People Can Change...If They Are Given the Opportunity

Even from only viewing the first half of Clifford Boggess's story, it was evident to me that he should not have been executed. Of course, it is necessary to look at the aggravating and mitigating factors in Boggess's case, but it is also important to consider the time during which each event occurred. In other words, what was considered relevant during the time of the murder may have changed over the 9 years that he was on death row.

Many people would want to execute Clifford Boggess themselves just by glancing at the aggravating factors. Not only did he murder 2 men, but he did it just for the sake of hurting someone. This was not a conclusion that was drawn from the film; he shared his sadistic intentions in the film. After confiding in his girlfriend, Phoebe, he threatened to kill her and the judge if she ever told anyone about what he had done. When he stood during his trial to accept his sentence, he was described as having absolutely no feelings or emotions. Clifford really appears to be a man who is just out to kill for no reason, why shouldn't he be put to death?

I admit that none of this evidence reassured me of my opinion to keep Boggess alive. He seemed like such a deranged man. But when I weigh those factors with the mitigating factors, I am sure that I would have kept Boggess alive. The simple fact that Boggess was the only prisoner on death row who was able to openly and honestly talk about what he had done is a major sign that he has changed. He has come to terms with the two murders and he accepts the consequences. The video also touched on Clifford's past, which I believe should be considered in a life or death matter. People described him as always having a positive attitude and that killing him now would just kill the little boy within. He has the potential to change back into the pure soul that he was before. The video also claimed that there was always something "wrong" with Clifford, even at a young age. This makes me believe that if there was always something "wrong" with him, then the judges should consider the fact that maybe his actions were biologically prompted. Maybe he is not the bloodthirsty savage that his actions accuse him of being, and maybe he can still be the innocent boy from his past.

Just one look in Clifford's jail cell demonstrates that he has changed. He has a lot of artwork of his own, pictures of family and friends (even his victim's graves =/ ...), and he was willing to show anyone his personables. When a prisoner of conscience is left to ponder what they have done to put them in jail, there is a large possibility that they will change, or at least accept what they have done. But if they are killed, they will never receive the chance to make peace with themselves and others. They will never get the chance to make things right. And they will never get the chance to change. If you give people the opportunity, they CAN change.

Although I did not view Clifford's victim's family's reactions to his death, I can assume how they must have felt. I think they would have a SMALL sense of closure in the fact that they will never see or hear from him again. But if they were never going visit him in jail and he was sentenced for life, then why do families really want the murderers killed? Because Clifford's story has now been made famous, these families will have to answer questions for the rest of their lives. Killing Clifford will not and will never bring their loved ones back. They have now continued the cycle of killing. Would that bring you justice? Does killing Clifford outweigh the possibility that he could change and bring justice to the families? Well they will never know because they never gave him the opportunity...

Wait, the Fourth Amendment IS supposed to apply to students?

The Constitution contradicts itself when saying that students have Fourth Amendment rights in school. School officials are allowed to search lockers, people, and belongings merely because they have "reasonable" suspicion. Basing a student's rights on "reasonableness" gives them absolutely no certainty or sense of security in a school system. What determines reasonableness? It's simple. Basically anything that the school wants to abolish, for example, drugs, can be backed up by "reasonableness". The ambiguous nature of students' rights to privacy in school creates an unfair environment. But, if schools do not implement some form of restriction on the Fourth Amendment, then there would be a lot more drugs going around. How do you find a balance that puts the government's and students' best interests in mind?

The best solution that I can come up with is to simply eliminate all drug testing in high schools. Many people will argue that it is an invasion of privacy, but I really do not believe that a urine analysis is a brutal violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights. I think the only reason that can actually back up a privacy concern is that the person getting tested knows that their results will come back positive. It is a weak argument.

Although, I still maintain that overall, implementing random drug testing in schools is not a wise decision. Because the test will show drug usage, students will result to other dangerous behaviors, such as alcohol. Since alcohol will not necessarily show up on a drug test, students will be more inclined to partake in this activity. Initiating drug testing will only encourage students to find other, and sometimes more dangerous, ways of seeking whatever it is they look for in illegal substances.

When students try to find ways to make their test results read negative, they will be more likely to behave in other ways that undermine authorities. More and more students will learn how to slide past the   radar as time goes on. I do believe that drug testing would be very effective, but in the long run, the drug tested generation would be better off without the tests.

In New Jersey v. T.L.O., I believe that T.L.O. should get in trouble for smoking in a restricted area, but she should not be charged for the other things in her purse. The search was over because they had found what they were looking for. The fact that "probable cause" is not even needed to search a student or their belongings is unconstitutional. This relates to drug testing because random drug testing also does not need a probable cause to test on students. I think that if a school were to get a lead or have plausible suspicion that a student is partaking in illegal and harmful behavior, they should be allowed to drug test.  But randomly testing a student who is just in the fencing club or HUMAN RIGHTS CLUB (you should join - we meet in the library after school on Mondays) denies students their Fourth Amendment rights, no matter how trivial they were to begin with in a school.

Evolution vs. Religion

I literally raised my eyebrows when I saw this poll: In 2010, 38% of the questioned people strongly agreed that the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. Maybe this had to do with the fact that only 23% thought that freedom of religion was protected by the First Amendment. Either way, these are totally conflicting ideals. It appears as though every specific right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment is extremely ambiguous. I believe that the uncertainty of these rights, freedom of religion in particular, causes people to suppress their real religious views. But, what happens when the debate is now not about any specific religion, but bringing any religion into schools. There have been many controversies about the extent that religion should be allowed to be practiced or talked about in schools, but there has been countless instances concerning evolution vs. religion.

I read the article "Darwin at 200: Still controversial after all these years". It discussed the longstanding debate over the creation of life, and well, everything. Since no one can yet prove which theory is correct, the government has tried a couple different approaches. I think that the most successful way to approach this issue is by creating a healthy balance between the two. The teacher, when talking about creation, would introduce both ideas (while remaining unbiased the whole time). Then, they would discuss the fact that as of today, both theories are equally correct. I believe that not discussing religion when talking about creation is wrong, but I do not think that students should be taught that one way is correct and the other is not. Teaching both ideas should be considered legal and not violating a student's freedom of speech.

What Does It Take To Bring NYC together?

I thought that it was absolutely astonishing to witness the attack on the Twin Towers from a New Yorker's point of view and see the wild and diverse city come together.

Watching the buildings actually fall down was something that I had never seen before. I was in 3rd grade on this particular September 11th, so I did not understand the full extent to what had just happened. Nevertheless, it had affected me. But, it did not affect me nearly as much as it did to New Yorkers. Seeing the city and people covered in debris was very strange. It was hard to see so many people grieving and looking for their loved ones.

The scene in the film that struck me the most was when many people gathered around what someone wrote on the sidewalk with chalk. Arguments were breaking out EVERYWHERE. People were fighting about invading Afghanistan, using nuclear weapons, keeping the peace, etc. It was so surprising to see all of these people, who probably would never have met each other, feel so passionate about an issue. It was amazing to see one man and one woman who were going at it begin to realize the others' opinion. The woman explained to the furious man that everyone was scared and everyone was in this together. They ended up hugging it out (two random people, might I add) and smiling. It is so crazy to me that even people with views on total opposite ends of the spectrum can end up hugging. They were not arguing about gay marriage, they were arguing about the usage of nuclear weapons. It is strange that something as massive and tragic as September 11th can bring the most different people together.

What Gives People the Right to Limit Our Speech?

Some would argue that speech codes are the ultimate denial of human rights. A little extreme? Perhaps. Others would say that speech codes are a necessary addition to university/school policies because they protect individuals from unnecessary hate speech or violence.

But, in a democratic society, who has the right to say what we can and cannot do or say? The First Amendment is so ambiguous; there are so many holes that people can find, but the government leaves you to figure out what is applicable. That is why speech codes can be helpful because they act as a clarification of how things are interpreted on a given campus, for example. Speech codes provide an individual with all of the information that the First Amendment was unwilling to give out. Plus, who really wants to go to a party and watch drunken fraternities simulate the lynching of blacks?

While some may argue that speech codes extremely limit our free expression, I think that it is very reasonable to say that they explain the unwritten, "gray area" of the First Amendment. Without speech codes, many students would be concerned about their safety, and there would be a lot more tension. The First Amendment is does not fully take people's emotions into consideration, so speech codes are there to protect the well-being of each student.