Analyzing the Death Row Argument

Lauren Bowden, a government student at Austin Community College, made her opposition of the death penalty evident in the article The end of Death Row . Since she is a student writing an assignment and not an ideological journalist for a large publication, it is safe to assume that the argument does not contain any ulterior motives or bias. Because there is no available information to evaluate qualifications, it is difficult to establish Bowden’s credibility as a writer. From her participation in a college class, however, one can conclude that Bowden is currently a student and therefore in the process of receiving an education.

 Posted on her self-titled Texas government blog last Monday, July 25^th, Bowden’s article attempts to persuade her audience, those in favor of the death penalty, to reconsider their opinions.  Alluding to the financial burden of imprisonment, a common argument heard from death penalty proponents, Bowden counters that we should “…cut back on the massive amounts of spending that occurs toward our prisons.” After claiming that large sums of money are being spent on incarceration, Bowden fails to clarify what constitutes these “massive amounts” . Additionally, the inclusion of how, exactly, spending could be reduced would have added strength to her argument.

Another factor Bowden brings to the debate is the occurrence of wrongful convictions. The fact that innocent people are sometimes convicted of crimes they did not commit can be considered general knowledge. Since it is widely accepted as true, this statement does not require evidence. However, quantitative evidence would have definitely enhanced the argument. (For example, she might have used a statistic regarding the amount of people falsely convicted.)

Bowden also states that by enacting policy on capitol punishment, the government is, “…simply crouching down to the criminal’s level and committing the same crime.” Bowden is referencing the logical paradox contained in using death as a punishment for people who, themselves, have caused death. To elaborate, because life is highly valued, taking a life is seen as one of the most immoral crimes. Because of this, those who murder are given the most severe punishments. Why then, can a court decide to have someone killed and not also be punished? The argument Bowden made here was that the death penalty, in itself, contradicts the fact that killing is wrong.

The best claim Bowden makes comes at the end of her article. Here, Bowden reminds us of the most important characteristic of death: permanence. Combined with the verifiable occurrence of wrongful convictions, these two factors support Bowden’s disapproval of the use of capital punishment. Unlike a life in prison sentence, where an individual who has been wrongly convicted may be released and then compensated for the injustice they endured, the solidity of death offers not such regression.

House Bill 15 Intrusive to Women (Literally)

Texas House Bill 15, also known as the Sonogram Bill, has received much attention since its controversial arrival in the Texas Legislature. Passed by the Legislature and then signed by Texas Governor Rick Perry last May, the bill requires doctors to perform a sonogram on pregnant women prior to receiving an abortion.  Additionally, the women must listen to the heart-beat and receive a detailed description of the fetus, including body dimensions, presence of limbs, and cardiac activity. While the bill claims to

“Protect the life and health of the women seeking or undergoing an abortion”, there are few things I can think of as being more damaging to the well-being of the women. The bill acts in a condescending manner by suggesting that any women about to undergo an abortion are not already considerably aware of the ramifications of the procedure. I believe it is safe to say that a women who is about to receive an abortion, for whatever reason, is already experiencing a considerable amount of psychological distress. Having to view a sonogram before an abortion is not protective of the mental health of the woman; therefore, the bill is contradictory.

I would not necessarily consider myself a supporter of abortion.  However, I am a strong advocate for women’s reproductive rights and I believe that this bill raises many concerns regarding those rights.  Aside from the ethical debate over the nature of abortion itself, many other arguments have arisen with HB 15. One of the debates is over the violation of the 1^st Amendment by forcing doctors to deliver politically motivated speech to patients who may or may not wish to hear it.  Additionally, there is the argument is that the cost of the sonogram may prevent people from getting an abortion, thus making the procedure economically discriminatory. However, the most intriguing argument I have heard is the one for protection of 4^th Amendment rights.

HB 15 requires the display of “live real-time obstetric ultrasound images in a quality consistent with current medical practice in a manner so that the women may view them”. Until a woman is at least 12 weeks pregnant, an abdominal sonogram will not read fetal activity due to size. To fulfill the requirements of the bill, a woman must undergo what is known as a Transvaginal sonogram.  Much more invasive, the transvaginal sonogram is conducted by inserting an ultrasound probe into the women’s vagina. This uncomfortable, and often times painful procedure, is by no means medically necessary, however, if a women less than 12 weeks pregnant wishes to undergo an abortion, it would be the only way to fulfill the requirement set forth in the bill. The 4th Amendment protects people from unreasonable seizures and searches.  Opponents of the Sonogram Bill argue that this may be construe as a violation of this and interpreted as an unreasonable search.

While there are many sides to this debate and many voices joining in, I have the words of Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth (R.) to be most suiting. When questioned why he voted against the Texas Sonogram Bill, Wentworth replied,

“Because I am a man and will never be pregnant myself or have that decision to make, I am uncomfortable with the fact that it is primarily men who are leading the charge to write laws about what a woman must do or not do, when one of my gender got her pregnant in the first place. … Personally, I prefer adoption to abortion … . But I cannot, nor should the government, attempt to impose my moral or religious convictions on the entire female population of Texas as a matter of state law.”

Texas Fred’s argument against Ron Paul falls short

On May 13^th, following Ron Paul’s announcement that he will run for President in 2012, Texas Fred took his opposition to the blogosphere in his article on Tea Party godfather Ron Paul running for President . The Texas Fred Blog author, aptly named Texas Fred, is a local conservative Texas blogger. Because he works under the pseudonym Texas Fred, it is difficult to find any available information on his work experience, education, or other qualifications that might verify his credibility. Fred describes himself as a “…Conservative redneck gun owner that isn’t afraid to speak his mind and has NO problem with it if it happens to insult people that truly need to be insulted”. As testimony to this self-proclamation, there is no shortage of insults in the article.  The intended audience is undoubtedly like-minded, hard Conservatives. In fact, Fred makes note in his comments policy that those in opposition of his view, such as Ron Paul supporters, are not allowed to register with or comment on the website. In my opinion, this intolerance of alternate viewpoints strongly discredits Fred. Close-minded, one-sided thinking often produces skewed writing, as seen in his commentary. I do not believe Texas Fred meets the criteria of a credible, unbiased author.

With regards to the actual argument, Fred leaves his readers confused with his rambling and disorganization. It is hard to follow what, exactly, the claim and/or argument is. However, at the most basic level, he is arguing that Ron Paul is a poor choice to run for President. This can be concluded based off of Fred’s description of Ron Paul support as “Libertarian influenced moonbattery”. Fred also goes as far as to call these supporters “Paultards”. This incredibly offensive term is a spinoff of the derogatory word, retard. Aside from hurling insults, Fred does nothing to explain why he opposes Ron Paul.

From here, the article attempts, unsuccessfully, to infer that Ron Paul is a racist due to his “association” with Don Black, founder of the White Supremacist website, Stormfront. As reported by MSNBC, Paul kept a $500 campaign donation from Black back in 2008. When questioned, a Ron Paul spokesman stated, “Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom”, adding, “And that’s $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is he does.” (Paul Keeps donation from White Supremacist). Fred failed to mention any of this in his article. This omission of information cast Ron Paul in a negatively biased light and misled the readers.

Aside from misleading his audience, Fred's illogical phrasing often leaves them confused. For example, Fred claims that the Libertarian influenced Tea Party has an "anarchist tilt". Anarchy, by definition, is the absence of government. Fred has created a confusing oxymoron with this terminology. In another instance, Fred exclaims that, "moonbattery" is an obvious trait of Paul supporters. He shows no evidence to support why it is an obvious trait. 

Perhaps the most unsettling remark from Fred comes at the end of the article. "When people come to believe in Ron Paul, there is a passion that burns within us", claims one Paul supporter. In a final display of class and intelligence, Fred responds, "The burn that you're feeling, maybe Dr.Paul can give you some antibiotics and clear that right up for you." This lewd remark only serves to further discredit Fred by displaying his unprofessional perversion. 

Aside from insults, Texas Fred provides little evidence to support his opposition for Ron Paul. While I may not necessarily disagree with his position, I am strongly against the way Texas Fred has formulated his argument. His omission of facts, unsubstantiated claims and lack of any evidence creates a biased, dishonest, and disorganized cluster of rants.

Strong case made by Apodaca in opposition of death penalty

 The “Death penalty should die”, claims Rudy Apodaca, in his so titled article for the Austin American Statesman.  With the recently marked 35^th anniversary of Gregg v. Georgia, which led to the continuance of policies allowing the death penalty, Rudy Apodaca has taken the time to address those in opposition of his view an editorial article published July 1^st. Based on his statements, one can infer that Apodaca has formulated his argument to suit those who may disagree with his point of view, or those who are on the fence about the issue. For example, Apodaca makes sure to address the questions and concerns of those who do not support repealing the death penalty.  To those who fear that criminals would simply continue their criminal behavior if not put to death, Apodaca mentions alternative punishments such as life imprisonment.  Aside from laying out his argument against the death penalty, Apodaca also must take time to address the unease of his audience.

Although Rudy Apodaca is listed simply as a “Local Contributor” on the Austin American Statesman website, he is, in fact, much more.  With a J.D. degree from Georgetown University, Apodaca has been well educated in matters of law. Aside from formal education, he is also qualified by his many years as a practiced criminal defense attorney and appellate judge.  In his own words,

“As a practicing criminal attorney for 22 years and a former judge on the New Mexico Court of Appeals for almost 14 years, I've witnessed firsthand instances of flaws in our judicial system. Time and again, I've reviewed cases in which innocent individuals were convicted.”  

Based on his education and experience, I would consider Rudy Apodaca to be more than qualified in asserting his argument in opposition of the death penalty.

As for the actual mechanics of his argument, Apodaca presents well supported, factual statements in favor of death penalty repeal. His main claim is that the death penalty is unfair, inconsistent, and should be abolished. Apodaca uses quantitative evidence about the number of people in the last forty plus years who have been falsely convicted of a crime which led to the death penalty. (A shocking 138, as verified by the databases found on the Death Penalty Info Organization website, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/) Aside from the number of wrongly convicted individuals, Apodaca also notes that our justice system does not always provide a competent defense for those who have court appointed attorneys. Further, Apodaca mentions the fact that often times, death penalty sentences are handed out based on ethnicity, geographic location, and the current financial situations of the counties. (This information was gathered from the qualified Richard C. Dexter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.)

In addition to presenting sound information in support of his claim, Rudy Apodaca offers a refreshing view on the death penalty debate. While most, including myself, tend to think of the death penalty issue as mostly a debate over the morality of the punishment, Apodaca educates his audience on the accuracy of conviction.  In a perfect world, it would be easy to favor a death penalty that guarantees only those 100% known to be guilty would be punished. However, we know this is not the case. With staggering statistics supporting the fact that many innocent people are sentenced to death, Apodaca makes a clear, factual, and very persuasive argument to do away with this flawed policy of capital punishment.

The full article can be read on the Austin American Statesmen: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/apodaca-death-penalty-should-die-1575925.html

Grants to be revoked for violation of Sanctuary Cities Law

 

The Texas Sanctuary City Bill, formally known as Senate Bill 9, has been a topic of controversy since its arrival. The bill makes it illegal for city, county and local government agencies to prevent law enforcement from questioning those taken into custody about their legal immigration status. Further, it requires local governments to assist, when necessary, in federal investigation of legal status, and to accommodate space in jails for those arrested. With Senate Bill 9 up for approval, new concerns have arisen. The bill requires that those communities in violation of the new sanctuary city laws would lose their federal grant money.

Julian Aguilar of the Texas Tribune made the comical yet accurate comparison of this to "parents threatening to withhold allowance from a misbehaving child." However, Texas doesn't exactly have a large allowance in the first place. After recent budget cuts, even less money has been dealt to cities for their grant programs. Maybe the federal government should try handing out "time-outs" instead of denying their allowance.

The full article from the Texas Tribune can be found here: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/82nd-legislative-session/sanctuary-cities-bill-comply-or-lose-state-money/