Final Blog Article #5

Adam Liptak's article "New Look at Death Sentences and Race" discusses one of the main points that abolitionists believe the death penalty should be abolished, the fact that minority races are more frequently given this sentence. In this article, Liptak writes that about 1100 people have been executed in the United States in the last three decades (there are currently around 3300 inmates on death row). More than 20 studies around the world have drawn the conclusion that defendants who kill whites are more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill blacks. A new study found that the race of the defendant by itself plays a major role in explaining who is actually sentence to death. The author of the new study, Scott Phillips, found a huge relationship between race and the likelihood of being sentenced to death even after the race of the victim and other factors were held constant. Phillips study shows that for every 100 white defendants and 100 black defendants indicted for capital murder in Harris County, TX, an average of 12 white defendants and 17 black ones would be sent to death row. Phillips believes that basically five black defendants would be sentenced to death because of their race.

Phillips also believes that the bar for pursuing death against black defendants has been set lower. His data says that black defendants are overrepresented in cases involving shootings during robberies, while whites were more likely to have committed murders during rapes and kidnappings and to have beaten, stabbed, or choked their victims.

Professor Phillips has faced criticism of his study for one major reason that he failed to take into account the socioeconomic status of the victims.

Ultimately the Supreme Court has held that even though there is solid statistical evidence of racial disparities of the death penalty, it does not violate the Constitution, which was concluded in a case McClesky v. Kemp. Opponents of the death penalty are hugely let down and angered by the outcome of this case.

This article was somewhat persuasive because it talks about the different types of crimes that different races receive the death penalty for. I think it is unjust that minorities are more subject to the death penalty than white people. However, Phillips study to me did not seem that legit. It seems like he was making a lot of assumption rather than providing actual factual evidence. He did not consider many factors that should have been accounted for, like socioeconomic status. In the youtube video below, it states that the majority of the death row is made up of African Americans and more African Americans are strongly opposed to it. It reminds me of the blog posting we did when we were asked who makes up the anti-death penalty movement and I wrote that it seemed to be mostly scholars and people in high intellectual positions. Obviously if more black people are against the death penalty, they would be a good group of people to gather together to fight against it.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/29bar.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=new%20look%20at%20death%20sentences%20and%20race&st=cse

Final Blog Article #4

Adam Liptak's article,"Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate" discusses the death penalty as a deterrent. The death penalty as a deterrent is one of the big reasons that people support the death penalty. It is believed that if people know that the possible outcome of their crime is death, they will not commit the crime. According to recent studies, for each inmate put to death, 3 to 18 murders are prevented. Economists have recently compared the number of executions in different jurisdictions with homicide rates over time and conclude that murder rates tend to fall as executions arise.

Even some people who are opposed to the death penalty believe that it could have a deterrent effect. However, many argue that since the death penalty is applied so rarely in homicide cases that it cannot be reliably stated that it effects the homicide trends. Only one in 300 homicides results in an execution.

Justin Wolfers is an economist at the University of Pennsylvania who believes that the current research that supports the death penalty is "surprisingly fragile." But for most economists they believe that if the cost of an activity rises then the amount of the activity will drop, which is what the studies in this article show.

The article outlines the debate of the death penalty as a deterrent effect between two different sides. Basically the article it does not provide shockingly true evidence to support either side because their are scholars on both sides who argue about the credibility of its effect. The article provides an example of Canada, who has not executed anyone since 1962 but whose murder rates are close to parallel with the United States' murder rates. The article concludes with a statment made by Wolfer which is "If I was allowed 1,000 execution and 1,000 exonerations, and I was allowed to do it in a random, focused way, I could probably give you an answer." (If the death penalty is actually a deterrent). Wolfer is expressing his skepticism of all the studies to support or negate the effect of the death penalty as a deterrent.

This article also talks about the high costs of executions, which is largely an argument used to abolish the death penalty.

This article is a persuasive piece because it can work to the advantage of both abolitionists and pro-death penalty activists. There is evidence to support both sides, and for some people, the deterrent effect is enough to decide whether or not the death penalty is justifiable. The information in this article is important because it highlights that there are always two sides of the story and that both are sometimes justifiable. It can be said that the "life without parole" sentence is just as much of a deterrent to crime, which is an argument that abolitionists promote. Many people are pro death penalty because they believe in the "eye for an eye" idea and that justice should be served.



In most articles I have read, the cost of the death penalty is usually always mentioned. I think right now, that might be the strongest factor in getting rid of the death penalty, since it seems to be the most common.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?scp=1&sq=does%20death%20penalty%20save%20lives?%20a%20new%20debate&st=cse

Final Blog Article #3

In the article "Death Penalty System 'irretrievably broken'", talks about how the American Law Institute, which is composed of over 4,000 judges, lawyers, and legal scholars, has abandoned the argument that death penalty executions can be carried out in a constitutional way. The institution did not say outright that they were opposed to the death penalty, but they admitted that there were "many problems." The A.L.I. came to the conclusion that the death penalty cannot be justified because it is the conflicting decisions of jurors to spare some and send others to death row.

The decision by the A.L.I. to abandon the death penalty is huge because this group's very standards for the death penalty played a major role in the Supreme Court's decision in 1976, Georgia v. Gregg, to reinstate capital punishment for heinous crimes. The system that the A.L.I. established was a separate trial to determine guilt for first degree murder and a second trial to determine whether the prisoner should be sentenced to death. The article states that this death penalty standard was seriously flawed in numerous way because of the variables that came into play when giving the death sentence, variables such as race and quality of legal defense.



This article also touches on the high costs of the death penalty and the scrutiny that the death penalty has been under because of its high price.

The article concludes that the death penalty is incapable of being administered in accordance to the US Constitution.



This article is hugely persuasive because it demonstrates that one of the biggest institutions who played a major role in the reinstatement of the death penalty is beginning to question whether it is constitutional or a productive, ethical, and economical way to deal with severe criminals. The fact that the A.L.I. has decided to abandon this issue is monumental for the cause. It goes to show that people are starting to see and believe that the death penalty is a counterproductive way to handle the sentencing of inmates. What makes it even more persuasive is that this institution is composed of highly intelligent people involved in the legal system in some way. If even these people are beginning to notice that the death penalty is more detrimental to American society than beneficial, it will hopefully only be a matter of time before all states begin to abolish the practice.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/408/story/1171076.html

Final Blog Article #1

The article "Death Row Cases Decline in 2009" by Laura Sullivan discusses how the death penalty has been less sought ought by prosecutors as a criminal sentence. Judges and juries handed out less death penalty sentences in 2009, which made it the year with the fewest people sent to death row since it was reinstated in 1976. Sullivan writes, "Just 106 people were sentenced to death, compared with three times that many in the 1990s, according to a report by the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center." One of the reasons for this decrease in death sentences is that prosecutors have become wary of the often extreme price tag since the costs associated with capital cases can reach into the millions of dollars. This does not include the cost of the appeal processes, which can sometimes take two decades before the actual execution. Another reason for the decrease in death penalty cases is the fact that many people are convicted to crimes when they are actually innocent. The article states that in 2009, nine people were found innocent of the crimes they had been sentenced to die for.

Juries and judges are becoming more inclined to give the "life without parole" sentence, which mean there is absolutely no way that the criminal will get out of prison; the entire rest of their lives will be spent there. Before the "life without parole" sentence was established, judges were likely to be more skeptical about giving life sentences because it could mean that the criminal could be out of prison in a matter of 15-30 years.



Texas, which used to lead the nation in capitaal punishment, averaged 34 death sentences a year. In 2009, there were only nine death sentences issued. Maria McAnulty, Texas' Harris county trial bureau chief in the district attorney's office said that now Texas is not seeking the death penalty as often and that this is largely because since 2005, the state Legislature gave prosecutors the option of life without parole. McAnulty basically says that the life without parole sentence will also serve as a deterrent because that violent person will be confined to the penal institution for the rest of their natural life.

The article concludes that the only state whose death penalty sentences have increased is California, where 29 people were sentenced to death in 2009. This pushed the state's death row population to 697, making it the largest in the country. "One study found recently that California's decision to pursue death so frequently is costing the state $137 million a year", which is absolutely shocking.

This article was more informative than persuasive. The statistics and evidence provided in the article show that the social movement has caused some change in the recent year. Because of the high costs of the death penalty, the fact that innocent people are often exonerated later for crimes, and the new sentence of life without parole, jurors and judges are less inclined to give out death sentences in heinous crime trials.

Final Blog Article #2

The article, "Ohio is the First to Change to One Drug in Executions", written by Ian Urbina, talks about how Ohio became the first state to switch to a single drug in death sentences rather than the typical "three-drug cocktail." For a long time, critics have called the three drug process inhumane. The first drug in of the three renders the inmate unconscious, the second drug is paralytic and the third drug is the chemical to stop the heart. Until Ohio's recent decision, states have not wanted to change the three drug procedure. The Court has held that the three drug procedure is not unconstitutional because it does not cause the criminal pain.

This article states that Ohio's decision has been "a mixed blessing for death penalty opponents" because while the procedure may be more humane, it could also give cause to further legitimize the use of the death penalty.

Ohio came to the decision to use the one drug procedure during a failed execution of Ronald Broom who was convicted of abducting, raping, and murdering a 14 year old girl. "Broom sobbed with pain as prison officials repeatedly stuck him with a needle for nearly two hours in a failed effort to find a usable vein." This was the first time that an execution had failed and been rescheduled in the United States. Broom's attorneys attempted to appeal the death penalty by saying that a second attempt at the lethal injection would constitute as cruel and unusual punishment. The court issued a temporary restraining order on the execution of Broom.

The new method of injection involves one shot of a massive dose of an anesthetic and if that fails, that shot will be followed with the injection of two different chemicals directly into the criminal's muscles. Ohio officials believe that there is no need to paralyze the inmate before executing them and that doing so "risks a horribly tortuous execution." However, the effects that this method will have on the death penalty has yet to be determined.

Like the article states, this method will cause mixed results for the overall movement to abolish the death penalty. If this method does prove successful and "humane", it could actually make the death sentence more legitimate in the United States. However, there are still so many other factors that prove the death penalty should be abolished, that I do not believe it will be extremely detrimental to the cause.

It is a persuasive article because it shows that the death penalty can be seen as "cruel and unusual punishment" and that there are better ways to handling death sentences. The fact that the death penalty is inhumane is what abolitionists are trying to express, and this case helped the cause in that way. When I think about this article, I have to wonder what the responses were of the people who sat in on Broom's execution. It would be painful and disturbing to watch someone for two hours be poked with a needle. The mental image the scene creates is disturbing.





http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8314326409&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8314326412&cisb=22_T8314326411&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=6

Execution of Gary Johnson in Texas Today

There was an execution in Texas today. Here is the link for the information on Gary Johnson. I tried to find any articles or clips of media coverage or protests, but was unsuccessful.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?print=1&id=3192

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/12/us/AP-US-Texas-Execution.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=gary%20johnson&st=cse

Opinion Assignment #3

Naomi Klein’s call out on our generation as the “Pro-Logo” generation was completely on point and a totally legitimate argument. I often find myself thinking exactly what Klein wrote. In our generation we are more likely to buy a ticket to Live Earth than hit the streets and protest and it is less effective than movements that have taken direct action in the past. It is so much easier for people of our generation to purchase merchandise that supports a cause and to think that that purchase is actually making a difference rather than take direct action. The Klein article points out that it is ironic to use consumption as a means to supposedly end poverty. As if our economy has not already taken a giant hit due to the American lifestyle and way of thinking, we are even encouraged to spend rather than act to support a social movement. Consume, consume, consume. It is in front of our faces all the time, everywhere, and everything is about what the brand is, how expensive it is, and what celebrities are rockin’ it. With a movement like Bono’s, Product Red is represented through a large amount of popular celebrities which makes people want to buy those products even if they could care a less about the cause. It is depressing that students like us probably sit there and charge that stuff to our credit cards or use our financial aid refund checks to purchase some wristband or t-shirt while we convince ourselves that is supposedly going to help end poverty. Movements like this capitalize on the American ideals that everything is at our fingertips, when and wherever we want it. By doing this, these movements make their cause nothing more than a trend to be followed by impressionable young people. Besides the fundraising that these forms of activism may create for a cause, I do not see how they can even compare with other movements throughout history where people actually got their hands dirty in the streets to protest.

When Klein argues that this corporatized form of protest is less dangerous and less powerful than grassroots movements, she is completely right. To be honest with you, I was aware of the logo “Red” before I even knew what the cause was. I agree with Klein’s analysis that clearly these movements are weak in accomplishing any type of real change. In the Anti-Vietnam War Movement for instance, the protestors organized a wide variety of civil disobediences that went noticed by the media, the public, and politicians. One time alone they rallied more than 300,000 people to demonstrate against the war in New York. The protestors of the Vietnam War were so passionate, public, and direct about their cause that the Johnson administration “halted the bombing of North Vietnam and stabilized the ground war.” (Wells, p. 2). Despite the arrests and the attacks made against the antiwar movement, this movement turned out to be the most successful antiwar movement in US history. Rosa Parks and the Freedom Riders were indeed more successful in gaining momentum for their movement since they risked their very lives to protest against segregation on interstate buses. You certainly do not see groups of people banding together to do something like that anymore.

The factors that I feel have contributed to the lack of direct action of our generation in social movements are materialism, laziness, selfishness, and lack of proper leadership. It seems to me that most students and young people are more concerned with themselves than to take the time to commit to seriously taking action for a cause. Also, the organization of movements is lacking. If more leaders and organizations were making it known to our generation when and where protests were happening, we might be able to get more involved. It is difficult to immerse yourself in a cause when you never see or hear about. If there were more efforts to promote the cause on social networking sites or on campuses than it would help recruit our generation to make changes. The time and society that we live in is also a factor that has made us less aware/interested in getting involved in social movements. Our grandparents were raised in a time where racism was prevalent, some experienced the Great Depression, other the holocaust. I feel like we were raised in a time where only consumerism matters and to rely on credit to obtain instant desires. In the John Mellencamp video, the farmers talk about how they are advised to just take out a loan to solve their problems. It is this mentality that has deeply affected our generation into caring less about what is really happening and more about the present and ourselves. In addition, the war happening now seems to be similar to the Vietnam War in the way that many people, especially young people, believe that we should not be involved and that we are involved for all the wrong reasons. Then how come this antiwar movement is less effective than the anti Vietnam War movement? That question is answered by the factors that make our protests today the less effective ones in history. If we actually believe that movements like Product Red are going to make any real difference, we are kidding ourselves.