Deadline

It is a sad truth, but I do believe there is a reason for people of color and low-income to be sentenced to death more often than others. Racism is something that is always going to exist, and I'm not saying it is racism, but I think there are tons of people who are prejudice that factors into all of the statistics. People might think that these low income and people of color are more desperate to live than most so they may commit crimes to help themselves out. Many of these crimes may be murder. I'm not sure there is much that people can do to ensure a fairer justice system. How can you make people change their mind on who to accuse without being threatened? A jury with mixed races is the fairest thing you can do in these situations. The largest appeal to the death penalty is probably the notion of "an eye for an eye." I think most people who agree with the death penalty have thought about the question of, "If one of your friends or family members was killed, would you want the killer to keep living?" I believe most people would answer no to this question. Most people probably do not want the murderer to have three meals a day, clean sheets, and be able to watch cable television like they are able to when they are in prison. I know I would want the murderer to be killed. I like the idea of having a foolproof system for the usage of the death penalty. Maybe the only way someone can receive the death penalty is if there is either visual proof of the crime being committed or if they admit to committing the crime. I believe it should be harder to receive the death penalty because there are many who are falsely accused of a crime and die for nothing.

Death Penalty

Every person who is accused is told what they are being accused of. They then can be appointed a lawyer if they cannot afford one, so they can make their plea in the courtroom. Then, there is a hearing to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to prosecute the person accused. If there is enough evidence a hearing with a grand jury will take place. After, the prosecutor can announce if they seek the death penalty for the defendant. This subject is a tough one for me, because I do believe in the death penalty, but their are people who are executed that were in deed innocent. There will always be witnesses that may lie, or just flat out pick out the wrong person. I believe that lethal injection is the most humane way for someone to receive the death penalty. It seems like it would be the most painless for the person receiving the death penalty to die. Death by hanging, firing squad, and the electric chair seem more painful than lethal injection. Hanging often results in one breaking their neck, firing squad seems cruel and unusual, and the electric chair would be the most painful of them all.
I found it crazy how little women are executed. They are far less than men are. It seems like women are less likely to commit such a crime, but I also wonder if it has anything to do with them being a women. Maybe they receive special treatment. It's possible they can play the mother card, that they were the ones who raised their kids and their kids would be torn if they were to be killed. I believe that only crimes where a murder is involved deserve the death penalty. I think if a person can take the life of another person, then their life should be taken. I am a firm believer of "an eye for an eye." I don't believe Illinois has the death penalty anymore because of all that goes into it. The process take a very long time to figure out, and also their is never a guarantee that they get the correct person for the crime. It may not be worth killing the wrong person.

RIP Dan Wheldon

It was a wild weekend in sports, but it came with a price. Professional  IZOD IndyCar driver Dan Wheldon passed away in a 15 car crash during Sunday's Las Vegas Indy 300 race. People have recently been expressing their opinion on the matter saying that IndyCar has to do something to keep their drivers safe. Something I found interesting while researching the crash was what some drivers had said before the race. Driver Oriol Servia said, "We all had a bad feeling about this place, in particular just because of the high banking and how easy it was to go flat. We knew it could happen, but it's just really sad." This shows that the drivers know this sport is dangerous, but the make the choice to race. They do because they want to, not because they have to. I am indifferent in this situation. IZOD has some really tough days ahead of them. The drivers love their sport just like anyother professional does. They also understand the risks that come with being a professional driver. With cars moving at speeds of over 200 mile per hour, I'm not sure there is much anyone can do to protect these drivers. Really the safest thing for the IndyCar drivers to do is to move to the traditional NASCAR cars. The car that Dan Wheldon was driving is a car with an open cockpit, and open wheels. When a car is air born there is no way to control the car, and moving that fast death is almost a sure thing. These professionals drive because they love it, not for the money. They understand the risks and chose to race, so no is to blame in this situation. The sport can never be safe, the only thing IZOD can do is try to make it as safe as possible.

ACLU

The Supreme Court upheld that it was constitutionally right to drug test student athletes at high school and middle school. I am on the fence on this issue. I do not think drug testing is a terrible thing, but I do believe it is an invasion of privacy. It would help keep students safer, but I think a fair amount of kids would want to quit so they do not have to take the drug test, whether it is because of the fact they do drugs or do not want to have their privacy invaded in such a way. I found it interesting when the court said, “We also reject respondents’ argument that the drug testing must presumptively be based upon an individualized reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing because such a testing regime would be less intrusive.” So it is less intrusive to test all student athletes then just the ones that people may have reasonable suspicion of. They also said that if they just tested students that are under suspicion, that it could end up that an unpopular group may be tested more often than another group.

The article about the young girl being strip searched is ridiculous, and not to mention the administrators were looking for ibuprofen. I cannot even imagine what that young girl went through. It would be one thing if it were drugs that the administrators were looking for, but ibuprofen? Come on! A young girl who happened to be an honor roll student, at a junior high should never have to experience anything even close to what this girl went through. As for the drug sniffing dogs, I don’t believe that is a terrible idea. If a student is dumb enough to bring drugs to school, that person should get caught. Of course, a dog might be wrong sometimes, but the school should make it as hard as possible to bring drugs into a learning environment.

Hitting

This weekend during a hockey tournament, I was informed that at the Pee Wee level, which is ages 11-12, kids are no longer allowed to hit each other. This is the first year of the new rule, and I do not understand why it has been changed. When I was 11 years old, I remember being so excited to be able to finally hit. Whether some people like it or not, it is a part of the sport of hockey. I disagree with the rule change, because at that age, I believe kids are less likely to get hurt from a check, than they are as they get older and stronger. At this age, kids can learn how to hit the correct way. When I started my Pee Wee year of hockey, all kids had to go through a clinic and learn how to give a hit, and take a hit. It is a huge part of the game, and as kids get older they certainly get more reckless. Teaching them at a younger age I believe is safer in the long run. Getting used to contact is good for younger kids, because as they get older, hits only get harder and harder. Not only does it toughen kids up, it teaches them about the game. Also, the kids who played their first year of Pee Wee last year, have to change their game. Going from being able to hit to not being able to hit I’m sure is very difficult. I disagree with USA Hockey’s decision to ban hitting for Pee Wee’s.