Neil Duran

English

 

As I look at each and every one of you I see the future, a future encased in a dense layer of ignorance. I implore you to attempt to break the habit of monotony, deviate from the path society has conditioned your brain to follow, create your own truth. There is an inherent diversity in all living beings: but a critical question stand does this diversity constitute a difference? We’re taught that certain physical characteristics and genealogy define your race, this concept of race is widely accepted by the population. What many of us don’t know is that race isn’t something as simple as the color of your skin or your chemical make up. What is the difference between me and you? What makes your skin darker than mine? What makes your hair fairer? What makes your eyes lighter? It’s the result of environmental stimuli that your predecessors underwent, this insinuates that at some point us as people as humans, we intersected and were a unified “Race”. I’m old my idea of race has already been cemented into my brain, even as I educate myself on the topic I still find it difficult to grasp. Your young you have the room for objectivity, the burden of ignorance is replaced by innocence. But how can you understand such a foreign concept, when your elders struggle with it themselves, alienating themselves into stagnant groups. The wisdom we have as adults are plagued by bias, we pass on information but in our own unique ways. We pass on our mannerisms and prejudices creating reflections of ourselves in the youth. We create the bias, we create the race, we create the exclusion when we should create unison. These are all premises that fall into the category of “racial skepticism”, what is racial skepticism you may ask? It’s a philosophical theory which suggests that Race isn’t a real concept, Naomi Zack a racial skeptic summarizes their argument like this “A summary of the racial skeptic’s argument against the biological foundations for race, sequentially summarizing the scientific rejection of essences, geography, phenotypes, post-Mendelian transmission genetics, and genealogies as possible foundations for races. Aristotelian essences, thought to ground the common characteristics of distinct species, were correctly rejected by early modern philosophers.” To summarize the summarization to be a racial skeptic is to challenge the validity of a long-held belief. I wanted to talk about this as a belief since in my opinion, most racial barriers are a result of faulty logic. One example of this is the self-segregation of people globally, there have been constant instances of people unconsciously dividing themselves on the bases of race. A prime is an example is Europeans and Africans, Europeans believed themselves to be above Africans because of their belief in Manifest Destiny or the white man’s burden. The superiority that they held in high regard lead to 400 years of oppression on their fellow man. Would the same situation play out if the Europeans were racial skeptics? Most likely, but at least it won’t be a race issue anymore. Racial skepticism isn’t a fix-all that’ll magically whisk away all the problems or tensions between people in this society. Racial skepticism, in my opinion, can be an effective tool in dispelling stereotypes and other situations along those lines, it isn’t going to prevent large scale acts such as slavery. But maybe with this ideology all black people won’t be seen as criminals, all Mexicans won’t be seen as immigrants, all these microaggressions that are present in everyday life will slowly fade out of existence. Imagine the good we can do if we acknowledge that we aren’t separate, more job opportunities, more diverse communities, more potential to grow! The boundaries that have been established over centuries of oppression and disdain can easily collapse through the spreading of tolerance. Prejudice is inevitable but only when those ideas are already cemented into your way of life. The only way to break this cycle of prejudice is to teach students these values, philosophy isn’t touched upon in-depth in high schools. Introducing kids to philosophies like racial skepticism can help kids make a decision on what they want to believe instead of playing into a narrative. Through education, these prejudicial values can be stopped in their tracks and a more open mind can be created. Individuality is built through experience, giving kids the ability to learn about these values will result in more free thinkers. Children who are given the chance to attain this knowledge will grow up to pass the same ideologies to their kids creating a new cycle of intelluatilism aimed at dismantling the bias in everyday life.

Amaya Brooks

Eng 1101

11/2/19

Unit 2

 

Sources 1:

When a victim is in relationship with abuser normally the abuser believe their superior demand respect from the victim. The abuser can be anyone it doesn’t see gender or race. My source the National Domestic Violence Hotline describe the abuser tactics as a wheel of power and control. The abuser at one point or another uses one or all of the points on this wheel. Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior used by one partner to maintain power control over another partner in an intimate relationship (national domestic violence hotline:whats is domestic violence?). Abuser uses the power and control to intimidate victims. Make them feel less than or inferior by abusing their partners. There are many types of abuse. some are more common than other like  physical abuse, emotion, financial, etc these are all the most common ones. A lot of people are aware of physical abuse which is choking, hitting, slapping, pinning down, pushing.Then there is some that aren’t so familiar like Reproductive abuse, it sounds exactly what it is controlling a person when they can or can’t get pregnant by controlling their birth control or purposely breaking the condom forcing them to have a baby. Now is it credible ? I believe so national domestic violence hotline is secondary sources they use people’s real life situations to come up with their facts and support them with many examples. This sources answer my question by explaining to me all elements of abuse and supports the claim of victim normally have a hard time leaving due to the fact their extremely scared of their partner or In denial of the fact their in an abusive relationship too afraid to ask for help.

 

Sources 2

 

In the song there a stranger in my house  songwriter tamia sings about how she unaware of this new person that’s in her home it’s her husband she was talking about. She refers to him as a stranger because he wasn’t acting like her house lyrics in the chorus of the song states “ Cause he wouldn’t touch me like that and wouldn’t treat me like you do He would adore me, he wouldn’t ignore me So I’m convinced there’s a stranger in my house “ which leaves a lot gateway space to take prior research apply it to the situation and reading in between the lines of metaphors of what tamia is painting for listeners. Her husband being a stranger to her because he isn’t acting like himself ignoring her or even hitting her which are all signs of abuse. But tamia also has a conflicting conversation with herself tries to remind and convince herself that must be her husband because she as stated “  I’m checking your clothes And you wear the same size shoe You sleep in his spot And you’re driving his car” she aware that’s her husband but isn’t himself. This relates to my question because it shows the mindset of the victim and leaves possibility of why a victim wouldn’t want to leave or struggle to leave because she believes he will change his emotions and actions as a husband but doesn’t. this source I believe is credible because she is talking about an event that happened to her in the past this is basically coming straight from the horse’s mouth. who lie about that on top of the fact because she is telling her story and no else is this is a primary source holds weight to my research question

Sources: 3

Many victims struggle with removing themselves from this toxic relationship because they don’t have support from others about further steps they should take to remove themselves from the problem. Victim normally go through many conflicting thoughts when coming forward. Victim blaming can be one of the reasons why victims have a hard time leaving their relationship. According to victim reality TV star Basketball Wives Evelyn Lozada posted on instagram clapping back to people that had an opinion on her domestic violence case against former football player and ex husband Chad Ochocinco. After referring to herself as a survivor and not a victim Lozada believe that victim blaming makes it hard for them to step forward.  As stated in post “ victim blaming culture discourages domestic violence victim from coming forward. The fear of being judged and shamed is enough to make anyone stay quiet and suffer in silence” which makes it harder for them to leave their spouse. Lozada also believe when victim build up enough courage to “speak their truth” many people don’t believe them don’t support them on the fact that they spoke up especially if abuser has higher social media following people believe the victim are clout chasing. Which is pretty cruel if you ask me what happen to innocent until proven guilty that doesn’t just work inside the courtroom it should be applied everywhere. Then wonders why victims don’t come forward, who wants to be told their truth is a lie? . Now due to where I got my source from many may say its not credible because anyone can post on instagram and thats correct anyone can post on this social media but truthful I believe depend the story how many elements are supported by true facts. Instagram can be credible its crediblity shouldn’t be questioned due to where it came from as far as the app but more about who said it, who post this story is it factual the author is what matters.

Sources 4:

So let’s play a game of what if so say one day a victim comes forward and tells their story of the abuse they have been going through with his or her spouse to the police and now they want to start a case against abuser. There are many different penalties of domestic violence offenses it all depends all on evidence in the case. Statewide penalties for domestic violence change from being a simple misdemeanor to a harsh felony due to elements the case presents. According to my sources “charges depend on the severity of the injury offense being charged and whether the defendant has a criminal history, age of the victim. Many states also will upgrade offense if the victim is a child .”  each offense may get a different penalty some can be as simple as a fine or community service or something more harsh and severe like restraining order supervised visits with child or completely terminating parental rights lastly up to ten years of imprisonment. Unless it’s Spousal abuse this abuse gets a totally different charge and penalty oddly enough it’s not the same as domestic violence but is similar. The difference between both of them is your relation to your abuser. Spousal abuse is the most common abuse. According to my Source “ charges and penalties for spousal abuse depend on whether the acts result in serious bodily harm, have been continual, or if the accused has a history of abusive behavior.” meaning that charges can change due to damaged created by abuser. It’s clear our legal system has an order they try to follow its gladly appreciated. but it only works if you suffered from physical trauma or emotion trauma. If it was any other type of abuse like financial abuse or it wouldn’t be able to be proven under spousal abuse charges. Also this system wouldn’t work for long because its not proactive on the violence but really only reactive on it. On top of the fact, this only works if the victim is willing and not afraid to come forward. So the legal issue is does the crime fit the punishment ? and does this secure the safety of the victim if abuser only gets serviced a small amount of time jail comes back out after servicing his time because he only got charged with a misdemeanor. My sources relates to my question because this gives another reason why it might be difficult for a victim to come forward and get the help they need to escape this abusive relationship al Abuse Charges and Penalt

Christian Parris                                                                     11/9/19

 

What can we do to combat the school to prison pipeline?

 

One of the biggest problems in the United States today is the amount of young minority Americans going in and out of the prison system. It’s because of increasingly harsh school and municipal policies such as school disturbance laws, zero tolerance policies and practices, and an increase in police forces in schools in creating the pipeline. The policy best known is the zero tolerance policy which is school is a strict enforcement of regulations and bans against behaviors or the possession of items deemed undesirable by the schools. This policy is enforced in many ways from suspensions to explosions which causes many kids to be exposed to the street life and end up in jail. In this essay I will be discussing what is the school to prison pipeline and in what ways can we combat the school to prison pipeline so that we can lower the prison rates. 

 

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE by ACLU talks about how the school to prison pipeline is created by in inequality in and the policy are just the way to enforce them. Which is why I believe we should change the policy like the zero  tolerance policy and the amount of money that the schools get. In the arrival it says ”

For most students, the pipeline begins with inadequate resources in public schools. Overcrowded classrooms, a lack of quali­fied teachers, and insufficient funding for “extras” such as counselors, special edu­cation services, and even textbooks, lock students into second-rate educational envi­ronments. What this quote means is that the school down have enough funds to properly prepare the student and how that leads to more dropout because they can’t get the proper education.

 

According to (How High-Stakes Testing Feeds the School-to-Prison Pipeline) written by fairtest.org Standardized test to feeding the school to prison pipeline. Which was written to explain the effects of standardized testing and why it is bad, but also how it helps lead students to the school to prison pipeline. Which gives me my opinion that we should get rid of standardized testing. When research how high stakes testing affect the school to prison pipeline they found “High school exit exams (FairTest, 2008) push many thousands of students out of school. As a result of these factors, urban graduation rates decreased. Some students see no realistic option other than dropping out; some are deliberately pushed out or fail the tests.” This means that the dropout rate around the exit test increase as a result the graduation rate fell down and the dropouts are more likely to get involved with gangs and other illegal activities.

 

It also explains how teaching the book affects not only the student but the learning environment. The text says, “Moreover, the test-prep culture pits teachers against kids, damages school climate and reduces students’ engagement with school. This in turn fosters problem behaviors, which are then countered with zero tolerance”. What this quote means is that because the teacher has to teach to the book students are more likely to get distracted and off-topic which then leads to behavioral problems where they are counted with a zero-tolerance policy. This proves my claim that we showed get rid of the standard test because with the standard test gone kids wouldn’t stress over the school which could lead to dropping out and teachers could go off book and make lessons interesting and effective so there won’t be behavioral problems and students can actually learn.

 

The article (Stopping the School-to-Prison Pipeline Starts With Ending Suspensions) by Sarah Kuta a writer from Colorado who regularly write about education. Wrote this article to talk about the school to prison pipeline and how restorative justice can be an alternative. Restorative justice is an alternate method of disciplining students that seeks to balance the process between being too permissive and being too punitive. The goal of restorative justice is to work with students (the victims and the accused) to come to a solution rather than simply handing down punishment such as suspensions or expulsions. In the article says “We know that many of our students who are suspended are also the ones who don’t make it to graduation,” said David Yusem. The restorative justice coordinator for the Oakland Unified School District explains that because of the harsh punishment of the school system the people who are punished are less likely to graduate and drop out which leads them to get involved in gangs and other legal activities. 

 

David Yusme goes on to prove that restorative justice work by watching the rate go down in school that have restorative justice the the ones without. He says “Oakland schools that have implemented restorative justice practices have seen a 56 percent decrease in dropout rates from 2010 to 2013, compared to a 17 percent decline at schools without restorative justice,according to district data.” What this means is that during the years of 2010 and 2013 they tested to see if restorative justice would have an effect on the graduation rate which it did.This proves my claim that restorative justice is a solution to the school to prison pipeline because it showed the difference between people going to regular school and a school with restorative justice and how the dropping out rate of school’s are lower with restorative justice which higher graduation rates keeping them off the streets and out of prison system. 

 

In the article (Cops in class: Is ‘zero tolerance’ still the right approach?) By Ashley Fantz, a CNN reporter who wrote this article to inform the public about the dangerous effects of the zero tolerance policy and police getting involved in school matters. Which is why I bolive another way to combat the school to prison pipeline is that they should make the police should be the last resort in handling a matter and change. Because of policies like the zero tolerance which was introduced by the former president Ronald Reagan which was first made to target gangs and drugs in schools back in the days. When police or security is called to deal with student acting out they are required to treat the situation like they were dealing with adults which not only means to arrest them but use force. In an article by Ashley Fantz, CNN she gives a few examples of police using to much force on minors “In May, sheriff’s deputies use pepper spray to break up a fight at a Naples, Florida, high school. Three students are arrested and 21 students need medical care.” What this show is the negative effect of the policy because police are called in they use the same amount of power as if they were dealing with a real criminal. This leads to many problems not only physical problems but mental problems and they are most likely to end up in an even worse situation when they get older.

 

Another example she gives is on why not to use police is In March 2015, when “New York Police Department safety agents ask a student to remove safety pins holding his glasses together. When the student refuses, the officers reportedly tackle and arrest him.” This shows the police have no training when Handling young kids because what was said that really happen was after the took the safety pin he try to reach for his glasses and tackled him to the ground. Where his elbow accidently hit on of the officer in the eye. I believe this source is worth listening too because it gives more than two great examples as to why policy like the zero tolerance policy has a negative impact on the school system.

 

In conclusion I believe the school to prison pipeline does exist and there are many ways to combat it a few ways are Make police the last resort, Restorative justice, and get rid of standardized testing. People should care about this topic because it affects the minority groups in the United States. 

 

Fantz, Ashley. “Zero Tolerance Policies and School Cops – CNN.” CNN, Google, 29 Oct. 2015, https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/10/29/us/police-schools-punishment-zero-tolerance/index.html.

 

“How Testing Feeds the School-to-Prison Pipeline.” FairTest, 28 Mar. 2010, https://www.fairtest.org/how-testing-feeds-schooltoprison-pipeline.

 

Kuta, Sarah. “Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline Starts With Getting Rid of School Suspensions.” School Leaders Now, 29 Oct. 2019, https://schoolleadersnow.weareteachers.com/end-school-suspensions/.

 

“School-to-Prison Pipeline.” American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline.

 

Christopher Chan

Curiosity Report

One of the more controversial topics that are discussed among people is the use of the death penalty. I wanted to focus on current events that were ongoing and could still change and/or develop over the years. Many people with many opinions but I wanted to research by myself what some of the more arousing arguments are. With this in in mind, I was curious as to what are some moral arguments against the death penalty? Stuck on the decision to write about arguments for or against the death penalty, I decided to research argument against the death penalty because I was placed on the other side of the argument for an assignment in middle school. Having done small research as to why one would support the death penalty, I wanted to know more about the other side of the argument; why one should be against it in my report.

S1: According to an interview conducted by Colleen Walsh for Prof. Carol Steiker of the Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard University, the U.S Supreme court will strike down the death penalty once and for all. The title of the interview is “Death Penalty; in retreat”, where the Colleen Walsh asks Prof. Steiker on some of the basic questions and her views within the death penalty and criminal justice system. Professor Carol Steiker can be seen as anti-death penalty as her interview is mainly about her thoughts on negatives of the death penalty. Her intended audience can be broad and can be directed to many people, but it would be to inform the public and those that share an interest in knowing more about the death penalty. Throughout the interview, Prof. Carol responds with facts and supported opinions while trying not to be completely biased towards a side. Her tone is informative and one can say she is using logos. The interview is also on an Arthur whose books focus on criminal justice systems and other legal issues. It is also a primary source making it more legitimate and direct to use opposed to other.

The death penalty has been making its checklist stricter throughout the years, making the death penalty eligible for more of the notorious crimes. Seeing its pattern throughout the years, it would not be surprising to see the Supreme Court eventually prohibit the death penalty. In the response, Prof. Steiker states, “The Supreme Court has been on a trajectory of narrowing and questioning the death penalty. In 2002, it held that people with mental retardation, now called intellectual disability, couldn’t get the death penalty. In 2005, it held that juvenile offenders couldn’t get the death penalty. In 2008, it held that people who commit crimes other than murder…even the crime of aggravated rape of a child couldn’t get the death penalty. These are really significant limitations on capital punishment” (Walsh). This evidence is important because it provides clear understanding to why the death penalty would soon be eliminated if it continues on the current path. This source is incredibly helpful because it helps build ground as to why one should oppose the death penalty as long as provide context to how the death penalty stirs up domestic arguments as well as affects foreign relations.

S2: The death penalty is a violation of human rights and it is a failure to deter crime. From BBC’s website, titled “Ethic’s Guide; Capital Punishment.” BBC is a public service broadcaster that produces programs and services throughout the UK as well as create content viewed around the world. The page talks about the different arguments used against the death penalty. Each argument is given a thorough sentence or two about its meaning. As we don’t know who the writers and editors of the page are, we cannot assume their standing on the death penalty but we can assume they are anti-death penalty considering they are writing a page on the moral arguments against the death penalty. Since my topic question being what the moral arguments are for anti-death penalty, the page gives me dozens of arguments for abolishing the death penalty making it extremely useful and straight to the point, but the two that I found that stand out is the execution of the innocent and the failure to deter crime.

One of the supporting arguments is the value of human life and the right to live. “Everyone has an inalienable human right to life, even those who commit murder; sentencing a person to death and executing them violates that right” (BBC). The death penalty does not allow the victim(s) to be reincarnated in anyway but only provides relief towards victim(s) and their families. This value of life concept can be understood by society way back in time. The medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas describes the use of capital punishment on individuals saying, “Therefore if any man is dangerous to the community and is subverting it by some sin, the treatment to be commended is his execution in order to preserve the common good… Therefore to kill a man who retains his natural worthiness is intrinsically evil, although it may be justifiable to kill a sinner just as it is to kill a beast, for, as Aristotle points out, an evil man is worse than a beast and more harmful. (BBC)”

The concept of deterrence of crime using the death penalty is an arguable statement made by those who are in favor of it. However, crime deterrence is based on the chances one may be caught in the act and convicted. The death penalty mainly applies only to those who commit serious heinous crimes against others such as murder, rape and etc. When one individual is deemed to approach that path, it is highly unlikely that the punishment for that crime, will prevent them from committing the act itself. To support this, the UN released a statement from the studies on relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, they stated, “…research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis. (BBC)” Based on this one can concur that the death penalty honestly has little to no effect such as deterrence on crimes.

 

S3: This source is from a website called ProCons.org. They provide pros and cons on current issues and events while providing primary quotes from well-known individuals. They are non-partisan and only use this to educate and inform others. On the page, there are listed pros and cons about the death penalty, which is extremely helpful. Not only that, the website also provides statements and quotes from well-known people on their standing on the death penalty. In this source there are many quotes and statements but some have a higher significance. There are a total of 10 statements made by various people that state the cons of the death penalty. It is broken down into 10 sections and each category contains a pro and a con. The categories are Morality, Constitutionality, Deterrence, Retribution, Irrevocable mistakes, Cost of death vs life in prison, Race, Closure for victim’s family, Attorney quality and last but not least Physicians at executions. This source is extremely helpful towards researching the topic question because it provides sources from important figures that play a large role in the criminal justice system and their views.

Looking at the sections from morality, the death penalty is legalized crime and affects those who take part in it.  When a convicted is sentenced to the death penalty, it is the decision of the jury and the judge to make this decision equally. However, some may not be comfortable with the knowledge of having “blood” on their hands, it would be forever known to them what they done to another person and or question their judgement. In an excerpt from the book “What I learned from executing two men” written by Semon Frank Thompson, he writes, “Regardless of their crimes, the fact that I was now to be personally involved in their executions forced me into a deeper reckoning with my feelings about capital punishment. After much contemplation, I became convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn’t.” Semon Frank Thompson was the Former Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary up until his retirement in 2010. Since his retirement, Mr. Thompson has been reaching out to others and “persuade people that capital punishment is a failed policy. America should no longer accept the myth that capital punishment plays any constructive role in our criminal justice system.”

S4: My final source is a YouTube video from the creators of Jubilee. With more than 4 million subscribers, Jubilee creates thought provoking, real and empathetic videos to create a movement for human good. In this episode, they created a video regarding the death penalty. Their goal was to “Bring those against and in favor of the death penalty together to spark dialogues about their differences and similarities.” There are 6 guests on the video; Dillion, Khalil, Genesta, Sean, Omar and Austin. Like most of their debate videos, of the 6 people, 50 percent of them support and the other 50 disagree with the topic, Khalil, Genesta and Austin are among those who are Anti-death penalty. Sean, Dillion and Omar are those who are Pro- death Penalty. Given statement by the directors, the guest are given the choice to agree by coming forward or disagree by standing in the back while those who agree finish their explanation and reasoning. In connection to the topic question, this source is different mainly because it is a video. The overall audience that each of these individuals are reaching out to is to convince the other side why and what the terms are to them agreeing or disagreeing with the issue given, in this case the death penalty. Unlike a written statement, a video or audio clip allows the reader to hear the way the speaker is speaking. For instance if the speaker is crying, angry, informative, or laughing. These elements are what make this source extremely helpful towards the topic question because it brings in both sides of the argument to discuss the topic and the audience can hear and see the debate.

From this video, the death penalty has the risk of sentencing innocent people. Directors presented the statement, “I am afraid that there are innocent people on death row” ( Y.Lee 14:35). In response to this, all six individuals approached the seats in response to them agreeing with the statement. It almost seems as it is deemed that human error can result in wrong doing in the convictions of individuals placed in death row. There have definitely been individuals who were found innocent after their misfortunate sentences or even proven innocent during trial but still given the harsh sentence. As Austin; who is Anti-death penalty states, “The current count I believe ever since President Carter is 100 people have been found not guilty due to basically witnesses lying and DNA testing….100 people is not a small amount” (Y.Lee 14:55). Knowing that human error and irrevocable flaws are almost certain to happen in most cases, one could have a hard time trusting and perhaps even believing in the system itself. As Khalil mentions after Austin’s response, “If one person is innocent, that’s enough for me to not trust the legal system, and…um…in top of that in terms of corruption, racism all these kind of things that affect our whole legal system, I don’t know why its taboo to say that….like let’s admit it and move forward: (15:13).

In conclusion, I have gathered a lot of information on the moral arguments against the death penalty. In the first source I found the connections that the death penalty had on America and foreign nations. In the second source, I gathered arguments as to why the death penalty is violation of human rights as well as its failure to deter crime. From the website ProCons.org I was able to identify how the death penalty is legalized crime and affects those who take part in it. Finally, with the help of Jubilee’s video on death penalty I was able to find how the death penalty has the risk of sentencing innocent people. Seeing these arguments really gave me an idea to how the death penalty raises many questions and concerns. My standing has stayed the same as I, too oppose the death penalty for many reasons. However doing this report, propelled me to disagree even more with the death penalty. I am also understanding as to why one would be on the other side of this topic, some for their own personal reasons. I respect both sides of arguments pertaining to this topic but as to my thoughts on this topic, I am Anti-death penalty.

 

BBC. “Ethics – Capital Punishment: Arguments against Capital Punishment.” BBC , Neil McIntosh, 2014, www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml.

“Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments – Death Penalty – Procon.Org”. Deathpenalty.Procon.Org, 2019,  https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

Lee, Jason. “Death Penalty & Anti Death Penalty: Is There Middle Ground?”. Youtube, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceVYO03zcZU.

Walsh, Colleen. “Death Penalty, In Retreat”. Harvard Gazette, 2015, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/02/death-penalty-in-retreat/.

 

Shania Romain

Professor Hall 

English 

November 14th, 2019

 

What can I find out about Rodney Reed’s Case? What Can it tell us about Wrongful Convictions ?

 

In America you will definitely find many cases of the wrongfully convicted. Many of the times Prosecutors believe that they have reached the final verdict in hearing that case and nothing else matters. To be  wrongfully convicted is not okay and shows the failure in our legal system. This is especially difficult if you are not guilty and someone speaks up for the crime you served time for. Following Rodney Reed’s case, you see the hand for hand how the system fails us every day.

 

The Innocence Project is a non profit organization founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardozo School of Law, in New York City . Their main focus is to help put a stop to the wrongfully convicted. They try to help exonerate people. They have men Caucasian and  African American especially like Rodney Reed himself who may be up there on death row waiting just to be heard. They have very few women . This source helps people from all over and tries to change the legal system. “ The Innocence Project mission is to free the staggering number of innocent people who remain incarcerated and to bring reform to the system responsible for their unjust imprisonment “ This is the Innocence Project’s mission. We need more projects like this because wrongful conviction cases are reaching an all-time high and thank God for nonprofits like these who go out of their way to help people like Rodney Reed who is in a predicament in a State that will give the death penalty without blinking an eye. Rodney Red is also African American so the system may be harsher on him. The Innocence Projects get that and this is why they are nonprofit. They pick their cases from the most severe they won’t just pick anybody.

 

The Innocence Project is built for the incarcerated like Rodney Reed when the judge turns their back on. The Innocence Project raises a voice for them because the system failed these people and the Innocence Project holds the system accountable. This is a great movement to society because not only do they exonerate but they also help the exoneree. Thier  “Support “ part of the program, states ‘ Our Social Work department supports exonerees as they rebuild their lives post-release. This project has been a boon or blessing to those they “ release from wrongful convictions like Rodney Reed. Rodney Reeds’ cases front and center on the Innocent Project’s page where it states “ Urgent stop the November 20 execution of Rodney Reed .”.There are 53072 signatures. It gives information that states “ we have less than 7 days to save Rodney Reed’s life. If 16 Texas senators are urging the Governor to stop the execution of this man then some thing is wrong and sadly you find things like this common in the great nation of America.

 

Urgent: Stop the November

 

 

 

20 execution of Rodney Reed 

 

There is an interview with the infamous Dr. Phil who is a television personality and host of the Dr. Phil show for 25 years. He has a doctorate in clinical psychology and has many books like ‘Life strategies. Dr. Phil is known for dealing with real-life issues in his own way by welcoming helping or exposing people. In this case, he exposed the Rodney Reed case which was close to being a dead end. In the interview with Rodney Reed and Dr. Phil, you get more of an understanding of what  Rodney Reed is going through and the case at hand top to bottom. On October 11th, 2019 Dr. Phil aired a two-part segment where he gets to the root of the case of Rodney Reed who has been on death row 21 and a half years for murder and rape. We learned despite many piles of evidence that support his innocence Rodney Reed is still on death row . In this interview it gets deeper into Rodney Reed’s case where he answered the questions with honesty and he states ‘ they have the truth they know the truth ‘’

Rodney Reed left no tables turned in answering the questions. He answered with honesty which left Dr. Phil to conclude his innocence. We learn that Rodney Reed has an alibi witness that can greatly show that he wasn’t there the time of the murder. At 4:55 am Rodney Reed was at his parent’s house talking with other people the alibi went home and returned to Rodney Reed’s place. The women 19-year-old Stacey Stites was already dead and dumped by 4 am and found by the road. One full year after Stacey Stites was found dead they arrest Rodney Reed for Rape and murder .“ I didn’t do this crime and here they are trying to take my life” says Rodney Reed.

 

Dr. Phil doesn’t just interview anyone, however, he handpicked this interview because he wanted to help exonerate the innocent Rodney Reed. However, Dr. Phil, from interviewing Rodney Reed like the rest of the world believes that he is innocent and he was failed by the legal system. According to the speaker, retired NYPD detective SRGT Kevin Ganin who spoke on Dr. Phil’s show who has been solving this case since it started 1996 states “The only evidence linking Rodney Reed to Stacey’s murder are three sperm cells found inside of her “  Stacey Stites did, however, have an affair with Rodney Reed although engaged to a police officer Jimmy Fennel. He believes that Rodney reed was wrongfully convicted. We also learn from this speaker that at “2;45 in the morning Stacey took her boyfriend’s truck headed to work in a grocery mart. They believe Rodney Reed came on foot where he strangled her and raped her in a wooded area using a leather belt, He also states that Prosecutors are saying Rodney took the truck to a high school and abandoned it. The only piece of evidence used to prosecute Rodney Reed is the three sperm cells in her body and they want to give him the death penalty. This is not okay because more DNA should have been found. Rodney Reed’s DNA should have been on the leather belt or while strangling her bruises and cuts in her neck or something else. I n this interview we learn that medical experts are saying according to Dr. Phil “ It is medically impossible for Rodney Reed to have been the killer “. 

The Free Rodney Reed website is designated especially for Rodney Reed. This website can tell you everything you need to know about Rodney Reed. As of Right now, this man has 6 days before he gets a decision on whether he will be executed. Rodney Reed is being treated unfairly by the legal system and as a black man this is very common, Unfortunately, he had to serve 21 long and hard years not knowing when he was going to die or not at any time. An innocent man may be executed for something he didn’t even do. According to the website, “ Mountains of evidence exonerates Rodney Reed. All of that evidence was kept from the white jury that convicted him. Instead, the evidence implicates the victim’s fiance Jimmy Fennell who has a history of violence against women including being convicted for kidnapping and sexual assault soon after Rodney was wrongly sent to prison. A black man always gets harsher treatment. A black man always gets lethal injection before a white man does. THIS IS NOT OKAY.T his man is innocent. These people have to look at the facts.T he is the 21st century and racism is STILL at an all-time high.B efore they listen to a black man’s plea they are so quick to shove him in a prison cell when the facts are right under their noses. This is almost like we still live back in the days when different races couldn’t be together and it’s not okay. This man has been through enough he needs to be exonerated.

 

Rodney Reed is a resident of Texas state where the death penalty reigns. Their laws are more strict than ever. It may be very hard to come out of a death penalty case. However, on the FreeRodney Reed website, it states ‘Governor Greg Abbott has stopped execution before. He can again “. Governor Greg Abbott staff number is also located on the site for people to call and voice their concerns regarding the case You can call and advocate on behalf of Rodney Reed, who is very much innocent. the website instructs you to tell them you called and tell them to delay Rodney Reed’s execution.

 

Overall I learned more about wrongful convictions and how America has really messed up the legal system. A man who just for having an affair may be executed for something he has not done. He already has enough time wasted and now his entire existence might be gone as well. The justice system is entirely corrupted and I see why I want to work with the law even more so that I can have an impact on things like this. 

 

 

 

 

Elayne Susana Matos 

Professor Hall   

English 

 

      The world as we see it so simple and full of agendas to fulfill. Everyday things we are accustomed to like Asking another how you’re doing or acknowledging that someone is there, that comes so natural to us. Now might that be the case for everyone? The way we function and react since babies have impacted our social lives. A large majority of us don’t react and understand like the rest. These people are viewed differently and are misjudged. Which made me stop being selfish and actually want to understand the different perspectives of life. Instead of ignoring the facts I decided to learn about different disabilities one by one. Which brought me to my question “What is autism? How does a person with autism process information?” Let’s find out!

 

      Before we get into the specifics, as you should know autism is considered a disability and people with disabilities often get discriminated because they are not understood and are misjudged. “HR Hub“ a website where it’s insured employees are not being discriminated against by displaying news specifically on employees suing their jobs for violations and etc also showing ADA compliance guide. On this website cases from employers are displayed legitimely with details. A person with a mental disability at Chuck E Cheese in wisconsin was fired due to their disability of mental retardation. This is an example of disability discrimination. The EEOC which is an agency responsible for enforcing federal laws of applicants or employees such as harassment or discrimination brought Chuck E cheese to court, making EEOC plaintiffs and chuck E cheese the defendants. While the defendants argued “ it is highly unlikely that he experienced any significant distress as a result of his termination”(Jury Awards Record $13 Million in Disability Discrimination Case). Basically that because of this person’s mental state being fired didn’t significantly affect them. Opposing, the plaintiff’s argued that just because of a person’s mental state that does not mean they cannot acknowledge discriminations they do consider these feelings even if it’s not done in a traditional way. As a result the jury’s decision was a sum of 13 million dollars in punitive damages, 10,000 in back pay and 70,000 in compensatory. The jury also wanted this to be a message for employers to give equal opportunities to those with mental disabilities.

  

      When reading this case I felt disgusted by this employer’s actions. Having a mental disability does not mean you are vulnerable. The plaintiff’s brought a statement from the Chuck E Cheese manager stating “ Chuck E Cheese don’t hire those type of people” (Jury Awards Record $13 Million in Disability Discrimination Case). As the manager called it ‘those type of people’ are just people who view the word different than we do and that is okay, we shouldn’t fear that. The comments made about how the ex employer wouldn’t acknowledge the distress was very ignorant from their side. The jury did a great job with their decision and sending a message to employers across america.

 

      Social interactions for people with autism is a constant everyday battle. They are blind and/or immune into understanding that someone is sad. That sadness and happiness are two different things. They struggle with asking questions that come naturally to us like “how are you feeling today?”. The national autism society is the UK’s leading charity for autistic people. They are often getting involved in autistic cases which is why this is such a reliable source. In their article they stated “Autistic people often have difficulty ‘reading’ other people – recognising or understanding others’ feelings and intentions”(Autism).They have a hard time acknowledging people’s feelings. In addition, “This can make it very hard for them to navigate the social world”(Autism). Navigating everyday life is difficult. they tend to appear insensitive because of this and not seek comfort by other people.

 

       A big key to humanity in my opinion is feelings and social interactions. Feelings can often affect your actions and help people describe who you are in their eyes.It is import to acknowledge this about autistic people and take them into consideration. I actually find this very interesting because I think feelings are involved with passion. Something  autistic people have is passion and dedication. They have these feelings and they aren’t even aware of them. Which is something I’ve been learning about them and most people don’t know. Unfortunately, they don’t share that instinct with us instead they replace that skill into other skills we don’t acknowledge ourselves.

 

     Aside from having trouble with social interaction people with autism have different ways of communicating. The Time is known for their partnership with the new cast CNN. They did an article called “inside the autistc minds” written by Claudia Wallis. She is the managing editor of scientific minds and a health reporter. They focused on autistic kids and gathered evidence about them which made this such a reliable source. Hannah, a kid with autism, she communicates by typing. “ a girl thought to be incapable to read or write wrote I love mom”(Claudia Wallis). In this case the specialist were worried this girl couldn’t communicate but they found out that she can just in a different way. This girl was actually full with information inside of her head. The reason is “autistic children tend to have the brain of a 13 year old.”(Claudia Wallis). Later on she was asked, “ Do you have a photographic memory?’ and ‘Hannah typed “yes”(Claudia Wallis). These people have abilities we just can see it’s all inside their minds.  

  

     Do most autistic people have a photographic memory? I would like to know. Hannah was given a worksheet with 30 math problems and got all 30 right in an instance. This shows how she remembers everything she sees. As you can see autistic kids are very  quick. They are in tune with the world already full of knowledge with everything they see and they analyze it since a young age. Which is pretty amazing how rapid their brains grow.Now that we are getting deep into the brains of autistic children. Autistic kids brains start growing rapidly since the start. “ they experience rapid expansion since the age of 2” (Claudia Wallis). Since the age of 2 they start to analyze and process information. Which a regular person does not do. 

 

      People with autism always have an interest that is what they think about and relate every scenario to. Atypical a show on netflix produced by robia rashid a talented writer of hit shows was interested in kids growing into independence who are in the spectrum. When writing this show she did a lot of research and met with a lot of people asking what they thought about her main character who was on the spectrum. This is why this is a credible source .In the netflix show Atypical the main character is autistic and he is very interested in penguins and antártica. When he confronts situations in his everyday life he compares it to a penguin it relaxes him and helps him better understand the situation and what he should do. When he decided he was ready to start dating he compared himself to the penguin male and how they find a partner. He saw how penguins get attention from the female penguins and assert their dominance and so he did the same he changed his appearance. He even made desserts for the person he was trying to make his partner. He wasn’t doing it because of how he felt he did it because it was what penguins did when they are ready to mate.As you can see penguins take a big part in his life and is very important to him. I see this as a comfort zone for him.

 

      In this show, you get to see how and why he makes his every move. This autistic kid being the main character helped understand what might be going on inside an autistic person’s mind. When it comes to the interest we just don’t see that he likes penguins we see that he relates and helps him to cooperate with his everyday life. It shows how he is always thinking about it and it calms him down. This inside look helped understand what can be going on inside an autistic mind and of course how information might be processed in their head.

 

      After reading all these articles learning all these new things I still want to read more and if I’m lucky watch one more netflix show like the one I introduced. Did I answer my question for the most part yes but my question has an on going answer that keeps building on every month year or day as we speak. It is a question I have to keep my eyes on. The autistic mind could feel like a maze to people very hard to understand this is why I chose this question. There are still other things I did not get to discuss that I will research on my own. What is the process of helping people with autism with social interaction? And so does it help them in the real world?

 

“Autism – What Is It?” Autism Support – Leading UK Charity – National Autistic Society, www.autism.org.uk/about/what-is/asd.aspx.

 

“Jury Awards Record $13 Million in Disability Discrimination Case.” Www.hrhub.com, www.hrhub.com/doc/jury-awards-record-13-million-in-disability-d-0001.

 

Wallis, Claudia. “Inside the Autistic Mind.” Time, Time Inc., 7 May 2006, content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191843,00.html.

 

Ramos, Dino-Ray. “’Atypical’ EP And Cast Discuss Authentic Representation Of Autism And The Casey-Izzie Romance – ATX.” Deadline, 10 June 2019, deadline.com/2019/06/atypical-mary-rohlich-brigette-lundy-paine-fivel-stewart-jenna-boyd-amy-okuda-robia-rashid-netflix-1202629867/.

 

Aisse Tounkara

11/08/2019

Professor Hall 

                                      When Is This Going To Stop

     Everytime you turn on your TV you see something on the news with involving police officer who shot and killed a African American because they felt threatened by their presence, or they felt like they were a threat to someone else. Over the years Policing has evolved but the same ideas remain. Police still treat black communities different from the white communities when it comes to a lot of different aspects. Preconceived notions of African Americans lead to their brutality. 

     In this first article “ Policing in black and white neighborhoods” written by the American Psychological Association it talks a lot about implicit bias and how that leads to preconceived notions. Implicit bias is when we have attitudes towards certain groups of  people or associate stereotypes with them without conscious knowledge. A lot of Police Officers have implicit bias. Police officers are told to police differently in these low income neighborhoods compared to the other neighborhoods.  It states what Police Officers see when they encounter an African American person and vice versa. It’s crazy that this is the norm because this leads to terrible encounters which always ends up deadly. Over the past years we have seen a vast majority of African Americans unarmed men mostly and women lose their lives in the hands of police. When the time comes for justice to be served the excuse is always “ They felt threatened” and this article says that an officer is more likely to shoot an unarmed black person first rather a white man who is armed. This has to due with the fact that a black person will always be seen as a threat.    

      These preconceived notions never end well. It states “ These serious judgements often manifest themselves into even worse scenarios”. What this is saying is that it’s never going to be a positive interaction. When the researcher  Kirsten Weir at the American Psychological Association asked Hillary Clinton “If Police were implicitly biased against black people” she herself knew that this was true and a problem. Her response was like the people in high power response  trying to beat around the question. I learned the effects that implicit bias in the police and the extent that it leads too. 

      In this second article “ Implicit Bias replaces the r word This is how we explain cops killing black men” it says a lot about the police officers implicit bias. I learned what implicit bias is and that we all have an implicit bias of some kind. Stephon Clarkson was an African American man who was shot 20 times by police officers. According to the article written by Marcos Breton “Implicit bias was possibly behind Clark getting shot repeatedly in the back. When they pulled the trigger 20 times they never knew if he had a criminal record or not, whether he was a bad person or not. They instantly saw race and thought oh this guy must be a bad man and shot him. They were taught that every approach with an African American man is going to turn out bad. They react by pulling the trigger. They felt harmed by his presence and this article does a good job explaining the steps it would take to confront the implicit bias. 

     The Government officials know that implicit bias is a problem so the fact that they care enough to do something about it says a lot. This article says that a lot of Police Officers have implicit bias and they don’t even know that they do. They are taking necessary trainings to decrease the number of police killings in African Americans when it comes to this implicit bias idea. That’s what I learned a lot about in this research. While reading and analyzing the source I learned that systematic racism and implicit bias goes hand and hand. According to this article it states  police departments are eager for solutions that will reduce racial disparities. “Police chiefs know what the stakes are,” he says. Policymakers, too, are keen to take action. In October, for instance, the New Jersey attorney general issued a directive requiring mandatory classes in racial bias for police officers in the state. Psychologists, meanwhile, have the skills to understand discrimination and point to evidence-based solutions. “This is an area that’s worth a lot of investment in research, and important for psychologists to think about,” Glaser says. This shows that the necessary actions are being done to decrease the number of killings because they know that implicit bias exists. The mayor is requiring that mandatory implicit bias training classes be taken.

     In the blog “Race and the Police” written by the National Police Foundation it talks about other factors besides implicit bias that’s also a problem when it comes to Police Brutality. This source is a source that many people use when it comes to their research. Clarence Edwards a former police officer who worked with the police force for many years states “Race continues to influence how people of African American descendants are treated by law enforcement.” They are treated very unfairly by members of law enforcement. So a police officer is more likely to pull the trigger on an African American compared to a Non African American for the same crime”. This is because race will over power everything and implicit bias towards one would cloud that judgement. 

     I learned from this source that race was another major issue when it came to Police Brutality. The whole idea behind preconceived notions and police is racism. If a police officer sees race before the law than the outcome of that is not going to be great. This source is a very reliable source and thorough research was done because it provided me with a lot of facts and research that the police foundation has done.

     Structural racism is also another factor of Police Brutality. This article does a good job explaining that. When a study was concluded by a group of researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health, they found that a lot of interesting stuff. According to the text “How Structural Racism is Linked to Higher Rates of Police Violence” a research was ran and data based was looked at from the Mapping Police Database. “They found that structural racism does positively correlate”. Research has been done in other states based on this information and it turns out to be true. A connection can be made between the two.

   Overall, in this research I learned what implicit bias is, and what are the different kinds of causes of action that leads towards police brutality when dealing with African Americans. What I found interesting is that police officers police different in certain neighborhoods, and how implicit bias training will make a change for the better. The questions that I have when it comes to this research is if the implicit bias of police officers towards African Americans is going to change, or if it’s still going to remain the same. A society is evolving it would only be right for change to start happening. 

 

Bretón, Marcos. “’Implicit Bias’ Replaces the ‘R’ Word. This Is How We Explain Cops Killing Black Men.” Sacbee, The Sacramento Bee, 8 Apr. 2018, www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/marcos-breton/article208230624.html

.Baker, Al. “Confronting Implicit Bias in the New York Police Department.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 July 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/nyregion/bias-training-police.html.

Weir Kirsten “Policing in Black and White Neighborhoods” American Psychological Association, 10 December 2016                                                                        cover-policing

Edwards Clarence “Race and the Police” National Police Foundation race-and-the-police

 

My Research Question: How do we Introduce a Third Party to American Politics?
American politics is dominated by a two-party system which is beginning to lose popularity, maybe it’s about time we introduce a third party? Republicans and the Democrats have always had a long-lasting feud and sometimes rarely being bipartisan on policies. Americans need a third party to get behind when they disagree with both parties and have comfort in running to one that would have a significant voice in the government.

 

Source 1: The Federal Election Commission: Qualifying as a Political Party
To qualify as a political party, it all comes down to how the state governs ballot access. According to the Federal Election Commission, it all differs from federal and state representation as you have to gain political party status after meeting state criteria. “While the laws differ from state to state, they generally all require a nonmajor party to demonstrate sufficient voter support—such as by filing a petition for party recognition signed by a representative number of voters—in order to qualify for ballot access in the general election.” Claiming you’re a political party without a sufficient amount of supporters is inaccurate and improper. The Federal Election Commission is an independent government agency whose purpose is to enforce campaign finance law in United States federal elections. The FEC was created during 1975 by Congress and it has jurisdiction over the United States. The current commissioner for the FEC is Ellen L. Weintraub whose affiliation is with the Democratic Party. However, the chair for the FEC is pretty divided as some seated members are Independent or even Republican.

The FEC is pretty important and cannot be affiliated with any party within the government and its main mission to primarily investigate finance abuse by setting limits. You’re required to register your political party with the FEC, “when they raise or spend money over certain thresholds in connection with a federal election.” The FEC tells me what’s required for an organization to even claim political party status within a state and the criteria they specifically have to meet. This sets standards and boundaries so gaining status wouldn’t be abused or thrown away. If a committee can demonstrate they’re capable of gaining national status, the FEC will decide if they gained enough activity to even gain status. If a state wants to only participate in state and/or local elections, they’re not legally bound to register with the FEC, however, state laws will still determine if they meet the criteria to even show up on the ballot as a choice. Not showing up on a ballot will prevent any recognition or voters, a third party would get.

 

Source 2: Wikipedia’s list of Third Parties
Third parties already exist within the United States, but they’re so poorly represented and can’t even rack up electoral votes. Wikipedia can provide information on every third party that’s currently active, inactive, or even state-only parties that only stick with state and/or elections, like the “Rent is Too Damn High Party” which is based in New York City and wouldn’t qualify for federal elections. Wikipedia provides up-to-date information on specific topics and maintains a neutral standpoint as its purpose is to provide facts, not biassed opinions. Biographies, descriptions, questions answered, etc. Wikipedia is owned by Wikimedia Foundation, which was founded by Jimmy Wales, an internet entrepreneur, and Larry Sanger, an online community organizer and philosophy professor, in 2001. Jimmy Wales is pretty left-leaning as he signed an open letter to American voters, along with eleven business leaders, to not vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Larry Sanger’s party affiliation is unknown, however, Wikipedia is also run by volunteer contributors that assist in correcting information on pages.

Some may refute Wikipedia as a valid source and say some information is made up, but not just anyone can change the information on a page, it has to be verified. Wikipedia’s mission is to spread knowledge and help people with educating. The list provided by Wikipedia to show the number of third parties in the United States and what they are do not include independents as they’re just centrists with either left or right-leaning. The source also provides the presidential votes they acquired in the 2016 election along with any state legislators that won an election. The only parties that have a significant amount of registrations, which are people who registered their support for their respective parties, are the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Party. The Libertarian Party exceeds 500,000 registered voters, the Green party has around 250,000 registered voters, and the Constitution Party has nearly 100,000 registered voters, these three parties are the only third parties that have the highest amount of registered voters.

 

Source 3: Poll conducted by Reinhart of Gallup News
We need a third major political party and Americans want one. The two major parties currently dominating American politics consist of the Republicans and the Democrats. Gallup News, a pretty fair unbiased news organization, provided a poll displaying the support for a major third political party amongst Americans. “A majority of Americans, 57%, say there is a need for a third, major political party, while 38% of Americans believe the current two-party system does an adequate job of representing the people. These views have been consistent since 2013.” The percentage has been significantly higher than 50% for the past years the poll has been conducted throughout. Gallup began conducting this poll around 2003 which was reversed and the public supported the idea that the two-party system is sufficient enough for American politics. RJ Reinhart, the person who wrote the article and conducted the poll, is an analyst, writer, and editor for Gallup and Gallup’s Higher Education and Government Divisions. Reinhart is in opposition with Trump, in regards to his tweets/retweets of key critics of Trump. Reinhart is biased with his politics, which lean left, however, this doesn’t affect the integrity of the poll.

A want for a third party isn’t determined by your political party affiliation, but what you seek in a third party. “Independents are, not surprisingly, the political partisan group most supportive of a third party. Seventy-two percent of political independents support a third major political party. Independents have consistently been the most supportive of a third party.” The poll conducted by Gallup occurs every 3 years and ever since the poll in 2012, support for a major third political party maintained a fluctuation of 50-60%. A third major political party would allow for more room of debate and representatives from each local election engaging in the republic.

 

Source 4: Interview conducted by NBC Correspondent Simone Boyce
An interview conducted by NBC news that interviews a Libertarian candidate running for governor in the state of New York provides reasoning as to why third parties ultimately cannot win. NBC news maintains a predominant liberal standpoint, especially with one of their anchors, Rachel Maddow. The interviewer who interviewed Larry Sharpe, the Libertarian candidate, is Simone Boyce, who’s left-leaning according to her tweets which oppose Trump but show support for Democratic presidential candidates, like Andrew Yang. However, her bias is hard to unveil as she maintains composure and doesn’t leak out her bias so easily. Boyce conducts the interview pretty professionally and even provides context outside the interview as to why third parties fail. Sharpe even explains his acknowledgment of possibly failing or not winning the governorship, but is not willing to give up so easily and is optimistic about it. A candidate that visits towns other big candidates for the two major parties wouldn’t visit, going live on social media plenty of times, and interacting with the public is a good way to gain recognition and support.

Sharpe stands for legalizing marijuana and wants to maintain rights to gun owners, which appeases both left and right wings. Not to get confused as an Independent, but a Libertarian exercises ultimate freedom to their rights and refuses to have a government tell them what they do. However, not complete anarchy, unless you’re far there in the political compass, but don’t want a limit of their rights. Sharpe acknowledges that if people see you’re neither Democrat or Republican, you shouldn’t even be looked at. Sharpe calls politics a rich man game, and he is not wrong, you only lead in polls if your political establishment backs you or if you’re wealthy. The biggest barrier he claims is the system itself as it’s mainly a two-party government. Money could be the biggest problem but refuted by Donald Green, who’s a political science professor at Columbia University, claims it’s the actual government system that gives no benefits to parties in second or third place. The interviewer sums it up by introducing Duverger’s Law which if you award one office, you have two parties vying for that aforementioned office, this shows me that keeping a party stable and being involved in the government is very competitive and risky business when wanting to be apart of it.

 

What I Learned:
Third parties are poorly represented and lack the capability of gaining significant strides in local to federal elections, however, such stride can be made. Being more exposed to third parties and what criteria they need to meet to even show on a ballot requires so much patience, effort, and funding. Living in a two-party system, where Republicans and Democrats are what dominant the government, proves difficult for a third party. I align with the Constitution party and believe we do need a third major political party as I don’t agree with the GOP as I feel abandoned, and I don’t align with the Democratic party in any way. I still want to know why third parties are so poorly represented and why Republicans, Democrats dominate the political system for over a century while there have been third party strides in the past.

 

Bibliography

1. Federal Election Commission: Qualifying as a Political Party
   https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-political-party/qualifying-political-party/
2. Wikipedia’s List of American Third Parties
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
3. RJ Reinhart of Gallup News Third-Party Popularity Poll
   https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094/majority-say-third-party-needed.aspx
4. Simone Boyce’s Interview of NYS Libertarian Candidate for Governor
   https://www.nbcnews.com/video/why-can-t-third-party-candidates-win-1348512835713

 

Hi everyone! Unit Two is due on Thursday, before Prof. Coughlin’s class!  Look to the handout from today’s class for guidelines on what I’ll be grading you on.

Don’t forget your bibliography! And bring a printed copy to class, so we can review citation.

Good luck!

So everyday when you wake up you turn on the news and you might always hear something about American military activity overseas. You’re probably wondering why are their troops or  American presence around the globe. But the real question what should be the limitations of American involvement abroad?

American intervention has happened since the end of the late 1800s when the U.S fought Spain in the Spanish – American war when the U.S won control over Guam , Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Then fought another war against filipino rebels. Which mark the so called beginning of American imperialism and then ultimately the increase of American intervention around the world. Lane Kenworthy and author on ” U.S Military Intervention Abroad” made a brief summary on the history the explanation of why the U.S military is spread around the world .  First he explains about the fact that America is playing the role of being the world police and also the fact that the United States is the world’s leading superpower. believing that ” this principle  should be absolute”.  But the primary goals for the U.S were the national security interest and for self defense. But the peak of intervention was right after the end of world war 2 and at the start of the cold war. But of course this would have big effects on lives and on the economy as Lane listed the amount of deaths  all of the wars the U.S fought throughout the 20th century and the percentage of its  GDP of each war.  He even said that if this continues then this will most likely spill out more to the public and it might raise public concern. I can agree because of the sole purpose of the U.S acting as a world police and making sure that it will achieve its goal of that protecting and establishing peace around the world. But also we should consider of what we conflicts or even affairs we should stay away from. Or in other words limit our involvement in foreign or military affairs.

This source could have the ability to grab a lot of people’s attention because everyday citizens always wonder what are the reasons why we get involved in everything . People can agree that the limitation should be in placed . Since we get involved in everything in the world citizens would most likely have different opinions and views about military involvement around the world especially when comes to backing groups who are a fighting the other opponent. People need to pay attention of what’s really going on based on this source it really grabs peoples attention as they well aware of the situations that are happening around the world and paying close attention to what actions the military are taking . It’s clear to me that this source provides a brief overview from an expert of military intervention.  The readers will understand and get a bit of a deeper understanding of American intervention its background and what are the causes and effects.

Now let’s discuss about a particular interview. Kinzer is a reporter for the Boston Globe speaking with an expert Gross on American intervention . So he did at the beginning discuss about the past history and the beginning of American involvement and also the stretching of the  American military . In this interview he’s basically talking about what were  the causes and effects of American military involvement and how it is still showing the amount of power that can be deployed into many parts of the world. A good example are the amount of American Military bases in each continent as most of these bases were established after the end of World War 2. Even after World War 2 he says that many people viewed the United States as being an empire as it does have territories and some self Governing islands . He also explained that we got involved in both world wars and the aftermath ” shaped the world that we live in today”. But now in modern times we get involved and leave countries and tragic status. Which lead many people to question about our actions overseas and the decisions we make.

I think the audience should really take this with a grain of salt but one particular part is when he mentioned about why we entered World War 2 well the obvious part was the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor then we declare war against them. Back then the public supported the war effort a lot knowing that freedom and democracy was at stake and that we needed to fight . Like he  said before we entered the war for a good cause which is to restore the peace and defend freedom and democracy. But then after World War 2 the cold war happened with a series of proxy wars. At that point people started to have changing and different opinions as throughout the cold war the United States kept backing countries who are fighting against communism  by providing weapons and money. This source is clear for the readers as all of these facts are coming from an expert who just basically summarized the past causes and effects of American intervention or what some people might call it American imperialism which can make sense since the U.S has overseas territories , but either ways most people don’t agree with considering the United States as an empire. As this information is clear on what people want to know about American involvement and American superiority in other parts of the world .

I learned that there should be restrictions on what purposes  that would make us get involved in local conflicts that would only seem like that’s threatening national security , but if there’s no conflict then we shouldn’t get involved since it is not our problem . Some people can agree that we get involved too much or we get involved into every global conflict . We would only intervene of the U.S is being threatened then there is where we should commence action. As the goal is to contain the problem from spreading to other problems of the world.

Now the U.S  has becoming increasingly involved throughout the recent decade. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 the U.S has kept doing its job of acting as the world police force of stopping humanitarian crisis like the crisis in Bosnia and kosovo as the U.S and  Nato worked together to take down the Serbian President who was committing ethnic cleansing which is basically a war crime . As this is the sole mission to prevent any tragedy from happening again  . Most importantly stop the accursen of military dictators who are disturbing the peace around the world. But is U.S intervention actually keeping and maintaining peace ? There has been some mishaps and a few hiccups here and there when it comes to civilians being caught in the crossfire from American fire . I think when it comes to America being involved they always have to keep in mind of the safety of civilians . But people do sometimes criticize the U.S for aiding countries who are also fighting to maintain peace but civilian are getting caught in the crossfire.

But mainly when I meant about the U.S maintain peace the real question is are they actually restoring peace and maintaining it. Throughout recent years the U.S main goal is overthrowing  dictators . But it doesn’t seem like their not maintaining the stabilization that is really needed to prevent future tragedies from happening . The main reason why we get involved is that the United States cares about the security and stabilization of the world . That’s also maily the reason why the United States is part of NATO a military alliance thats its main goal is to prevent future major global conflicts since the end of the second world war . But usually the United States is the nation that leads most of the worlds military operations to combat dictatorships. Another reason why we intervene is eliminate the risk of military regimes from gaining power as the United States believes that they can’t be threat to national security if we don’t take any action against them. But the United States doesn’t always  decide if we should intervene . One example is when  NATO alliance decided to overthrow the libyan dictator gaddafi which the operation proves the capability of the NATO alliance. A quote from the ” The slippery Slope of U.S intervention ” in an interview with former president Obama said that” Our participation in the coalition that overthrew Qaddafi in Libya was the right thing to do”.

The end of American intervention has been a newer recent topic thats being talked about and still being mentioned as recent when President trump pulled back troops from Syria. People even go far as saying that we shouldn’t even get involved in the first place . When we intervene in Iraq the goal was to bring stability and order , but it seems like we’re far  from reaching the goal. According to a New York times article since troops are coming home the war is far from over .  Even looking back on the money we spend and all the contributions we made but there is still no signs of peace coming to the regions. Also that its time to focus on other foreign or domestic issues. But still the real questions is what are gonna be U.S future plans for the middle east ? Or will there ever be stability?

Overall we really have no idea of when theres or if there’s gonna be any progress or changes in American foreign policy. From people calling America an empire for once for gaining territory after fighting a war with Spain.  I learned that the U.S military gets involved whenever there is a conflict that would concern national security , but ever since World War 2 the United States has been consistently involved in foreign affairs and being part of alliances like NATO and the United Nations to hopefully avoid tragedies . But now with the conflicts in the middle east , backing Ukraine against Russia , trade wars with china there should limitations placed that will make more cautious of our actions . But overall there should be limitations of involvement basically what we should or should not get involved in. But how will U.S involvement be in the future and what will might be the causes and effects for the United States and the rest of the world ?