I personally am against the idea of having a death penalty at this current time. Right now, in our justice system, as Misty stated, there have been people convicted by faulty evidence, and innocent people killed. If we cannot even distinguish if a person is completely guilty of a crime deserving capital punishment, then what gives us the right to take their life? When criminals are placed in prison for a life term, instead of put on death row, there remains the possibility of discovering that the incriminating evidence is faulty. But with the death penalty, the only thing left to happen if such a thing is discovered is to say, "Oops, well, we can't bring him back." Death is irreversible, so what gives us the power or right to permanently end the life of another human being, even if they killed someone? I do not think anyone should be able to wield that power. Relating to executions and the death penalty, there has always been a certain part of the procedure that does not make sense to me in this form of "justice". This part is that to execute a person, it takes someone to push the red button, or make the lethal injection. The executioner then, too, by definition, is a murderer. Why should they not go to court, get tried, and get the death penalty themselves? Even though they may have seen the execution as protecting the world from a criminal, they still technically have killed someone. And so continues this vicious cycle of revenge for murder with murder. There are other ways to deal with criminals, but, as of now, the death penalty is not a just option.

Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Recently, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is defense against hate crimes, including those based on sexual orientation or race. This bill is good for our society because it brings a larger awareness to this form of hate crimes and helps prevent them in order to achieve greater equality for all. The bill helps stop higher level crimes, which are physical, such as beating or torture, but does not, and unfortunately cannot, stop psychological hate crimes. These psychological hate crimes can be as simple as insulting someone, but they are still detrimental because it has a similar effect on the person receiving the hatred as physical crimes, even though its effects are not outwardly visible. This bill is a step towards a greater acceptance of people, but the actions leading toward either acceptance or hatred start much earlier in life than this bill addresses, or is able to alter. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act sets boundaries on what is acceptable in society, and clearly states that it is unlawful for a person to display their hatred of a group by crime against people in that group. It is beneficial for our nation that the subject of hate crimes be addressed because it leads to a more productive society that works together and is more unified. Although though some people in our society may have different views, regarding sexual preference or race, than others within this country, this bill creates a more unified environment for everyone. People are still able to show that their ideas differ from those around them, but now they are required to display those in a peaceful way, instead of acting violently towards other human beings of differing ideals. This new law helps raise the standards of what our country will tolerate to a new, higher, and better station.

Obama’s Theorems

The article Obama's Theorems by Victor Davis Hanson talks about the waning belief in Obama from the public and that his ideas are not being believed or accepted as much any more. The author criticizes the theorems Obama has, including ideas about global warming, energy, and borrowing money to get out of the recession. Though people may like Obama as a person, they no longer believe his ideas because they have been found to be radical ideas that have not been fully proven. Hanson addresses voters and the general US public and brings up ideas important to them currently. He states that even with our weak economy we are discouraged from use of the carbon-based fuels of which America is plentiful. Some scientists say that global warming is eminent, yet this has been seemingly opposite for the past decade, and now is one of the coldest times.

Instead of looking at what is happening now, we are told to think of on a much larger scale to see global warming, but voters are not going to have their money spent on these issues, especially with cold weather. Hanson makes the point that borrowing money is not going to be the way to get the economy out of the recession, in the same way that making purchases with a credit card can be a quick way to fix things, but the charges take a long time to pay off. We are in an energy crisis, and are told to convert to hybrids and electrics cars, because oil is finite. Though the recession has helped lower oil prices, this is only a temporary fix. Increasing and using all energy sources seems to be a better choice to voters than using changing ideas of what is good for the environment with respect to the ideas of global warming.

Health care reform also has some issues. The voters wonder how it is possible that money would be saved with government takeover of healthcare with more people covered. Hanson asks that if Medicare has problems and dangers of fraud and waste, why would a larger government program not have these same problems?

While abroad, Obama is very open about the wrongdoings of America while overseas to make us better liked, but some disagree that this tactic will improve foreign relations. Also, if Obama is so knowledgeable about the wrongs of the past, why does he not also become so greatly knowledgeable about the rights of the past? In regards to overseas affairs, Obama has not yet finished the war in Afghanistan, even though the war in Iraq has been won.

Americans want solutions to long-term problems and welcomed a new president who was ready to take on challenges. But they are not sure if he understands that problems or has the right solutions, and if those solutions are even possible.

Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. I agree with some of the ideas brought up by Hanson because I believe that there can be better solutions to some of our economic problems. These solutions should be reasonable and possible and beneficial in both the short-term and long-term, instead of just short-term solutions to long-term economic and world problems.

Botched Executions

In the editorial Botched Executions, the author is addressing the states with the belief that they should not sentence people to the death penalty because it can be cruel and unusual punishment, and not humane, especially when the execution goes wrong. A few examples of these "botched executions" include Mr. Broom of Ohio's unsuccessful execution, where he was stuck with needles about 18 times and caused much pain. In an execution in Alabama, an electrocution accidentally lit the prisoner on fire, and he was still alive after being partially burned alive. Another case in Florida happened when it took two lethal injections before the prisoner died. On the Death Penalty Information Center website there is a list of executions that did not work correctly. The author believes that states use of capital punishment is wrong and should not be used as punishment unless there is way to completely ensure that there will not be pain or cruel or unusual punishment resulting from an improper execution. I also agree with the author that ending the life of a criminal is unjust, especially when there is such a high possibility of something going wrong. If an execution must take place, it should only be able to happen when there is zero possibility of it going wrong and causing the person pain which is a cruel and unjust punishment. I agree with the author in that that it is not right that Ohio and other states continue putting people to death until they can change their execution process to a more humane, painless death. I believe killing people is not humane, even if it is painless because people do not have the right to kill people, even if a person, group of people, or court system has justified their reasoning for sentencing a person to death.

Expand the House?

In the article "Expand the House?" by Peter Baker, he addresses the idea that the United States should expand the House of Representatives. The weight of each person’s vote in the House of Representatives is unequal because of the varying numbers of people represented by one member of the house. Between 523,000 and 958,000 people are represented by just one member, which makes the vote of a single person count less in some states than in others. A federal court challenge will be filed Thursday in Mississippi stating that the system deprives people in some states their right. To fix this problem the lawsuit suggests increasing the house size from 435 seats to at least 932, and even up to 1,761 so that it would be more equal. Some see this as something that would make the House less stable and harder to control. Also, this would be resisted by people who don’t want to dilute their power. The House has had 435 representatives since 1911, and it has stayed that way except when it became 437 because of Alaska and Hawaii, even though the population has risen greatly. In other western democracies there are more representatives and less people, and our government is not proportional to theirs. This article is important because we need to have a democracy where votes are truly equal.