Aaron's question:
Who can watch the process while the inmate is being killed?
It varies from state to state in the US, but it seems that immediate family can attend, a religious leader, police officers, guards and wardens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty#Debate
Emily's question:
What if someone sentenced the death penalty really didn't commit the crime? Think about the boy in the orange jacket. What if he was sentenced to the death penalty and no one had read his story to help him.
This actually seems to happen in the United States, people are put on death row and then can either be acquitted of the crime, or appeal. Sometimes there are people put to death whose cases have become a topic of debate, and there are cases in which the guilt of the person have been heavily debated.
Bridgett's question:
Have there been Supreme Court cases in the attempt to abolish the death penalty?
There have not been any cases that have opposed the death penalty altogether, but I could find a list of Supreme Court cases concerning different aspects of the death penalty:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/latzer98.html
Monday, November 28, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
How Washington works.
Ten facts/details:
1.) "Inside the beltway" is a term people in Washington use to describe the core of government.
2.) President Carter once said that Washington was an island "isolated from the mainstream of our nation's life."
3.) Washington is different but not isolated from the rest of the country.
4.) Congress works from Monday afternoon to Friday morning.
5.) When the White House changes presidents, most of the political staff in Washington changes.
6.) People who work in the executive branch or Congress catch "Potomac Fever," the addiction of wielding power.
7.) Personal relationships in Washington cut across party and ideological lines.
8.) Washington has it's own particular jargon that separates it from the rest of the country.
9.) The people viewed as political leaders outside of Washington are different than the real political leaders inside Washington.
10.) People in Washington tend to only think about politics.
Ten questions:
1.) What makes a person want to only do politics for the rest of their lives?
2.) Why is Washington such an addictive place to work?
3.) Why aren't outside people more in tune with what goes on in Washington?
4.) Is Washington really in tune with what goes on in average America?
5.) Is Washington too much of a different world than the rest of the country?
6.) Are there really good friends who are on separate sides of the political spectrum?
7.) How does Hedrick Smith know so much about Washington?
8.) Will Washington ever become less cliquey?
9.) Wouldn't things run better in Washington if it was less separated from the rest of the country?
10.) How old is this information?
1.) "Inside the beltway" is a term people in Washington use to describe the core of government.
2.) President Carter once said that Washington was an island "isolated from the mainstream of our nation's life."
3.) Washington is different but not isolated from the rest of the country.
4.) Congress works from Monday afternoon to Friday morning.
5.) When the White House changes presidents, most of the political staff in Washington changes.
6.) People who work in the executive branch or Congress catch "Potomac Fever," the addiction of wielding power.
7.) Personal relationships in Washington cut across party and ideological lines.
8.) Washington has it's own particular jargon that separates it from the rest of the country.
9.) The people viewed as political leaders outside of Washington are different than the real political leaders inside Washington.
10.) People in Washington tend to only think about politics.
Ten questions:
1.) What makes a person want to only do politics for the rest of their lives?
2.) Why is Washington such an addictive place to work?
3.) Why aren't outside people more in tune with what goes on in Washington?
4.) Is Washington really in tune with what goes on in average America?
5.) Is Washington too much of a different world than the rest of the country?
6.) Are there really good friends who are on separate sides of the political spectrum?
7.) How does Hedrick Smith know so much about Washington?
8.) Will Washington ever become less cliquey?
9.) Wouldn't things run better in Washington if it was less separated from the rest of the country?
10.) How old is this information?
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
West Wing episode - "Filibuster."
1.) Senator Stackhouse had been filibustering for hours.
2.) White House staff have to stay put until the vote.
3.) Filibustering is a grueling process.
4.) Senator was reading from a recipe book.
5.) While filibustering, you can't stop speaking, you can't lean or sit or drink.
6.) They were debating over the "Family Wellness Act."
7.) Vice President is directly in charge of the Senate but doesn't do much with it.
8.) People have to stay in Senate for as long as the filibuster goes on.
9.) A senator can yield for a question without yielding the floor.
10.) Contesting bill until they added assistance for children with autism into it.
2.) White House staff have to stay put until the vote.
3.) Filibustering is a grueling process.
4.) Senator was reading from a recipe book.
5.) While filibustering, you can't stop speaking, you can't lean or sit or drink.
6.) They were debating over the "Family Wellness Act."
7.) Vice President is directly in charge of the Senate but doesn't do much with it.
8.) People have to stay in Senate for as long as the filibuster goes on.
9.) A senator can yield for a question without yielding the floor.
10.) Contesting bill until they added assistance for children with autism into it.
Personal finance of a Congressperson.
Corrine Brown, D-FLA
Net Worth: From $-12,998 to $20,000
Rank in House: 408th in House
Assets: 2 totaling $2,002 to $30,000
Liabilities: 1 totaling $10,000 to $15,000
Transactions: 0
Agreements: 1
Compensation: 0
Income: 0
Net Worth: From $-12,998 to $20,000
Rank in House: 408th in House
Assets: 2 totaling $2,002 to $30,000
Liabilities: 1 totaling $10,000 to $15,000
Transactions: 0
Agreements: 1
Compensation: 0
Income: 0
Due process film.
1.) Luis Kevin Rojas was arrested and convicted of murder at 17.
2.) He was mistakenly identified as the murderer because of the colour of his jacket.
3.) There was no DNA exoneration.
4.) Eye witness testimony is not always correct and viable.
5.) Mother and daughter Priscilla and Leslie Chenowith worked to free Rojas from prison.
6.) They succeeded although they were inexperienced lawyers.
7.) Lenny Farinola, a teacher of Rojas', joined in the fight to free him.
8.) Barry Scheck's "Innocence Project" got involved.
9.) Rojas was exonerated and released after 4.5 years in prison.
10.) The law system in the US cannot always be trusted.
2.) He was mistakenly identified as the murderer because of the colour of his jacket.
3.) There was no DNA exoneration.
4.) Eye witness testimony is not always correct and viable.
5.) Mother and daughter Priscilla and Leslie Chenowith worked to free Rojas from prison.
6.) They succeeded although they were inexperienced lawyers.
7.) Lenny Farinola, a teacher of Rojas', joined in the fight to free him.
8.) Barry Scheck's "Innocence Project" got involved.
9.) Rojas was exonerated and released after 4.5 years in prison.
10.) The law system in the US cannot always be trusted.
Supreme court justices.
1.) Why is the Supreme Court so predominantly Republican?
2.) Will any of these people step down?
3.) Will the Supreme Court ever be predominantly female?
4.) What is the average age on the Supreme Court?
5.) What is the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities?
6.) Will Ruth Bader Ginsberg retire soon?
7.) Who is the oldest Supreme Court Justice?
8.) Who will probably be the next Justice to die?
9.) Why are so many of them from the northeast?
10.) Why are they mostly from New York and California?
2.) Will any of these people step down?
3.) Will the Supreme Court ever be predominantly female?
4.) What is the average age on the Supreme Court?
5.) What is the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities?
6.) Will Ruth Bader Ginsberg retire soon?
7.) Who is the oldest Supreme Court Justice?
8.) Who will probably be the next Justice to die?
9.) Why are so many of them from the northeast?
10.) Why are they mostly from New York and California?
Friday, November 11, 2011
Illegal immigration questions.
Justin's question:
How do they know Americans will want to take over the jobs that the illegal immigrants had?
In my opinion, I don't think that there are a lot of Americans who will want to take over the jobs that were held by illegal immigrants. Most if not all of them held jobs that involved a lot of physical labour, such as crop picking. Jobs that were a lot of work but did not require any specialised training. I think that it's a pipe dream of politicians to want to kick all the "illegals" out and put "hard-working Americans" in the jobs the immigrants once held. There are fewer and fewer "hard-working Americans" with every genereation. This country is riding on the back of menial labour performed by mostly illegal immigrants.
Tristan's question:
Is there underlying racism (or xenophobia) in this immigration debate?
Unfortunately, yes there is a certain amount of xenophobia in this debate, depending on the stance and personal biases of the people arguing. There will always be people who are xenophobic, afraid to integrate with people that aren't completely like them. I don't know if you could call it racism in this instance, but xenophobic is definitely the proper term. Because there are people who reject other nationalities and ethnicities blending into their white societies, there are of course going to be politicians who have these unfortunate views. But the sad truth is that the debate will never be able to occur without the underlying tones of xenophobia and fear of integration.
Liam's question:
Wouldn't it be a better move to help illegals go through the process to gain citizenship.. or do we not want them in our country at all, even if they were legal citizens?
Personally, I believe that immigrating into a country illegally is probably more dangerous and more trouble than it's worth. If a person has been in the country long enough to have had a fmaily and secure a job, they should not b a bale to live here without having to pay taxes or becoming a citizen. They should not immediately deproted, but merely assissted in the process of becoming a legal citizen. Maybe if the immigration laws were less strict and xenophobic and the process of becoming a US citizen was less intimidating and ridiculous, then immigrants who would have otherwise entered illegally would go through the process.
And another thing, I hate the argument that people make about how the process to become a US citizen should be grueling and and xenophobic, just because "our ancestors had to cross an ocean in horrible conditions and go throught the ordeal at Ellis Island to become a citizen." There's a reason it's not longer the late 1800s or the early 1900s. It's called progess, people. No one should be objected to such terrible conditions and such fear. Or should we also force all immigrants to live in filthy ghettos where their children die of disease and starvation? There's a reason why people want to emmigrate out of their awful conditions and come to America, we've got this great reputation. But ironically, the way we treat the people who seek a better life in America seriously downplays the reasons people want to live here.
How do they know Americans will want to take over the jobs that the illegal immigrants had?
In my opinion, I don't think that there are a lot of Americans who will want to take over the jobs that were held by illegal immigrants. Most if not all of them held jobs that involved a lot of physical labour, such as crop picking. Jobs that were a lot of work but did not require any specialised training. I think that it's a pipe dream of politicians to want to kick all the "illegals" out and put "hard-working Americans" in the jobs the immigrants once held. There are fewer and fewer "hard-working Americans" with every genereation. This country is riding on the back of menial labour performed by mostly illegal immigrants.
Tristan's question:
Is there underlying racism (or xenophobia) in this immigration debate?
Unfortunately, yes there is a certain amount of xenophobia in this debate, depending on the stance and personal biases of the people arguing. There will always be people who are xenophobic, afraid to integrate with people that aren't completely like them. I don't know if you could call it racism in this instance, but xenophobic is definitely the proper term. Because there are people who reject other nationalities and ethnicities blending into their white societies, there are of course going to be politicians who have these unfortunate views. But the sad truth is that the debate will never be able to occur without the underlying tones of xenophobia and fear of integration.
Liam's question:
Wouldn't it be a better move to help illegals go through the process to gain citizenship.. or do we not want them in our country at all, even if they were legal citizens?
Personally, I believe that immigrating into a country illegally is probably more dangerous and more trouble than it's worth. If a person has been in the country long enough to have had a fmaily and secure a job, they should not b a bale to live here without having to pay taxes or becoming a citizen. They should not immediately deproted, but merely assissted in the process of becoming a legal citizen. Maybe if the immigration laws were less strict and xenophobic and the process of becoming a US citizen was less intimidating and ridiculous, then immigrants who would have otherwise entered illegally would go through the process.
And another thing, I hate the argument that people make about how the process to become a US citizen should be grueling and and xenophobic, just because "our ancestors had to cross an ocean in horrible conditions and go throught the ordeal at Ellis Island to become a citizen." There's a reason it's not longer the late 1800s or the early 1900s. It's called progess, people. No one should be objected to such terrible conditions and such fear. Or should we also force all immigrants to live in filthy ghettos where their children die of disease and starvation? There's a reason why people want to emmigrate out of their awful conditions and come to America, we've got this great reputation. But ironically, the way we treat the people who seek a better life in America seriously downplays the reasons people want to live here.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Roe v. Wade reading.
Ten facts/details:
1.) According to Texas law, life begins at conception.
2.) Some people believe abortion falls under marriage law.
3.) The later the abortion is performed, the higher the risk.
4.) Some people believe life begins when the fetus is capable of life outside the womb.
5.) Appellant and some amici aruge that a woman can terminate her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.
6.) The privacy right involved is not absolute.
7.) Abortion is not considered as a federal issue.
8.) Supposedly, the strict abortion law was created in the Victorian era to discourage sexual conduct.
9.) When most criminal abortion laws were created, the procedure was very dangerous.
10.) Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions are as low or lower than normal childbirth.
Five questions:
1.) What constitutes life in national law?
2.) Who gets to decide for a woman whether or not she can have a child?
3.) What about the women incapable of raising/supporting children in states with strict laws?
4.) Why are individual states able to make it nearly impossible for a woman to get an abortion?
5.) What constitutes a human life?
1.) According to Texas law, life begins at conception.
2.) Some people believe abortion falls under marriage law.
3.) The later the abortion is performed, the higher the risk.
4.) Some people believe life begins when the fetus is capable of life outside the womb.
5.) Appellant and some amici aruge that a woman can terminate her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.
6.) The privacy right involved is not absolute.
7.) Abortion is not considered as a federal issue.
8.) Supposedly, the strict abortion law was created in the Victorian era to discourage sexual conduct.
9.) When most criminal abortion laws were created, the procedure was very dangerous.
10.) Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions are as low or lower than normal childbirth.
Five questions:
1.) What constitutes life in national law?
2.) Who gets to decide for a woman whether or not she can have a child?
3.) What about the women incapable of raising/supporting children in states with strict laws?
4.) Why are individual states able to make it nearly impossible for a woman to get an abortion?
5.) What constitutes a human life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)