Death Penalty

By: Nate Wiesemann

            On February 27^th 2012 T.J. Lane a 17 year old went on a shooting rampage at his school and killed three class mates. Over one year later on March 19, 2013 T.J Lane was sentenced to life in jail. Before he was taken away he was given a chance to apologize to the victims’ families. T.J. stood up wearing a shirt that had “killer” written on it and said “This hand that pulled the trigger that killed your sons now masturbates to the memory. F--- all of you” right before he gave the middle finger to the victims’ families. I bring this up to you because I believe that the Death Penalty is under used in the United States because I believe that people who can take the lives of others and feel no remorse should be killed rather than being sent to prison.

Although some people believe that it would be better if he was sent to prison so he could eventually have to suffer from being in prison, I think one of the important factors to consider is the cost to keep an inmate in jail. All jails are supported by tax payers which mean some of your tax money is used to keep murderers alive. It is estimated that it costs $22,000 a year to an inmate in jail for a year. If you look at T.J. Lane’s situation he is only 18 and if he lives to 80 which is around average life expectancy of a human this would mean that it would cost $1,364,000 to keep him in jail. I think that it is wrong to use this much money for someone who felt no remorse after killing 3 people to keep him alive when we are in huge debt as a country. T.J. is just one person but there are a lot of people just like him where if we just used the death penalty we could save a lot of money.

  

If you look at the chart above it shows the most states in the united states have the death penalty but this is not enough because in most states they have done under 15 executions in the since 1976. I believe that any time someone intentionally plans and murders someone that they should get the death penalty because they don’t deserve the right to live if they think it’s to take the life of someone else. 15 states on the graph such as Wisconsin do not have the death penalty and that has to change because as a Wisconsin resident I do not have to use my tax money to pay for murderers.

So in the end the death penalty can be justified. It’s a simple concept; if someone is willing to take someone else’s life then death is an appropriate punishment. If T.J. Lane was heartless enough to insult the victims’ families rather than apologies than why should the tax payers have to keep him alive for the rest of his life. That’s why the states have to consider expanding the death penalty or adding it to truly bring justice to thousands of criminals.

Works Cited

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2013/03/20/2001983/

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

 

 

Congressional Gun Ban

By: Alex V.

On March 19^th 2013 senate leader Harry Reid stated that the ban that has been proposed in Congress wouldn’t go through, but wants a vote on it to go through. This proposed ban, made by Dianne Feinstein, was very similar to a ban made in 1994 that had ended in 2004 happens to be one of the four proposals in the bill that was made in response to the Connecticut shooting. Reid though doesn’t believe that the bill would go through as even if it did get to the senate itself he believes that a filibuster would prevent the bill from ever getting any further.

This gun ban which was made by Dianne Feinstein was an attempt to ban semi-automatic weaponry and ‘assault’ style weapons, or any weapons that is modeled after military style weaponry, from the public. This ban in the bill has been a very controversial one that even with the recent shootings it is still believed to only get as many as 40 votes. This is mainly due to the many supporters of public arms found in the Republican and Democratic parties and even in the National Rifle Association. This ban, while of great focus to many people both in the governmental system and in the public, isn’t the only ban that was proposed in the bill that is trying to get passed.

In the bill several other measures were put in too that are actually quite good including strengthening of background checks with weapons purchasers, greater restrictions of gun trafficking, and attempts to improve school safety measures. These measures are all part of this bill and, while great by themselves, are being hindered by the attempt at assault weapons banning. In response to this action Mr. Reid split the bill into separate parts, but was only allowing one to get voted on in the congress and potentially the senate. This segment of the bill was the one to attempt to ban ‘assault’ style weaponry.

This package was first approved and came out on March 14^th 2013 after a heated debate and even after getting through that challenge many people still believe that this package wouldn’t be able to get passed. This point was even further debated when Senator Ted Cruz happened to retaliate back at the supporters of this package acting as a filebuster stating that they should focus on actual statistics and making constitutional bills instead of making a bill based on their emotional response to the recent shooting. Even after that point Mr. Cruz went even further onto the counter-topic and asked Ms. Feinstein if she and the other supports of the package thought that it was potentially possible for the first amendment to be potentially limited like the second amendment would be limited where Ms. Feinstein simply responded to it with, “I’m not a sixth grader.” This remark of hers, while focusing on her passion behind the idea of the bill, did not end up answering Mr. Cruz’s question in the end and ended up pushing it further to the side.

North Dakota Proposes Stricter Regulations on Abortion

By: Marissa Dooley

North Dakota is a state that has generally been viewed as a state with strict regulations when it comes to abortion. Lawmakers are now considering the idea of outlawing all abortions throughout the entire state. They have been proposing many Personhood measures. These proposals state that human life begins at conception and that once a baby is conceived its life cannot be taken. However, it has been argued by some medical professionals that abortion should be allowed if the mother will be harmed from the pregnancy. 

                North Dakota has been a republican controlled state for a very long time. The presence of the GOP is widely known in the state and shows through their legislation on a daily basis. Last month the senate in North Dakota passed two personhood measures which the senate will vote on Tuesday March 19^th at the earliest. The two measures both deal with abortion. The first dealing with the law that will outlaw all abortions and the latter will put a definition of the measure into the state constitution of North Dakota. 

                In addition to all of the political attention that this issue has brought about, there has been lots of talk about this issue in the medical field. Many doctors have become concerned that the laws are two strict and that they will restrict their ability to practice in the state of North Dakota. Dr. Stephanie Dahl says that proposed laws could restrict doctors from performing invitro fertilization which could cause many doctors to leave the state. Dr. Dahl says that doctors will have to choose to leave the state or face the possible criminal penalties if these new restrictions pass in the senate. Dr. Dahl has attended many conferences with physicians against these new laws and has said, "This is something that would affect the patient and doctor relationship and that's somewhere we want to keep the government out of."

                There have been many prominent figures in the state of North Dakota that have taken a strong opinion on this issue. Fargo Republican Spencer Berry and Bismarck Republican Ralph Kilzer have openly stated that they have voted in favor of passing these bills in the state house. In addition, many people from an organization named Personhood USA, which is an anti-abortion group, have openly spoken in favor of these bills being passed. On the contrary, the North Dakota Medical Association has strongly spoken against these proposed bills. There was also a group of students from the University of North Dakota Medical School that sent a letter to the senate about their negative opinions on these bills.  

Quote

"It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop.  A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized.  Only respect for life can be the foundation and guarantee of the most precious and essential goods of society, such as democracy and peace."   - Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (1995). No. 101

Questions to think about?

1.       Would you support this bill? Why or why not?

2.       Do you think the passing of this bill would have any effect on the economy of North Dakota?

3.       Using the info we received in class about supporters of political parties, do you think that there is potential for these bills to pass in a predominately republican state?

4.       Is the passage of these bills overstepping the role of the government in the United States?

Sources

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/north-dakota-looks-at-more-abortion-restrictions/

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/north-dakota-passes-restrictive-abortion-laws-88966.html