A Student Punished for Spaghetti Beliefs

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/78JNSH/www.globalone.tv/forum/topics/student-punished-for-spaghetti%253FgroupUrl%253Dflyingspaghettimonster

Abortion

It seems to me that the pro choice organization is winning the argument on abortion. On the NRLC's website, the pro- life website, I read about a bill that had been passed in 2006 that explained that if a women wanted to get an abortion after about 20 weeks they would have to receive a brochure that informed them of the "substantial pain" the fetus would go through and it would also advise the mother to get pain medicine for the child. This, in my opinion, would not turn mothers in need or seeking an abortion to simply not have an abortion but rather pay a little extra, if they could do so for the baby not to feel it as much. Overall on the pro-life website, it seems that they are more up to date and specific about the types of abortion and how they can harm a women. The pro-life site gave more facts as to what each abortion method entailed and how it hurts the woman and how it hurts the baby. The pro-choice site offers comparable information but shy away from the gruesome facts that are explained in the pro-life web page.Reading the methods on the pro-life site has a significant influence on how I view the issue.

As a high school girl I know that there are things about my life I wouldn't want my parents to know. Although as a minor it is for the safety and well being of the teen for parents to be informed but I do not believe that parents need to know. Teenagers often have different views from their parents and it would only be assumed that a parent may try to talk a teenage girl out of getting an abortion if not simply not allowing her to in the first place. It should be up to the girls discretion if she feels that it is okay to have an abortion, not her parents.

It would be reasonable to notify one parent if their daughter is getting an abortion but it should be up to the discretion of the teenage girl to see which parent she would prefer to notify. For many girls it is easier to relate to their mothers, but for some they may have a closer bond with their father. It should not be mandatory to tell both parents and get both of their consent. What if once a father found out he kicked the daughter out of the house? As a 17/18 year old teenage girl I know that I would not be safe if I got kicked out of my house. What would I do? Where would I go? In some conservative families, this would be an issue and when a girl is already stressed out with the abortion itself, she doesn't need the pressure of her dad to add to it.

I do not agree with Illinois' ban on abortions after 12 weeks. I think it should be up to the woman's choice if she thinks having the baby is a good decision for her or if having an abortion is unethical or not. If I could change anything, I would have insurance cover abortions. If a family or an individual is willing to pay extra money to get abortion coverage, I think that they should be allowed to. I think that our state should allow us to choose what we want to do with our own lives. We live in a free country so why should we be manipulated?

Death Penalty #3

STAGES: Protecting the rights of the accused starts with the preliminary hearing. This hearing is designed to see if enough evidence is able to be gathered in the accusation of a criminal.. In addition to the hearing the people who serve on the jury are examined thoroughly to determine if they are qualified to be a part of the jury. After aggravating and mitigating factors are reviewed by the jury and the jury has reached their decision on the case, the court then takes it upon themselves to decide whether or not a guilty criminal should be sentenced to death or to another punishment such as life in prison with out parole. If and once a person is declared guilty and sentenced to death, they have the right to appeal their case again in hopes of receiving clemency. To receive clemency there is another entire board of people reviewing the case, not just one in order to reduce bias and give the accused the fairest chance they have at receiving clemency. I do not believe that the justice system is such where only the guilty are convicted and the innocent are not. Juries are allowed to hold their own opinions on a case and vote in that manner whether it is actually valid or invalid. If an innocent criminal happens to have a bad lawyer, they are more likely to be convicted of the crime they did not commit and vise verse.

METHOD: Out of the given options I believe the most humane option is lethal injection. The only true problem I see with lethal injection is the fact that in the event that something goes wrong, it is dreadfully painful to the victim to go through with. Since a doctor is not allowed to actually do the procedure of the injection, the injectors may not be as well versed as to what could hurt a victim. The remaining methods all should be considered cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment. Hanging, a fire squad, electrocution, and the gas chamber all will no doubtingly induce pain onto the victim in every case and may take longer to actually kill the victim. If a victim is to be sentenced to death, it should be done quickly and painlessly.

DATA: A huge and obvious conclusion that is drawn from the data is the majority of the executions nationwide are those of African American adult males. The top 3 states that have the most death row inmates are California, Texas, and Florida. This may be due to the size of the states. These states are larger than many other states and more densely populated. A direct relationship seems to be shown with the size of the state and the number of death row inmates. There are very few women on death row, the state with the highest number of women as inmates is California with 11 women. The most commonly used method of execution is lethal injection- in my opinion this is due to it being thought of as the most humane way of execution. Illinois like many other states does not allow juvenile persons to be executed. However interestingly enough, Illinois will allow an inmate to be executed even if the inmate is mentally retarded. It appears that Texas has had the most executions with a total of 405. The state by state data tells us that the death penalty is used more when there are more inmates in the jails. It also appears that when a state is more southern and has a bigger African American population, the likelihood of the death penalty being used is higher. This simply proves the point that the death penalty is an unequal way to go about punishing those who have commit heinous crimes. The death penalty is an arbitrary way that the court can go about serving punishment for a crime. There are obviously flaws in the justice system that should be evaluated before the death penalty continues.

CHART: My views from the previous response stay the same after looking at these charts. The information from the charts show that it is actually more economic to keep an inmate in prison for life with no parol than it is for an execution to occur however both are very costly. The charts on this website are very misleading. For instance, one chart says that 56% of White defendants are executed whereas 35% of African American defendants are. The information provided is not out of one whole but out of itself. To get 56% of whites being executed it may be about 56 out of 100 defendants versus the 35 percent of African American defendants being executed which may be 350 out of 1000. The charts show that its a pretty even split between people who prefer the death penalty versus the people who prefer life in prison with no parol. The Death Penalty Information Center has a multitude of information that if looked at briefly is very convincing. This information however is statically and strategically placed in a way that will make a person be swayed into the ideas that the organization holds. For my opinion to be completely true, I would need to see the sole facts that the organization used to come up with their statistics.

Death Penalty #1

Clifford Boggess was rightfully executed. He murdered two elderly men and even though he claimed to be repenting for the terrible crimes he had commit, there is no way that he can honestly say he has forgiven himself for the horrific times he has caused both families. I do not believe that people can so easily change as to one day be a murderer and a few months later be an avid christian that has been released of all his sins. I think that by acting like he thinks "Jesus has forgiven me of my sins because I have forgiven myself" was a way that Boggess tried to mitigate his case.

I do hold sympathy for Boggess due to his home life growing up. If I were a lawyer I would consider his childhood a huge mitigating factor. It is important to note that Boggess' childhood was terrible. He was abused verbally, mentally, and physically. The average child who was abused as a child is more likely to be an abusive person as they age. Maybe if Boggess was not abused as a child he would not have grown up to be what he became: a murderer.

However above his horrific childhood, his lack of remorse of what he had done was a greater aggravating factor. Boggess, in the documentary, seemed as if he didn't care that he was on death row. Why should society care about the life of Clifford Boggess if Clifford Boggess failed to even care about his own life. Sure he may have been an influential artist- he had a lot of talent, but that doesn't make up for the fact that he took the life of two people. Everyones life is meaningful there is no doubt about it. But when one person takes the lives of others, why should they deserve to live?

Justice was not what the families of the victims got. Even they said that they did not feel any better after the death of Boggess than they did when he was in jail. The families of the victims have a complete right to feel hatred towards Boggess but that hatred wasn't just going to erase itself after Clifford Boggess was put to rest. To come to terms with the death of their loved ones, the families need to find their own ways to move on but the death of Clifford Boggess will not achieve that for them.

yours truly,
Amy

Bullying

In class we watched several videos that had to do with bullying. The first video we watched was on the case of Jamie Nabozny. Nabozny was severely bullied throughout his schooling years because he was gay. When Nabozny and his parents went to the school and informed them of what was going on, the school basically told them that boys will be boys and there was nothing that they could do to stop other children from bullying Nabozny. Eventually Nabozny attempted to commit suicide and then decided to run away and these actions made his parents realize that what was going on was not okay and something needed to be done so their child would be safe, like he should be. Jamie ended up suing the school and the teenagers who harshly bullied him at school. His was the first case of bullying that ended up winning in court.
This story was truly inspiring. I felt proud of Jamie Nabozny for having the courage to sue the school not knowing whether or not he would walk out of the courtroom winning or losing. It shows that one person can really change the entire country's rules because of what happened to him. Jamie Nabozny did not deserve to undergo what he went through and was rewarded with money for compensation. Money can't buy back Nabozny's childhood and no one should have to go through what he did.

Rachel Neblett was a 17 year old girl who seemed like she had everything going for her. She was a cheerleader, a talented gymnast and she had a lot of friends at school. One summer she started receiving threatening emails. Neblett had not told her parents of this until it became more of a serious issue. Neblett's teachers and principal were informed, once her parents found out, so that they could keep an eye out for her at school. Neblett eventually commit suicide because of her fear for her life from the anonymous e-mailer. To add to the cause, one of her best friends committed suicide six months after Neblett did because of her inability to cope with Neblett's death.

Neblett's father created a nonprofit organization, Make a Difference for Kids, to spread awareness of anti-bullying and anti-suicide across the country. Organizations like Make a Difference for Kids is a great way to get the anti bullying message out there. The more organizations like this, the less kids and teenagers will be to feel the need to bully others at and/or out of school. Bullying has shown to be an immense problem in many parts of the US and is something that may not ever actually go away, but can be helped. Many teens and even young children are feeling that suicide is the only way out of bullying but that shouldn't be so.
To see more about Rachel Neblett's organization visit: http://www.makeadifferenceforkids.org/rachael.html

I don't think that bullying is an issue at Deerfield High School. No one I know is personally bullied and I know that I don't personally bully anyone. I feel fortunate that bullying is not a big problem here because teenagers should feel safe in the places they are. If bullying becomes a problem there is always the deans office to settle any disputes between teens. Bullying can be minimized all around the country and if students at a high school, like DHS, are activists on non bullying, it may help with bullying problems at other schools.

yours truly,
Amy

Students and the Fourth Amendment

A study at Columbia University reported that, "ssubstance abuse adds at least $41 billion dollars to the costs of elementary and secondary education in terms of special education, teacher turnover, truancy, property damage, injury, counseling, and other costs." Who in their right mind would want to spend 41 billion dollars for children and teenagers to do something illegal and something that's hurting themselves? Enforcing a policy where students need to be drug tested on occasion is a beneficial option for students to, in a way, be forced to stay clean.
It has also been reported that by the time that a class reaches their senior year in high school, more than one-third of the class have used or do use drugs. In one specific school, one third of students may not seem to be that high of a number, but if looked at in a broader view, one third of high school seniors throughout the country adds up to millions of teens. So many students have used and abused drugs, that a drug testing policy would only help the problem.
Some policies have students drug tested if they want to be a part of an extra-curricular program at the school they attend. This policy reduces the amount of athletes and students involved with the school's activities that do drugs. Drug testing has shown to keep students away from the drugs and in the activities their school provides. Drug testing these students is a good way to start a policy in the school, but a drug testing policy should be in place over all of the student body.
Drug testing policies not only keep kids away from illegal activity but also improve their academics at school too. It was shown that "80% (2002-2003 school year) and 79% (2003-2004 school year) of schools with random drug testing programs achieved scores higher than the state average on the mandated graduation test for grades 10-12." It is clear that students who attend schools with a random drug testing policy have better academic scores than those who don't. Doesn't it seem like a good idea not to spend 41 billion dollars on drugs and achieve better scores on nation wide tests than average?

Many may argue that drug testing is an invasion of the privacy of students. Schools would not be drug testing if they were simply wanting to invade the students privacy, but rather that the school is concerned for their student body's safety and well being.
In an article in a newspaper from Connecticut a parent, Mr. Katz, shared a story they had experienced sending their child to a high school with out a drug testing program. Mr. Katz stated, "My son Ian died September 10, 1996... student drug testing could have saved our son's life." another article from Alabama reported, "We have had only 6 positive test results since adding random drug testing... Some community members have asked me why don't we just stop the program. I responded: What, are you kidding? We've saved 6 kids, Even if we only save one more-- what's a child's life worth?" It is important to note that drug testing is not a way to infringe on a students privacy or their fourth amendment rights, it is solely a way to keep the students of America safe.
In the case ACLU, the strip search of student Savanna Redding, was ruled to be unacceptable of the school. In my opinion, since Redding was said to have sold her prescription strength ibuprofen, it was okay that when she did not admit to her wrong doings that the school could thereafter search her. The search dealt with a student who had allegedly sold drugs at school. Whether or not a school has a drug testing program, a student is not allowed to sell drugs, or anything for that matter, at school.
The case Rutherford v. Missouri was an extreme way of handling their program. I agree that it was a violation of the students fourth amendment rights because there was absolutely no reasonable cause that they would conduct the test. There must be a meaningful cause for a school to conduct a test as such.

Freedom of Religion

What caught my attention at first were questions 4, 5, and 6 on the survey. They questioned whether or not student speakers should be able to speak about their religion at public school events, whether or not student speakers should be allowed to offer prayer at public school events, and whether or not the first amendment requires a clear separation of church and state. What was striking about the answers were that the majority of people surveyed strongly agreed that students could speak to their religion in a speech at a public school event as well as agreeing that students can hold prayer at a public school event. The results however showed that people strongly agreed that there should be a separation of church and state. If religion can be brought into the school in speech or practice, then how does that elude to a separation of church and state? If church and state are to be separated schools should not allow students to speak to or practice their religion at the public school. The practice of religion might make some students feel uncomfortable, and could disturb the learning environment of the students. At Deerfield High School specifically, the disruption of the learning environment is never okay.

In the section "religious liberty," it was noted that America is one of the most diverse countries in the world. It is great that as an American I can say that I live in a country that is okay with me practicing Judaism while my neighbor is Catholic and the family across the street is Muslim. America being a community, it is important that we are all okay with each other. While different religions tend to have disagreements with other religions it is vital that America continues to work towards religious peace in our own country. In the case of the potential mosque being built in close proximity to ground zero,  it is important not to look at the religion that Al Qaeda practiced but the terrible people they were as individuals.

I chose to look at the section entitled, "distributing religious literature." The main point that I took from that overview was that it was okay to distribute religious literature as long as there was a reasonable time, place and manner. To me, it seems clear that the first amendment separates church and state. Because this is the case, it should only be right to have strict boundaries of when religious literature should be distributed. I don't believe that it is okay to force a student to study a religion, in classes such as history, that they are not comfortable studying. While a teacher may excuse a student who does not want to learn about the various religion, it is also important that, that student walks away learning the same amount as the people who opted to learn about the specific religion. In public schools it is only fair to allow all students to the same knowledge with out making them feel uncomfortable. Eliminating the distribution of religious literature would eliminate any problems regarding disruption of peace.

The article Schools Can Limit When, Where Kids can Hand Out Religious Material, had a right in limiting kids to hand out pencils that say,  "Jesus is the reason for the season." Church and state should be separated and by allowing students to hand out religious materials that may be attempting to influence other students to join that religion, church and state are not separated.

yours truly, 
Amy

Thoughts on the 9/11 movie

What really stood out to me in the 9/11 movie was how well the community came together in times of need. Organizational groups were put into action providing food for all of the workers and groups would stand outside NYC to cheer and clap thanking all of the workers who by going into ground zero were risking their lives to save the lives of others. There were memorial candle lightings in the city and many people felt it comforting that everyone was in the same boat. It was truly inspiring to see that when something so terrible as the 9/11 attacks happened that everyone came together as one to rebuild what was lost.

Watching this movie was very hard for me. Although I've studied the 9/11 attacks in various classes through out my education, I still find it very hard to watch the footage of the planes crashing into the World Trade Centers, the towers falling, and the aftermath of the attack. Even though the attack happened in 2001 and its 2010 already, when I watch the footage, it seems like it just happened yesterday. It saddens me to see all of the people feel as if they are in such danger, and to see them upset over lost loved ones. Overall, I think the movie was truly great and a positive item to be a part of our curriculum.

yours truly,
Amy

Speech Codes Issues

The activity that was done last week reinforced my thoughts as to the necessity of speech codes throughout society. The boys who participated in the party at the fraternity should have been punished. Their actions were extremely offensive and reasonably could have started violence. The punishment that should have been given to the boys was suspension or expulsion. It is necessary for all universities to have speech codes to keep a safe campus. Although speech codes "limit" your freedom of speech, college is not a place where violence due to demeaning commentary should occur.
The case that I looked at dealt with a student who was charged with discrimination and harassment for "offensive speech" at the University of Idaho. The organization FIRE was attempting to minimize and eliminate hate crimes by enforcing speech codes. I agree with what FIRE is doing. Organizations like FIRE need to exist so that the amount of discrimination that occurs between students will lessen. FIRE was organized to help students in society, not harm them. Even if it means disallowing students to say what ever they want, when ever they want, speech codes are a necessary and helpful tool in our society.

yours truly,
Amy