Death penalty

An astounding 1135 Americans have been killed mercilessly in the last thirty-one years by the United States judicial system (death penalty info 1). Amazingly, this is a perfectly legal practice in the same country that is often said to be at the forefront of the free world. Many continue to argue for the practice of capital punishment, or the death penalty for the murderers and rapists of our country, in order to deter these types of people from commiting these awful acts. They also argue that we need to clear out our jails, as it doesn’t make sense to use tax dollars to keep these heinous people alive in our prison cells. However, there is plenty of data to argue just the opposite, that the death penalty is not successful in deterring crime, and that it is actually more expensive to kill these people than to keep them in our jails.
First, the proponents of capital punishment argue that the only way to teach some of these people not to murder and commit other awful crimes is to threaten them with death upon conviction. However, it has been seen that this is not effectively deterring murder. In fact, in most cases, the murder rate has risen with the use of the death penalty. In states that do not practice capital punishment, the murder rates have been consistently between 27 and 46 percent lower than in those states that practice it since 1995 (death penalty info deterrence). Most recently, in 2007, the murder rate was 5.83 in states that use the the death penalty, versus only 4.10 in states that don’t (deterrence). That is a 42 percent difference (deterrence). In addition, according to a survey, of past and present presidents of the nations top criminological societies, 84 percent reject the notion that capital punishment acts as a deterrence to murder (death penalty info 3).
Secondly, a common argument for the implementation of the death penalty is that we need to clear out our jail cells, that we shouldn’t be spending space and money keeping these evil people alive in our prisons. However, it has been proven time and time again that it is more expensive to kill these people than to keep them alive. For example, in California, the death penalty system costs taxpayers 114 million a year more than what it would cost to keep convicts locked up for life (death penalty info 4). Californians have coughed up over 250 million for each execution (4). In Kansas, capital cases are seventy percent more expensive than non-capital cases, including incarceration costs(4). In Florida, it costs 51 million a year above what it would cost for first degree murderers to spend life in prison without parole (4). That’s 24 million for each execution (4). Imagine what could be done with all that money. A great majority of the reason costs are so much more for death penalty cases are because of the extensive trials that they must go through. Ever case is brought to appeals, and drags on forever, as people’s lives are literally at stake in these trials. Often times those on death row are using taxpayers dollars for their lawyers and court costs also because they have the right to them, but usually don’t have the money to pay for them. These costs add up quickly.
Possibly the biggest argument for the death penalty, the one thing that is keeping it legal in some states in the face of all this contradictory data is that is just. People say eye for an eye, that is the only just thing to do. But I disagree. First of all, by killing those that have killed, we are stooping to their level, and setting an example of vengeance. Many of those convicted of murder kill for revenge. They feel that someone did something bad enough that warrants their life be taken. While we might not agree that it is worth their life, it seems to be for these murderers, in the name of justice. By taking the lives of the murderers for committing crimes we believe to be horrible enough to die for, we are doing the exact same thing as the murderers. It is all about vengeance, and there is no room for that in a mature and responsible society. As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.”


Bibliography

"Fact Sheet." Death Penalty Information Center. 8 Dec 2008. Death Penalty Information Center. 8 Dec 2008 .

"Deterrance." Death Penalty Information Center. 2008. Death Penalty Information Center. 8 Dec 2008 .

Are humans like Ants?

Everybody knows that war is always going to lead to death and most likely destruction. But are we the only species that have “wars.” According to some emerging research ants have a tendency to go to war against other colonies in their area. If you actually think about it for a second, it does make sense.

Some species attack and take over neighboring colonies. Others are fewer expansionists but just as aggressive; they invade colonies to steal eggs or larvae, which they either eat or raise as workers/slaves. (Ant)

Not only do humans share their aggressiveness with ants, but social patterns as well. Ants have a well organized social structure that allows them build their ant colonies and function as they do. Humans also have a social “norms” that they follow. Most humans will generally follow the crowd. Solomon Asch did some a very interesting experiment to determine how likely someone was to conform to a group.

Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up for a psychology experiment, and on a specified date you and seven others whom you think are also subjects arrive and are seated at a table in a small room. You don't know it at the time, but the others are actually associates of the experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted. You're the only real subject. The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate concerns people's visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains onevertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length.

The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with different cards. On some occasions the other "subjects" unanimously choose the wrong line. It is clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same answer.


What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion, or would you "stick to your guns" and trust your own eyes? (Solomon)

Though most people would say they would trust their own eyes, Solomon Asch’s experiment proved otherwise.

To Asch's surprise, 37 of the 50 subjects conformed to the majority at least once, and 14 of them conformed on more than 6 of the 12 trials. When faced with a unanimous wrong answer by the other group members, the mean subject conformed on 4 of the 12 trials. Asch was disturbed by these results: "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct."(Solomon)

After looking at such a simple experiment to see how important it is for humans to conform to the majority, leads us back to the ants. In the ant’s social structure not conforming to the rest of the populous means death. In our society, not following social norms (thing that the normal populous does and considers normal) means being looked at as strange or weird.

For the most average adult, their day goes day-in and day-out doing pretty much the same thing over and over again. For some its wake up, eat breakfast, go to work, eat lunch, go back to work, leave work, come home, eat dinner, relax and go to bed to wake up the next day and do the same thing. Ants lives are continuously the same thing. Each has their own specific job that they must carry out. Workers work, queens have babies, warriors defend, and gatherers gather.

Can humans who are the dominant species on earth really share such basic patterns in social networking and aggressiveness with ants? Ants are such a simple and small animal to compare humans to. But humans are aggressive; anyone can see that by looking at our history. Not only do both species share aggressiveness but humans share their ability and need to conform as well. Though you can easily pick these two species apart in other ways, like their ability to hold eight times their own weight, but one cannot ignore the similarities that humans do share with ants.

Works Cited:

“Ant” Wikipedia 6 December 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Cooperation_and_competition

“Solomon Asch Experiment (1958): A study of conformity” Age-of-the-sage.org http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html

Due Process

The events off September 11, 2001 influenced the feelings of most of the U. S. The attacks reminded people of the danger of terrorism, and made them aware of their mortality. This ubiquitous knowledge had a significant impact on how people lived. People felt compelled to display American flags, attend church, and give blood. Many also began to severely judge others that did not align with their world view. There were multiple accounts of violence against persons appearing to be Middle-Eastern. These judgments are endemic of mortality salience. When people become aware of their mortality, they more harshly judge those that do not align with that view. This is evident even in the court system. Recent experiments and research demonstrates that when judges are affected by mortality salience, they alter their judgments to align more accurately with their view of the world.

Terror management theory describes how people react when they are made aware of their mortality. According to this theory, society and culture are used as barriers against the knowledge of mortality. So, when people are exposed to this knowledge, they alter their actions to align more strongly with their worldview. This allows them to reinforce that view and keep mortality salience at a safe distance. (Arndt et al, 2005) According to this theory, people affected by mortality salience will more harshly judge those that seem to oppose their world view. This is demonstrated in the violence against Middle-Eastern people post September 11. This can also have effects as far reaching as the court room.

In an experiment, a group of judges were given questionnaire packets. Half of the packets contained questions that were designed to elicit thoughts of death. The judges were then asked to decide bail for an alleged prostitute. They gave the judge all the information that would normally be used to discern bail in this type of case. Judges not given questions regarding mortality salience gave on average a bail of 50 dollars, whereas the judges given the questions regarding mortality salience gave an average bail of 450 dollars. (Arndt et al, 2005) According to terror management theory, this difference is caused by judges view prostitution as a threat to their world view, the legal system. When this experiment was repeated with college students, only those who viewed prostitution negatively gave higher bail for the defendant when exposed to mortality salience. (Arndt et al, 2005)

These experiments demonstrate the significant affect mortality salience can have on the legal system. After September 11, many criticized the government for not giving fair trials to suspected terrorists, but in that situation, a fair trial may be impossible. This effect is not only bound to events like September 11. Common courtroom occurrences such as recordings of fatal car accidents or recollections of death can cause mortality salience. (Arndt et al, 2005) These results leave us wondering if it is possible to have a fair, unbiased justice system. How just can courts really be?


Sources

Arndt, Jamie; Cook, Alison; Lieberman, Joel D.; Solomon, Sheldon. “TERROR MANAGEMENT IN THE COURTROOM: Exploring the Effects of Mortality Salience on Legal Decision Making”. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2005.

Revenge?

Revenge?

Revenge at its simplest is somewhat of an easy concept to understand. If something is done to someone, it is easy to assume they will retaliate. It is not often that violent or vengeful actions are taken against a party without some sort of revenge. In the world we live in, some sort of revenge is often required. If action is not taken a country or government seems weak. Not only that, but they lose the faith of the people in the sense that the government will not stand up to aggressors. One of the greatest examples of our time would have to be the US retaliation on Afghanistan for the September 11th attacks. In the beginning the reasons were clear cut. They attacked us so we attacked them. But at some point in time, the reasons were changed and the focus of the war switched to Iraq. Similarly, the Unites States took a stance of non-involvement during World War II. This stance stood firm until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, forcing the United States into the war and eventually to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At what point does revenge become something more? Fine suggests that certain actions are taken due to the unexpected consequences of one decision. Opportunities arise from the outcome of one action that allows for advancements in other areas to be taken. He states “Social problems are linked in complex, dynamic, and interconnected ways… ‘solving’ social problems creates both opportunities and constraints that … generate other problems through a process [termed] ‘chaining social problems.’” According to this theory, revenge will no longer be revenge when the consequences create an opportunity to gain something worthwhile.

So the simple act of making sure someone “gets what they deserve” is not so simple after all. In fact it creates a complicated string of opportunities in which one is able to gain power and influence. In effect, what might start out as a simple act of retaliation, could turn into a means to permanently change the balance of power within the global community. For instance, the War in Afghanistan led to the War in Iraq, which resulted in the execution of Saddam Hussein.

But is this type of action truly necessary? It is clear throughout history it is not enough to just get revenge. Governments pursue objectives far after the necessary retaliation is taken. I can only think that this can be explained by the fact that the only guaranteed security a country can have is to be at the top. In order to make it to the top one must take every opportunity possible to expand influence, even after the necessary revenge has been taken.

Fine, Gary Alan. "The Chaining of Social Problems: Solutions and Unintended Consequences in the Age of Betrayal." Social problems 53.1 (2006): 3-17.

Role of Paramilitaries in Genocide

Paramilitaries have been essential in the ability to carry out genocide in the twentieth century and this tradition has continued into the twenty first century. The S.S. and S.A. in the Holocaust, the Interhamwe in Rwanda, and the Janjaweed in Darfur are a few examples. It could be argued that paramilitaries are essential to carrying out genocide. Paramilitaries are involved in many conflicts and are essentially a group of civilians that are militarily organized and are often used as an extension, or in place of, regular military troops (paramilitary). There are several reasons that paramilitaries are such effective and practical tools to carry out the dirty work of genocide.

The first reason is that because genocides occur during times of war the regular military is busy trying to win the war. The paramilitaries of the Serbia-Bosnia conflict were usually little more than gangs of thugs and criminals who enjoyed violence and the looting along with the killing. In Rwanda in 1994 and the current Darfur crisis, both governments were at war with rebels over who should and has the power to control the government. In Rwanda the Interhamwe often manned the roadblocks and formed the gangs that went house to house looking for Tutsis to slaughter while the Hutu military battled the advancing RPF.

Another reason that paramilitaries are ideal in carrying out genocide is that international accountability has greatly increased within the last century. Military leaders are held accountable for the orders they give and the actions that their troops commit. By using paramilitaries and militia, government and military leaders can claim to not have been involved in committing genocide. An excellent example of this is the ongoing genocide against Africans that is being carried out by Arabs in Darfur. While the Sudan government gives these Arab groups financial support, the groups are not officially part of the state. Therefore, the government can claim that they themselves are uninvolved and unaccountable. While the international court system is far from perfect, countries and individuals have been tried and convicted for genocide. Adolf Eichmann’s televised trial for helping orchestrate the Holocaust is an iconic example.

Currently there are trials going on for paramilitary leaders in the Serbia-Bosnia conflict as well as the many genocidaires being held in prisons awaiting trial in Rwanda. The use and abuse of paramilitaries across the world is an issue that needs to be addressed. Wars and conflicts are evolving past the conventional two-sided battles with either side wearing brightly colored uniforms. Low-intensity conflicts and the use of unconventional organizations and tools is increasing. The idea of paramilitaries and militia lies close to the American identity of freedom but we need to be aware that such groups are capable, and have been used, to carry out massive atrocities.

"paramilitary." WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. 06 Dec. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paramilitary>.

Help and Aid

With power comes responsibility. This is a saying which states that when a person or group of people has power they must be responsible and know how to use it. For decades now, the Unites States has been a world superpower and was for a number of years arguably the only superpower. The country is thought of as the leader of the democratic world and serves as a model to many smaller third world countries trying to establish democracy.

There is a theory that explains diffusion of responsibility. This was a way of thinking that came about after an experiment conducted by Latane. After the experiment the conclusion was made that when people are in a group, they feel less personal responsibility to helping another person as they responsibility it shared amongst all of those in the group. In other words, in a group of four people, a single person will only feel 25% of the responsibility for a fifth person in need. (Latane) An example of this on a global scale could be seen during the events before World War II. When Hitler began slowly expanding into the countries surrounding Germany, the other countries adopted a form of appeasement to avoid war. With all of the other European countries, with the exception of Italy, the responsibility of stopping Hitler from taking over the smaller countries was shared so that none felt wholly responsible for keeping him in check. More current examples could be situations like the Rwandan genocide. This was something which the international community was aware of, but again, because most of the community was aware of it not much effort was put into helping from each individual country. Instead of a large UN force being sent, a very small group of soldiers from the different countries was used.

Unfortunately for the countries where violence occurs, the sense of responsibility and duty to help really is affected. This means that when famine or genocide breaks out that those affected will most likely receive less help than they need, in particularly from the larger countries like the United States. Despite having resources that could easily support and aide many of these international problems the financial or manpower assistance just isn’t given. Leaders and countries need to be fully aware of this and the psychology behind it and be able to give help to countries in need to the best of their ability.

Latane, Bibb. “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies”. 1968. http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam/zsoc302/fall2002/experiments/Darley2.pdf

war against war

There has always been struggle against war. With every war there are protesters and people who do not agree with it, and therefore, don’t support the effort. Even though these people don’t believe in war, does it matter? How do they go about ending the war? Do they even have the power? People have fought to end wars in many ways. I will discuss a few of these attempts in this blog.

Passive protesting: I consider protesting through all forms of writing, such as songs, poetry, books, articles, petitions, etc., passive forms of protesting. Even though somewhat passive, they are still, however, effective and convincing. There is a group called Poets Against War. Their mission is to continue the tradition of socially engaged poetry by creating venues for poetry as a voice against war, tyranny and oppression (Poets Against War). Their website is Poetsagainstthewar.org; I would highly recommend reading some of the poems on the site. One I found interesting is called "Let Freedom Ring."

"it would be nice if it did ring,

but it doesn't

it explodes and makes a mess" (Red Cloud).

The author is critiquing the way we fight for freedom through war in his poetry. All forms of writing can be used as propaganda to end war.

Active protesting: I consider protesting through rallies, public demonstration, civil disobedience demonstrations etc., active forms of protesting. There are many ways to actively protest: marches, sit-ins, picketing, and many more. These forms of protesting are usually done in large groups or a single person in front of a large crowd. There is a website called protest.net that has lists of protest dates so everyone knows where and when to gather and also news articles explaining important issues (Upcoming Protests). Active protests encourage people to participate in the action and are effective to any viewer.

Protesting gone too far: While protesting against the war is usually meant to be peaceful, sometimes the protests become violent. An example of this occurred at the Republican Convention in St. Paul last September. A rally of anti-war protestors tried to break though police barricades to get to the convention center. Police fought back against the protestors using bicycles and eventually deploying pepper spray. (Violence).

Protesting is an effective way to fight against the war if it is done so peacefully. When Anti-war protestors begin fighting with police, or other people, they are no longer taken seriously. How can they argue against the war when they themselves use violence to get what they want? I encourage you to visit both of those websites I have listed and see how these people are going about protesting.

Works Cited

Cloud, Red. "Poets Against War." Nov 2008. Poets Against War. 5 Dec 2008 <http://poetsagainstthewar.org/>.

"Poets Against War." Nov 2008. Poets Against War. 5 Dec 2008 <http://poetsagainstthewar.org/>.

"Upcoming Protests." Protest. 5 Dec 2008. Protest Net. 5 Dec 2008 <http://Protest.Net/>.

"Violence Breaks out in Anti-War Protest in St. Paul." ABC News 01 Sept 2008 5 Dec 2008 <http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/violence-breaks.html>.