The Law Blogger's Scholarship

Do you agree or disagree with the death penalty? If you agree, why? If you disagree, what do you propose we do instead?

When I think about the economic struggle that this country is in, I think about ways that we as a country could cut back on unnecessary expenses. One of those expenses is the justice system. According to the California Criminal Justice Legislative Analyst's Office, it cost an average of $47,102 annually to incarcerate an inmate in the state of California. This means that over the course of the year, the U.S. spends over a billion dollars on incarcerating criminals. This money could be spent on a myriad of other things including education, welfare, or social security. In 2010, the U.S. executed only 46 inmates. That means that only 46 people committed a crime worthy of losing their life over. There is no crime in this country that only 46 people were gutsy enough to commit. Which leads me to believe that some form of subjectivity was involved in making the decision of who would die and who would live. 

This does not seem fair at all. In fact, this seems counter-productive. If the goal is to make people more afraid of breaking the law, what's the point of having "capital punishment" if it's only used a fraction of the time? I believe that their should be a set law with certain rules that must, when broken, lead to the death penalty. The law should encompass more criminal acts than it does right now, but should also leave little room for interpretation in order to withstand loopholes. I also have a problem with the logistics of the judges who end up making the judgement calls (pun intended) that put these people to death. Some people have morality issues that make it very wrong in there eyes to inadvertently kill someone. The government should make it so that no one person needs to make the call but rather follow the new rules in place.

In some instances, but not all, I think it would be fair to say that when one person claims another life, they should lose theirs. That's how life works, you do something to someone, they have the right to do it back. The law should work the same way. You do something bad, the equivalent should be done to you. Now, this principle gets a little fuzzy when dealing with minor offenses. However, with such supreme crimes as murder, there is minuscule gray area to be interpreted by human judgement. The procedures that a court of law must go through in order to sentence someone to the death penalty are also extremely arduous. The law should make it easier to expedite the process of convicting someone who has clearly committed a capital punishment.

In conclusion, I agree with the death penalty but would also like to see it altered and tweaked to make it more usable. Using the proposed ideas above, I believe the death penalty could be a more effective way of dealing with crime in this country as well as a way to dig ourselves out of this economic hole that we have been in for quite sometime now.

 

This blog post is an official entry for the <a href="http://www.joshuapondlaw.com/scholarship">Law Blogger’s Scholarship</a>, sponsored by The Law Office of Joshua Pond, <a href="http://www.joshuapondlaw.com/">http://www.joshuapondlaw.com</a>.

 

The Law Blogger's Scholarship

Do you agree or disagree with the death penalty? If you agree, why? If you disagree, what do you propose we do instead?

When I think about the economic struggle that this country is in, I think about ways that we as a country could cut back on unnecessary expenses. One of those expenses is the justice system. According to the California Criminal Justice Legislative Analyst's Office, it cost an average of $47,102 annually to incarcerate an inmate in the state of California. This means that over the course of the year, the U.S. spends over a billion dollars on incarcerating criminals. This money could be spent on a myriad of other things including education, welfare, or social security. In 2010, the U.S. executed only 46 inmates. That means that only 46 people committed a crime worthy of losing their life over. There is no crime in this country that only 46 people were gutsy enough to commit. Which leads me to believe that some form of subjectivity was involved in making the decision of who would die and who would live. 

This does not seem fair at all. In fact, this seems counter-productive. If the goal is to make people more afraid of breaking the law, what's the point of having "capital punishment" if it's only used a fraction of the time? I believe that their should be a set law with certain rules that must, when broken, lead to the death penalty. The law should encompass more criminal acts than it does right now, but should also leave little room for interpretation in order to withstand loopholes. I also have a problem with the logistics of the judges who end up making the judgement calls (pun intended) that put these people to death. Some people have morality issues that make it very wrong in there eyes to inadvertently kill someone. The government should make it so that no one person needs to make the call but rather follow the new rules in place.

In some instances, but not all, I think it would be fair to say that when one person claims another life, they should lose theirs. That's how life works, you do something to someone, they have the right to do it back. The law should work the same way. You do something bad, the equivalent should be done to you. Now, this principle gets a little fuzzy when dealing with minor offenses. However, with such supreme crimes as murder, there is minuscule gray area to be interpreted by human judgement. The procedures that a court of law must go through in order to sentence someone to the death penalty are also extremely arduous. The law should make it easier to expedite the process of convicting someone who has clearly committed a capital punishment.

In conclusion, I agree with the death penalty but would also like to see it altered and tweaked to make it more usable. Using the proposed ideas above, I believe the death penalty could be a more effective way of dealing with crime in this country as well as a way to dig ourselves out of this economic hole that we have been in for quite sometime now.

Blood Wedding Journal #1

Setting: The setting in Blood Wedding is geographically and historically important to all aspects of the play. From the very first page, the reader sees a link between the time period and the play that has a major impact on the play as a whole. The recognition of the vineyard is key from the start because Lorca uses the earthy aspect to stress the conflict and the climax later on in the play. On the first page, the Bridegroom goes out to his vineyard as well as eat out there. This is an important fragment of the play because it highlights the fact that the Groom can go out and eat off of the land by consuming grapes. This also seems very historically accurate because this is how people operated back in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Living off of the land was not a big deal back in those day and some people depended solely on their output of crops to survive. The setting in the play also hints at being a hindrance to the people because of the climate that is prevalent in Spain. The hill that the Bride lives on is also an important aspect of the play because although it is hard to farm on, it is the "cream of the crop" as far as a place to live. The land is dry and makes life hard on the people who live there by not allowing crops to be produced very easily which relates back to the point about hindrance and how life and well-being are affected through the setting. The hill that is referred to several times is symbolic of well-being and a satisfying life. The life that the Bride has before she is married is pure and spacious. And all of the sudden after she gets married she becomes cramped and confined so much so that she supposedly runs away with Leonardo. The themes that are portrayed through the setting are that a lack of space can change ones outlook on freedom and the living conditions that are set up for you. As well as a lack of any or some of the basic needs in life can create an unbalanced and unhealthy person or relationship.

Comments

My comments do not work on others blogs as well.

Shannon Graham's Wild Duck Journal #3: I agree with your assessment of the water and that it is significant. Why is it significant and what purpose is it serving?


Kylee Rosette's Wild Duck Journal #6: Food for thought: Both author's are criticizing power that is associated with knowledge. How does that relate to the time periods in which they were written?

Montana Agnew's Wild Duck Journal #2: I really like how you said that by the acts not picking up directly where they left off that it offers a new perspective. I agree completely. I also like your connection between the different relationships in parallelism to the acts. 

Wild Duck Journal #3

Poem:

Yes, we love this country

as it rises forth,

rocky, weathered, above the sea,

with those thousand homes.

Loving, loving it and thinking

about our father and mother

and the saga night that sends

dreams to our earth.

And the saga night that sends,

sends dreams to our earth.

 

This country Harald saved

with his giant fleet,

this country Håkon protected

whilst Øyvind sung;

upon the country Olav painted

with his blood a cross,

from its heights Sverre spoke

up against Rome.

 

Farmers their axes sharpened

as the army came,

Tordenskiold around the coastline thundered

so that we could see it back home.

Even women stood up and fought

as if they were men;

others could only cry

but that soon would end!

 

Sure, we were not many

but we were enough,

when they challenged us

and it was at stake;

we rather let our country burn

than be defeated;

just remember what happened

at Fredrikshald!

 

Hard times we have coped with,

were at last disowned;

but in the worst suffer, blue-eyed

freedom was to us born.

It gave (us) father's strength to carry

famine and war,

it gave death itself its honour -

and it gave compromise.

 

The enemy threw away his weapon,

up the visor went,

we, in wonder, to him hasted,

because he was our brother.

Driven onto stand by the shame

we went to the south;

now we three brothers stand united,

and shall stand like that!

 

Norwegian man in house and cottage,

thank your great God!

He would protect the country,

even though it looked dark.

And as the fathers have fought,

and the mothers have wept,

the Lord has quietly moved

so we won our rights.

 

Yes, we love this country

as it looms up,

rocky and weathered, above the sea,

with its thousand homes.

And as the fathers' struggle has raised

it from poverty to victory,

even so will we, when demanded,

for its peace to stay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wild Duck Journal #2

Point of View/Characters:
The point of view is the narrator. The narrator is third-person omniscient and does not seem to change at all throughout the first several acts. The narrator is reasonably reliable through the use of metaphors and other literary devices. The reader seems on the outside looking in at the characters which seems a little strange because its a play and the reader is supposed to know the motives of the characters but so far I haven't figured out any of the motives of the characters. I don't know much about the characters except for the minor conflict between Gregers and Werle. Most of the characters seem credible except for Gina. For example, she doesn't say a word about the person she got to rent the room even during or after the argument with Hjalmar and Gergers over whether or not Gergers could rent it. This seemed a little strange to me so there must be another reason for her keeping it from them. The women in this play are presented as women were portrayed in reality back in the 1800s: like slaves. The women seem to have to do all of the work. The exceptions are the two butlers Pettersen and Jensen who are paid for their services. We sympathize with Gregers because Werle seems to have a dark side that is mysterious and poses a threat to the other characters. For this reason the reader dislikes Werle. Hjalmar seems like a nice fellow and we sympathize with him because of his sense of humor and his wisdom.

Wild Duck Journal #1

Questions that Lay in Wild Duck and Oedipus:

• Which is better to have, knowledge or power?

In Oedipus, several of the characters are blessed with knowledge or power in community in which they live in. At first, it seems that the awesome power that Oedipus obtains is the saving grace of he people after he returns from solving the riddle of the Sphinx. However shortly after this, the blind prophet, Tiresias comes in and shatters everything that Oedipus was standing on with his incredible knowledge. Through this, it is shown that knowledge is in fact power that is equal to or above the power of a leader.

• What characteristics separate Oedipus from Creon that make Creon more stable in tough situations or under pressure?

Several things separate Oedipus and Creon. First of all, Oedipus is a marked man for angering a man in a bar which is never a good thing. Second, he accidentally is married to his mom. These two things have a big impact on him. In addition, he is the king which automatically gives him a lot of power and puts a big target on his back. Creon, in contrast, has no pressure on him because he has virtually no power. Also, he hasn't had the experiences that Oedipus has had that formed Oedipus's personality.

• How much does deceit play a part in the relationship between Werle and Gergers? 

So far in Wild Duck, Gergers does not trust Werle and this is shown through Werle's actions. Gergers explains that Werle does not communicate with his son very often and this led to Gerger leaving. The only way Werle can get his son to come back is by throwing him a fake party which is really for his wife-to-be. This shows much deceit on the part of Werle and digs himself a deeper hole with his son. It seems that by the end of the first act, any affection in the relationship is gone along with Gerger who leaves dismayed with his father.