is money. Those who do not believe in global warming, notably Republicans, contend that it would be an enormously expensive and unrealistic “It's a huge tax increase," argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal." The other arguments are that the Earth gradually goes through cycles as it orbit’s the Sun and this is just a warm cycle.

Say you do not believe these scientists mathematics or trust them. Think of it this way. There are only two options for the existence of global warming. Global warming is either true or false. Now if Global warming is true and we either choose not to act or not act by default through indecision we, as a species, are literally risking the fate of mankind and the world as we know it. Are you willing to gamble and bet your life and the lives of your children? Even if you do not believe in global warming and even if you are correct, why would you ever gamble on something you cannot afford to lose? All the world loses is money if there is no global warming and if there is global warming we literally lose the world as we know it. Besides, if all you are worried about is money, just think, really think, of the vast amounts of money to be made through infrastructure projects and renewable resources. Right now they have not met much success but with the proper funding and research we all could have a job and live in a clean world.

Let us look at some pure and simple facts now that I have your mind going. Since the Industrial Revolution in American in the late 19^th century the average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Plus the rate of warming is increasing exponentially. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies sponsored by the EPA and the UN. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850. Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the

worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

Now if I have not convinced you yet let me really break this down for you. This is
how global warming works. Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it. These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming. Some experts point out natural cycles in Earth’s orbit can alter the planet’s exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

For those of you that understand that global warming is a very possible threat regardless if my science has swayed your opinion. Please do something about it. This is too big an issue to gamble.  Contact your congressman, go green if you can afford to, recycle, and use public transportation. Too often in this world do people feel that one person cannot make a difference. One person always makes a difference and all it will take is one of YOU to simply try.

The Little Engine That Couldn't Because His Tracks Weren't Maintained and They Laid-Off His Engineer

The President is still at it with the American Jobs Act.  To the President's credit, I actually support many of the ideas he has proposed in his Bill.  The problem is that like all of Obama's ideas they are either half measures or poorly implemented.  Not that those two things are even the biggest problem with the American Jobs Act.  Like always, Democrats and Republicans continue to bitterly fight over whose friends will benefit and nothing will get done.  Let's get done to the details though so that you can see the facts and how screwed up this entire situation is considering that his Bill is not, surprisingly to me, a bad idea.  He is still treating symptoms instead of the cause.  But I will give the President his due, it is a good step in the right direction.

On September 9, 2011 President Obama unveiled the American Jobs Act before Congress that “...answers the urgent need to create jobs right away."  The American Jobs Act consists of five major points: One, tax cuts for small buisnesses, not large corporations, to help hire and expand now. Two, the Act will invest substantial capital into American infastructure that will help to rebuild crumbling roads and bridges, hire more teachers to help the failing school system, and to start programs to help train and educate low-income citizens that need job training.  Third, it will extend all unemployment benefits, punish employers who discriminate against laid off workers, and to give tax cuts to companies that hire workers who have been unemployed for over six months.  Fourth, it cuts middle and lower class payroll taxes and restructures morgage loans to historically low rates. "Last, the plan won’t add a dime to the deficit and is fully paid for through a balanced deficit reduction plan that includes closing corporate tax loopholes and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share."

Supporters of the American Jobs Act claim that in passing this legislation the United States would see immediate and effective results in the American infastructure, in education, and also in the nonprofit sector.  The President's plan will provide $850,700,000 in imediate investments to the highways, bridges, and public transit system in Massachusetts alone.  Massachusetts will also see another $378,000,000 in immediate investments for the public education system with another seperate $68,000,000 solely going toward community colleges.  Not to mention the fact that the payroll tax will be reduced to %3.1 for employers up to the first $5,000,000 in wages.   All of these proposals will vastly improve our state, and our communities at large.

Opponents of Obama's proposed plan continue to deter this Bill from passing.  They claim that tax cuts for buisnesses do not increase the demand of their products.  They also claim that by taxing the rich, or job creators, that it will truly be detrimental to the American economy.  Obama's opponents claim that with the tax hike from %33 to %39.5 for the wealthiest Americans will hinder job creation and will encourage the economy to flounder.  They also continue to argue that a $4000 tax credit and $3500 payroll tax deduction are hardly worth making an employer hire a $50,000 a year employee.  The unemployment insurance restructing that is proposed in the Bill is also wholly foolish according to it's opponents.  The insurance has too few guidelines and relies mostly on states to implement.  And with 44 states facing budget shortfalls it is clear that many states just plain do not have the capitol to fund these plans.  Opponents also believe that a large portion of American debt is directly associated with the massive and vague social programs that have no clear cut off dates, are unregulated and poorly enforced.

After doing my research of the American Dreams Act I think that it will certainly not pass.  Atleast not hollistically.  Obama's plans just seem very half measured, poorly implemented and contain too many loopholes.  Taxing the "rich" is a good idea.  They should pay more in taxes than the middle class.  Though I say this in all my blogs, I support a flat tax inwhich everyone would pay the same percentage of their wages.  To think that the rich pay a smaller sum than the middle class is outright ludicrous and criminal.  Investing in the infastructure is a great idea in the Bill.  I just hope that, if that section of the Bill is passed, the government will hire American and will pay a fair and honest price for the work done instead of lobbyists and Unions sucking away at our tax dollars. 

America needs to fix it's tax system and infrastructure before it starts working on anything else. By doing just those two things jobs will come back and jobs will be created. That fact has been proven throughout the history of civilization and let's hope that we do not repeat the mistakes of our predecessors like Rome, Egypt, or even Britain.  On the whole, Obama is going in the correct direction but I doubt he will get where he needs to go due to the partisanship in the government on both sides. 

Facts:

• Obama Proposed American Jobs Act on the 8 September 2011 and released the Bill publicly on 19 September 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/us/politics/09payroll.html?pagewanted=all
• The American Jobs Act contains 5 major points regarding lower payroll taxes, closing loopholes in tax code, investing in infrastructure, social programs extended such as unemployment, and the Bill will not add to the nation debt http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/08/american-jobs-act
• Massachusetts will recieve over $2Billion in direct funding to help support infrastructure, education and to create jobs. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/08/american-jobs-act
• Both Rome collapsed due to expensive wars, poor financing and crumbling infrastructure http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

Close but No Cigar

President Obama finally released his debt reduction plan this past Monday, 19 September 2011, and it seems like a step in the right direction.  Outlined in the $3Trillion Debt plan are cuts in the defense budget, minor government regulation increases, raising taxes for the "rich," and correcting the budget so that we do not spend more money than we take in.  Though I personally agree partially with the issues to varying degrees I think that the debt plan Obama proposed is surprisingly forward thinking.

Some would argue that raising taxes on the rich would hinder job growth, investing, and prevent the recovery off the economy.  The GOP believes that if you leave more money for the rich they will in turn invest and expand businesses and create jobs.  The Republican party supports the idea that the government needs to regulate less so that businesses can expand unhindered.  This is true that businesses would make more profit if they did not have to worry about government safety, environmental, and employment regulations. Many right and left wing Congressmen support the idea of cutting Active Duty and Veteran Benefits as a way to save money along with ending both wars in the Middle East.   Ending both wars would save the United States billions if not trillions of dollars and is a solid idea.

Honestly, though I do not support a tiered tax system, this debt plan is a step in the right direction.  Keeping taxes low for the wealthy does not guarantee or prevent those with means to invest.  For example, if they lowered the prices for all food by 1000% it does not mean I am going to spend the same amount of money and buy more food.  A consumer or entrepreneur will only spend money on what they need and think will give them opportunities.  So the entire idea that having low taxes on the rich is a moot point.  As far as ending both wars I completely agree and would even take it one step further and remove all US Troops from all foreign soil.  We would save one hundred times the amount of money Obama proposed and keep the US out of foreign affairs entirely.  Cutting veterans and active duty benefits is without a doubt the most offensive thing I have personally ever heard in my entire life.  As a veteran myself, it is absolutely obscene to consider taking away what little support we actually have after getting out or while being active duty.  Keeping a budget in the black should be common sense to every American and we should have never deviated from that line of thinking in the first place.

In conclusion, Obama is at least trying to move in the right direction. With some serious and bill killing flaws, but he is trying.  Hopefully the government will be bipartisan and debate using logic to address these issues.  But I think I'll be drinking a cold beer in hell before that happens.

This Marine's Benefits will be cut under the proposed debt plan

Details of President Obama's Debt Plan http://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140595643/details-of-obamas-debt-plan

GOP's response to President Obama's $3Trillion debt proposal http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/19/politics/obama-debt/index.html

The debt plan outlines cuts to defense and military benefits http://www.huliq.com/10282/leon-panetta-warns-doomsday-clock-set-if-gop-cuts-more-defense

What is the biggest challenge facing America today, and how can it be solved?

The biggest problem in America today is our economy.  Overspending, two wars, globalization of the job market, and a tax system that is just plain not working is destroying America.  The many expensive and poorly regulated social programs in America such as, welfare, unemployment, and disability are also no small part of our economy's problem as well.  Even as insurmountable as these problems seem, they can be fixed and corrected with ease if our government were to sit down and think logically instead of pursuing ridiculous partisan ideals.  There is hope though, just like there always is, that one man or woman will take action in our House or Senate and finally make the rest see reason.

Since overspending pretty much covers all our economies woes I will start with the number one item I would cut which leads me into our military.  We are fighting two wars which cost millions of dollars everyday, if not billions.  The first thing I would do if I were in charge would to be to stop the wars immediately and withdraw all troops and funds from both countries.  As a former Marine, I personally know that if the President gave the order to withdraw that every single piece of United States property and our personnel could be withdraw in under thirty days if not sooner.  Though I agree morally and ethically with the reasons we are in those countries and with all of my soul support our troops, I do not believe that America should continue in it's pursuit of nation building or involvement in other countries affairs or be the world police.  If we brought home all of our troops (which includes all government funded contractors), stopped handing money over to untrustworthy and unstable governments, and also removed all of our bases from foreign soil we would save literally hundreds of billions of dollars.  Something as simple as removing Marine Corps Base Okinawa from Japan and moving it to Guam would save billions of dollars a year by itself and keep our money in an American territory.  If the Army bases in Germany were closed down and then rebuilt along the United States-Mexican border we would save billions of dollars not just on payments to Germany but also it would improve security along the border exponentially.

With the planet quickly becoming more and more of a global market each day and jobs being outsourced to countries like China and India, due to lower costs and higher profit for companies, it gets harder for people to find a job in America today.  But this solution at least is a simple one.  The United States of America needs to invest heavily in it's infrastructure.  We need jobs that can stay at home, never be outsourced, and will improve the quality of life for the workers and all of America and investing in infrastructure is the way to do it.  Massive projects involving our deteriorating roads, government buildings, and environment could employ millions of people in the United States while simultaneously improving the country itself. 

I would also include education in the United States' infrastructure.  While some people consider education a social program I would disagree to my dying breath.  In modern society it is absolutely necessary to get an education and should be the number one item the United States government spends it's money on.  Every single job on the planet could be improved upon if the workers were better educated and it does not matter the job is to work on a farm or to become a teacher it is important in all that we do.  To be a teacher should be one of the highest paid salaries on the planet and they should be revered for their importance in America.  In South Korea, not only is it extremely difficult to even get a position as a teacher, teaching is the most respected profession in the country and they are well compensated for it.

I'm sure you are wondering by now "How do you plan to pay for all of this?"  Simply, fix the tax code.  It is simple.  Make the Federal Income Tax a flat tax and make everyone pay 10% of their income, including businesses.  Basically, if you make $10,000 dollars a year you pay $1000 and if you make $1,000,000 a year you pay $100,000.  Simple, clear, fair. Under this plan there would be absolutely no tax write offs or tax returns.  Not only would we save millions of dollars on paperwork alone, but the government could create a solid budget with which they could not only pay off our enormous debt but we would be able to start spending money on programs that matter.  Our government should handle its money like a family.  Parents need to work hard to earn money, invest in their children, and should save in case of emergencies.  It should not hand out money to other countries or let people leech off the system for undefined amounts of time.  I would also like to mention that a person cannot collect from our social welfare programs until they have put into the system. Nor should they be allowed to be on any social welfare system for more than two year cumulative.

In conclusion, America has many problems today.  But they can be solved, logically and without partisanship as I showed you.  Under the simple tax system, America could even fund all the social programs we currently have with absolutely no problem!  Though I recommend a reform for those aswell which I will cover in another post.  And all our leaders ever needed to do was to define the problem, think logically about solutions, reason and debate logically about their solutions, and finally organize their thoughts into a plan and then ACT!  If even I can figure this stuff out surely they can.

Nation Debt $14.7 Trillion as of 14 September 2011 and reported by http://www.usdebtclock.org/

"For decades, we have neglected the foundation of our economy while other countries have invested in state-of-the-art water, energy, and transportation infrastructure, wrote Michael B. Likosky, a senior fellow at New York University's Institute for Public Knowledge, in a July 12 New York Times op-ed.

ABC's "20/20" reports that US Public Schools are failing all around America. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338